A lawyer has questioned Associate Justice Marvic Leonen for basing his Supreme Court decision on the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte on a “bogus footnote.”
In a Facebook post, lawyer Wilfredo Garrido Jr. said Leonen’s ponencia rested on “a single footnote” that misquoted ABS-CBN News reports on the events that led to the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
“The news org’s clarification prompted some Filipinos to call out the high court, saying that it did not practice enough prudence in making high-impact decisions,” Garrido said.
“Such dishonest citations have no place in our jurisprudence,” he said, noting that even Senate Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III pointed out “clear and blatant errors” in the ruling.
Part of Leonen’s ponencia reads: “At 4:47 p.m. of February 5, 2025, House Secretary Velasco transmitted the Articles of the Impeachment to the Senate even without a plenary vote.”
“ABS-CBN respectfully clarifies that the articles cited in the Supreme Court decision on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte did not state that the House of Representatives transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate without a plenary vote,” ABS-CBN News said in a statement.
Garrido said had Leonen’s ponencia been correct that there was no plenary vote, it would have rendered the Articles of Impeachment null and void “for violating the Constitution that requires a one-third vote of the House sitting in plenary.”
“Alas, it was a blatant error. ABS-CBN News just issued a statement that its article was falsely quoted. In fact, its article says the very opposite,” he said.
House spokesperson Princess Abante said the clarification made by ABS-CBN News makes for a strong case for the motion for reconsideration filed by the Lower Chamber.
“The records of the House clearly show the transmittal was by plenary action. ABS-CBN also said that (no plenary) was not part of their report… Clearly, erroneous facts became the basis of the Supreme Court,” Abante said in a television interview.
Neither Leonen nor the Supreme Court has yet to issue a statement on ABS-CBN’s clarification.
Footnote 30 on page 8 of the ruling cited two ABS-CBN reports.
But in both articles, the media outfit reported that there was a plenary session on February 5, 2025, with 215 out of 306 lawmakers supporting the fourth impeachment complaint against the Vice President.
Lawyer Barry Gutierrez also questioned the High Court’s decision after ABS-CBN clarified its report.
“So, the news articles cited in the SC decision DID NOT state that the House approved the articles of impeachment WITHOUT a plenary vote,” Gutierrez wrote on X.
“Another indication that the decision was at least partly based on erroneous facts. How will this be addressed on reconsideration?” he added.
Garrido also criticized Leonen’s account of the impeachment sequence, saying the magistrate got the order of events wrong.
The House first adopted the fourth impeachment complaint, Garrido said, and only afterward archived the previous three, not the other way around.
“Do you want his decision to become part of the law of the land? We will know once the Supreme Court rules on the motion for reconsideration of the House,” Garrido said.
