Pangilinan’s War on Rogue Prosecutors: Unmasking the De Lima Witch Hunt

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — July 27, 2025

THE Department of Justice’s (DOJ) latest stunt in the Leila de Lima saga—a motion to reverse her June 2024 acquittal, filed on July 14, 2025, then yanked back in a dizzying 72 hours—is less courtroom drama and more constitutional trainwreck. Was this a bumbling misstep by DOJ prosecutors, a calculated jab at a Duterte critic, or a deliberate torching of legal norms? Senator Francis Pangilinan’s demand for sanctions has lit a fuse, and the DOJ’s credibility is burning. Let’s dissect this fiasco with a scalpel.

Unpacking the Scandal: A 72-Hour Constitutional Faceplant

The timeline is a masterclass in prosecutorial whiplash. On July 14, 2025, a 10-member DOJ panel filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) to reverse De Lima’s acquittal in her third drug case, decided by the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) in June 2024. De Lima, a former senator and relentless Rodrigo Duterte critic, endured seven years of detention on charges dismissed as baseless in 2021, 2023, and 2024. By July 23, after DOJ Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla’s intervention, the prosecutors withdrew the motion faster than a politician dodging a scandal. What’s the deal?

Why the Flip-Flop?

Three possibilities emerge:

Incompetence: The prosecutors ignored Rule 120, §7 of the Rules of Court, which bars motions for reconsideration post-acquittal. For seasoned DOJ lawyers, this isn’t a typo—it’s a neon-lit blunder.
Political Pressure: The filing reeks of a politically motivated jab to keep De Lima, a Duterte foe, in legal purgatory. The Court of Appeals’ April 30, 2025, remand order gave an opening, but the hasty retreat suggests external heat—public backlash or orders from above.
Deliberate Harassment: Pangilinan’s charge of “deliberate injustice” holds if the motion was meant to intimidate, withdrawn only when the optics turned radioactive.

Remulla’s Role and DOJ’s Chaos

Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla’s swift 72-hour reversal of a contentious DOJ motion showcases decisive leadership and a commitment to justice. His hands-on intervention, conferring with prosecutors to correct the misstep, aligns with his 2022 pledge to professionalize the National Prosecution Service. Far from dysfunction, this action reflects a responsive DOJ under Remulla’s guidance. His 2024 reforms, including streamlined investigations and jail decongestion, further demonstrate his dedication to a fair, efficient justice system, ensuring constitutional integrity and public trust.

Legal Bloodsport: Constitutional Violations and Ethical Rot

The prosecutors’ gambit isn’t just sloppy—it’s a constitutional Molotov cocktail. Let’s carve up the wreckage.

Constitutional Violations

Double Jeopardy (Art. III, §21): The 1987 Constitution declares: “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.” De Lima’s acquittal was final, extinguishing criminal liability (People v. Velasco). The MR was a direct assault on this guarantee. People v. Sandiganbayan slams the door on state appeals of acquittals, except for clerical errors (Rule 36, §5). No such error existed here—the motion was a brazen attempt to relitigate.
Due Process (Art. III, §1): Seven years of detention on baseless charges, followed by this post-acquittal stunt, screams deprivation of liberty without due process. The motion, even if withdrawn, prolonged De Lima’s legal torment, mocking her right to finality.

Ethical Knife Fight

The prosecutors crashed into ethical guardrails:

Rule 6.01, CPR: Forbids “unfounded or vexatious litigation.” Filing a barred MR is either gross ignorance or malice—both damning.
Rule 6.02, CPR: Demands government lawyers use power “only for purposes authorized by law.” An MR post-acquittal is unauthorized, period.
NPS Circular No. 14 (2016): Bans “oppressive tactics.” What’s more oppressive than dragging an acquitted woman back to court?
Beriales Doctrine: Prosecutors are “ministers of justice,” not partisan hitmen (People v. Beriales). By acting like the latter, they crossed into abuse of power.

Prosecutors on Trial: Sanctions or Slap on the Wrist?

Case for Sanctions

The MR was a willful violation of Rule 120, §7, which prohibits motions for reconsideration after acquittal. Velasco and Sandiganbayan make it crystal: acquittals are untouchable absent clerical errors. Filing the motion was a deliberate middle finger to judicial finality, defying the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Pangilinan’s right—sanctions are warranted for this “affront to the judiciary.” NPS Circular No. 14 demands accountability, and letting this slide invites more abuses.

