Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima gave a calm but piercing message on late Friday afternoon, July 25 to fellow Filipinos who were discouraged by the Supreme Court's (SC) dismissal of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment case.

"To those discouraged: I understand your dismay. But let me assure you: this is not vindication. This is not exoneration," De Lima, a former senator and Department of Justice (DOJ) secretary, said in a statement.

Referring to Vice President Duterte in the context of the SC ruling, she said: "Walang naburang kasalanan. Walang nalinis na pangalan (No sin was erased. Nobody's name was cleared)."

"Teknikal ang desisyon. Ang mga alegasyon ay nananatiling totoo, malubha, at hindi pa nasasagot (The decision was technical in nature. The allegations remain true, severe, and unaddressed)," underscored De Lima.

Had the Senate impeachment trial against Vice President Duterte pushed through, De Lima would have been among the solon-prosecutors in the case.

But the high court said that the impeachment complaint had violated the one-year bar rule.

De Lima says that while she respects the SC ruling, she has major concerns about its implications.

"I respect the [SC]. But in a case of this magnitude—transcendental constitutional importance—we must demand clarity, not shortcuts. The public deserves an explanation. The Court must account for this serious departure from established rules of procedure," she said.

Just like the Vice President’s camp called the House-prepared impeachment complaint against her as unconstitutional--and petitioned for its dismissal--De Lima claims that the SC decision was also constitutionally infirm.

"The [SC]’s decision today declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional is not only unprecedented; it is procedurally questionable," she said.

According to her, the SC came up with its decision on the Vice President’s petition to dismiss "without even allowing the other side to talk".

"The House of Representatives, the principal respondent in the case, was not given the opportunity to file a formal Comment as required by Rule 65, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. No such order was issued by the Court," she said.

"Instead of directing the House to file a comment, the Court issued a written interrogatory—a rare, if not irregular, move. Somehow, the Supreme Court treated the House’s compliance with this interrogatory as if it were a formal responsive pleading. But let’s be clear: it was not," stressed De Lima.

The dismayed ML Party-list solon added: "Paano naglabas ng pinal na desisyon kung wala pang pormal na tugon ang respondent? (How was the final decision made without a formal reply from the respondent?). Even traffic violators are given more due process than what was accorded here."

"The decision is basically an ex-parte decision, a very prohibited action among judges when the rules require the parties to be given the opportunity to be heard first," she said.