Lawyer and political analyst Jesus Falcis took to social media to sharply criticize the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision junking the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, calling the ponencia by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen “logically inconsistent” and even “disgusting” in parts.
Falcis, who read the full text of the ruling, pointed out several key issues he believes undermined the Court’s legal reasoning. Chief among them was Justice Leonen’s conclusion that the first three impeachment complaints—filed before the fourth and final one endorsed by at least a third of the House of Representatives—effectively triggered the one-year bar rule under the Constitution, despite never being referred to the House Committee on Justice.
“How can complaints be considered initiated when they were not referred?” Falcis questioned, noting that Leonen acknowledged this lack of referral, yet still concluded they were validly initiated. “That’s a confusing and forced conclusion.”
On page 68 of the decision, Leonen also stated that the early complaints were “neglected or even willfully unacted upon” by the House. To this, Falcis reacted strongly: “How disgusting to presume negligence when the House had every reason not to act on them, especially since the fourth complaint had already gained the necessary endorsement for transmission to the Senate.”
The high court had ruled that the fourth impeachment complaint—filed on February 5, the same day the earlier complaints “died”—violated the one-year ban on initiating multiple impeachment proceedings. However, Falcis argued that since the first three complaints never reached the Committee on Justice, they should not have triggered the ban at all.
He further warned that the Court’s ruling, which emphasized strict adherence to due process even within the House, sets a dangerous precedent. “What the SC did is WORSE—it is effectively AMENDING the Constitution,” Falcis said, accusing the Court of judicial overreach by imposing additional procedural requirements not found in the Charter.
Responding to Justice Leonen’s broader commentary about the lessons of history and protecting society’s marginalized, Falcis scoffed: “If Sara Duterte is the symbol of those who dissent or those at society’s margins, then Leonen is living in a different reality.”
Justice Leonen, in his ponencia, emphasized that “the end does not justify the means” and that due process must still be followed even in impeachment. “There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time,” he said, adding that fairness and constitutional safeguards apply even in politically charged proceedings like impeachments.
