Veteran constitutional litigator Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr., the petitioner in the landmark Francisco v. House of Representatives case, has come out in strong defense of the Supreme Court’s recent 13–0 decision halting the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Francisco, whose 2003 case remains the leading jurisprudence on the constitutional limits of impeachment proceedings, said the ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 278353) is legally sound and consistent with precedent.

“There is nothing inconsistent between the two rulings. The Supreme Court simply responded to a new and distinct set of facts that clearly violated the Constitution and disregarded the Francisco ruling,” Francisco said in a statement.

The lawyer pointed to what he called a “deliberate circumvention” of the Constitution’s one-year bar rule on initiating impeachment proceedings. According to Francisco, the House of Representatives failed to act on three earlier complaints — filed in December 2024 by ordinary citizens — and instead waited until the final session day in February 2025 for a fourth complaint backed by over one-third of House members.

Francisco argues this move not only violated the rights of the original complainants, but also undermined due process and betrayed public trust.

“The House leadership, including the Secretary General and the Speaker, clearly acted in bad faith. This was grave abuse of discretion — and under our Constitution, the Supreme Court is both empowered and duty-bound to correct such transgressions.”

He added that the doctrine of operative fact, which might have shielded the House had its actions been in good faith, does not apply in this case.

Francisco’s endorsement of the High Court’s decision comes as legal experts and political observers debate the scope of judicial intervention in impeachment proceedings — traditionally considered the Senate’s exclusive domain.

“This is not a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional correction,” Francisco concluded.