Of all the disagreements from the legal sphere, this one might just sting the most. The ponente, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, was a member of FLAG (Free Legal Assistance Group) until his appointment to the Court. "We dissent" also bears so much reference, intended or not, to Leonen's track record of being a dissenter.

Gunmen on a motorcycle shot and wounded a former paralegal of the Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM), in Barangay Calumpang, General Santos City on Monday night, July 28. 

The attack on Warren Cahayag came shortly after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. delivered his 4th State of the Nation Address.

The UPLM condemned the attack as part of a pattern of violence against human rights defenders in Mindanao.

The crackdown on online lending platforms (OLPs) continues as the Securities and Exchange Commission slapped penalties on two OLP operators for unfair debt collection practices. 

The corporate regulator slapped a P1 million penalty against Link Credit Lending Investors Incorporated, operating as iPeso and Pesoin, over 200 complaints it received for its debt collection practices. This includes sending insulting messages to borrowers, as well as calling borrowers’ emergency contact and co-workers if they miss payments.

Very enlightening explanation about when an impeachment complaint starts in this latest from @Lian Buan - Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/explainers/supreme-court-impeachment-ruling-grossly-unfair-violates-constitution/ No less than former justice Conchita Carpio Morales says they even consulted constitutionalist-friends of the court who said dapat may transmittal to formally initiate the start of the process. The first 3 impeachment complaints were not transmitted, therefore dapat walang violation of the one-year bar rule when the 4th complaint was transmitted to the Senate. But there will be foreseeable challenges and debates ahead.

Getting hotter. 😤 👿

UP Law faculty members say the SC impeachment ruling "deviates from the design to protect the process from a tyrannical majority."

More than 80 faculty members of the UP College of Law release a statement "expressing grave concerns" following the SC ruling barring VP Sara Duterte's impeachment proceedings.

"The ruling creates an incentive for the filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule—a political strategy once criticized by a justice as making “a mockery of the power of impeachment. Narrower rulings in the past have precisely avoided these unintended consequences," the faculty members said, which include former SC justice Francis Jardeleza.

"We stand by bedrock principles of our constitutional system and warn that these recent developments undermine impeachment as an indispensable instrument of political accountability for our highest public officials," they said. Read their full statement here: https://law.upd.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Statement-by-Individual-Members-of-the-UPCL-Faculty-on-Developments-in-the-Impeachment-of-VP-Sara-Z-Duterte.pdf

While FLAG’s advocacy for transparency and accountability is commendable, the substance of their objection to the Supreme Court ruling mischaracterizes both the law and the Court’s constitutional role. Upholding the Constitution’s procedural safeguards is not a betrayal of accountability but its very foundation. Constitutional discipline requires that even in politically charged cases, the rule of law—not passion—must govern.

The UP Law Faculty urges “restoring accountability.” But accountability without constitutional compliance is dangerous populism. If impeachment is to remain a credible tool, it must be used within the bounds of the Constitution—not as a cudgel shaped by political winds.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a principled affirmation of constitutional limits, not a betrayal of them. In defending those limits, the Court is protecting not just a Vice President, but the integrity of the entire constitutional system.

Amid wide-ranging criticisms, the Supreme Court finds support from the IBP.

The IBP or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is the mandatory organization of lawyers and has insititutional support from
the Supreme Court. In a statement, the IBP's leadership said they "recognize the Court's authority to interpret constitutional limitations."

It said that while they agree dissent is key to democracy, "inciting to public repudiation, or even just to call for its outright defiane, erodes the very foundation of the legal order.

Academics and former justices have come out against the SC ruling.