“One may disagree with aspects of his reasoning in the Duterte case. But to leap from disagreement to questioning his integrity is neither fair nor accurate”
THIS is the third installment in my series on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sara Z. Duterte vs. House of Representatives.
In earlier pieces, I discussed the substance of the ruling and its implications for the Constitutional rule on impeachment.
In this column, I wish to focus on the person of Senior Associate Justice (SAJ) Marvic Leonen, who penned the decision.
Much has been said about the controversial footnote in the ponencia.
Critics have seized on it to question not just the ruling but the integrity of the justice himself.
To be clear, I will not defend the footnote here.
From what I understand, it was misplaced and can be easily corrected once the Court resolves the pending motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.
What must be defended, however, is the integrity of Justice Leonen, which some have unfairly placed in doubt.
I have known Justice Leonen since 1985, when I entered the UP College of Law.
He was then a junior and chair of the UP Paralegal Volunteers, which I joined as a freshman. We were also part of the same political alliance in law school, and both of us eventually became presidents of the UP Law Student Government.
We both joined the Free Legal Assistance Group, co-founded the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, and taught at UP Law where Leonen became our Dean.
It was in UP Law where we were both mentored by the great Owen J. Lynch Jr.
Professor Lynch left a lasting influence on many Filipino lawyers. He taught indigenous peoples’ rights and a rights-based approach to land and natural resources. He always stressed human rights, environmental protection, and climate justice.
For Justice Leonen and me, he was not only a mentor but also a collaborator.
We worked together on policy issues and cases long after law school, and our intellectual partnership often blurred the lines of individual authorship.
We borrowed words and ideas from each other because we were mostly aligned in our thinking.
This context is important because in 2010, when then Dean Leonen was accused of plagiarism for using text from Lynch’s writings, it was Lynch himself who came to his defense.
In a statement quoted by GMA News, Lynch explained: “I therefore find it unfortunate that Dean Leonen’s ideas, which have found their way to the contents of my amicus [friend of the court] brief, are now being used against him. In my view, the Dean committed no act of intellectual dishonesty in relation to my works.”
That should have settled the matter then.
If Owen Lynch were alive today, I am certain he would once again be the first to defend Justice Leonen.
Before Lynch passed away in Nov. 2024, we had even discussed plans to bring him back to Manila to mentor another generation of environmental and climate justice lawyers.
He never made that trip, but had he done so, his first visit would likely have been to the Supreme Court to congratulate his former student and collaborator.
Since Owen can no longer do it, I feel compelled to say it myself.
Having known and worked with Justice Leonen for nearly four decades, I can attest to his integrity. He has been consistent in his values, intellectual honesty, and commitment to human rights and social justice.
Integrity is not measured by whether we agree with someone’s views on every issue.
It is measured by whether that person demonstrates principle, fairness, and independence.
Justice Leonen has done so throughout his career.
His judicial career has been marked by thoughtful and often courageous opinions, many of them dissents that have strengthened Constitutional jurisprudence.
Now, as he writes majority opinions and provides leadership within the Court, he continues that same commitment.
It’s the same Leonen who dissented on the Sereno, De Lima, and anti-terror law cases and who penned this impeachment decision.
One may disagree with aspects of his reasoning in the Duterte case. But to leap from disagreement to questioning his integrity is neither fair nor accurate.
The challenge of our time is to confront the dysfunction in our impeachment system and to build stronger democratic institutions.
Name-calling and personal attacks on justices, especially those grounded on unfounded insinuations, will not help us achieve that.
Facebook, X, Instagram and Blue Sky: tonylavs Website: tonylavina.com