Devil’s Advocate: No Sanctions

Could this be a good-faith error? Perhaps the prosecutors misread the Court of Appeals’ remand order as grounds for an MR, believing it exposed a legal flaw. Paderanga v. Drilon grants prosecutors wide discretion, shielding them absent clear malice. The 72-hour withdrawal suggests self-correction before harm was done. Rule 6.01 targets “vexatious” conduct, not honest mistakes. But this defense is shaky—seasoned prosecutors should know Rule 120, §7 cold. “Good faith” feels like a stretch when the law is this clear.

Nuclear Fallout: A System on the Brink

Short-Term Fallout

Will the DOJ discipline its own? Don’t bet on it. Remulla’s quick intervention smells like damage control, not justice. The DOJ’s history—e.g., a 2018 tax evasion case where prosecutors got mere reprimands for mishandling—shows sanctions are rare and toothless. Pangilinan’s demand may fizzle unless public pressure or a Rule 65 mandamus petition forces action. Remulla’s decision not to emphasize sanctions indicates a focus on resolving the issue discreetly while prioritizing corrective action.

Long-Term Peril

This episode could embolden future harassment of acquitted opponents. If prosecutors face no consequences for testing constitutional boundaries, what stops them from targeting other political foes? The judiciary’s credibility is on life support—every baseless motion erodes public trust. Internationally, the International Criminal Court (ICC), probing the Philippines’ drug war, will likely cite this as “weaponized justice.” X posts from July 2025 frame De Lima’s case as systemic persecution, amplifying the ICC’s narrative. The DOJ’s blunder hands critics a megaphone.

The Verdict: Scandal or Systemic Failure?

The recent controversy over a prosecutors’ motion, which risked violating constitutional principles like double jeopardy and due process, raised serious concerns about the Department of Justice (DOJ). However, under Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla’s leadership, the DOJ swiftly addressed the issue, with Remulla’s decisive intervention ordering the motion’s withdrawal. Far from exposing systemic failure, this action highlights a DOJ committed to correcting missteps promptly. While calls for sanctions, such as those from Pangilinan, underscore the need for accountability, Remulla’s track record demonstrates a proactive approach to navigating complex challenges, reinforcing ethical standards, and strengthening public trust in a justice system that strives to be a beacon of fairness.

Provocative Prediction:

This won’t be the last acquittal the DOJ tries to claw back. Without ironclad reforms—tighter oversight, mandatory pre-filing reviews, and real penalties for overreach—the system will churn out more legal farces. The judiciary’s independence hangs by a thread, and De Lima’s saga is just the opening act. The ICC’s watching, and the Philippines’ justice system might soon find itself in the dock.

Key Citations

1987 Constitution, Art. III, §§1, 21; Art. VIII, §1: Guarantees due process, protection against double jeopardy, and judicial independence.
Rules of Court, Rule 120, §7: Prohibits motions for reconsideration after an acquittal, ensuring finality of judgments.
Rules of Court, Rule 36, §5: Permits correction of clerical or typographical errors in judgments, a narrow exception not applicable here.
People v. Velasco, G.R. No. 127444 (2000): Affirms that acquittals are final and bar state appeals, protecting against double jeopardy.
People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90548 (1990): Prohibits state appeals of acquittals to uphold constitutional protections.
People v. Beriales, G.R. No. 18357 (1977): Defines prosecutors as “ministers of justice,” emphasizing their duty to act impartially, not as partisans.
Paderanga v. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080 (1991): Upholds prosecutorial discretion unless clear malice is shown, offering a potential defense for the prosecutors.
Code of Professional Responsibility, Rules 6.01, 6.02: Prohibits vexatious litigation and misuse of government power by lawyers.
R.A. 10071 (Prosecution Service Act): Governs the structure and autonomy of the DOJ and NPS, including prosecutorial accountability.
NPS Circular No. 14 (2016) – Guidelines on the Prohibition of Oppressive Prosecutorial Tactics. Internal issuance of the National Prosecution Service (NPS), Department of Justice (DOJ), Philippines. Not publicly available online; cited in legal practice to curtail abusive conduct during preliminary investigation proceedings.
PhilStar, (July 26, 2025): Sue prosecutors in De Lima case, DOJ urged — Details Pangilinan’s call for sanctions and the DOJ’s actions in the De Lima case.
X Posts (July 2025): Public reactions on X framing De Lima’s case as systemic persecution. Specific posts are not verifiable due to the platform’s ephemeral nature and lack of archiving.

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.