Lawyers and legal experts are urging Mamamayang Liberal Partylist Representative Leila de Lima to take legal action against Department of Justice (DoJ) prosecutors who attempted to overturn her acquittal by filing a motion for reconsideration, a move widely viewed as illegal and unethical.

The calls intensified after Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla disowned the motion and announced the DoJ would withdraw it, saying it was “politically motivated” and lacked legal basis.

“They were following a political agenda,” Remulla said, distancing the DoJ leadership from its own prosecutors.

Prosecutor General Richard Anthony Fadullon also disclosed that he was only informed about the motion after it had already been filed.

Atty. Wilfredo Garrido, one of De Lima’s lawyers, said the withdrawal of the motion should not be the end of the matter. He urged De Lima to file a case for malicious prosecution against the “overzealous” prosecutors involved.

“She could even include former Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra,” Garrido wrote in a Facebook post. “Not for personal vengeance, but for the sake of accountability and deterrence. Nothing can be more satisfying than to see the tables turned against Guevarra and see him twist in the wind.”

Meantime, Atty. Jesus Falcis also recommended that De Lima pursue a disbarment case against the prosecutors for gross ignorance of the law and unethical conduct.

“A motion for reconsideration cannot be filed against an acquittal,” Falcis said. “It is a basic principle. This is gross ignorance and a gross violation of legal ethics. Lawyers must delay no man for money or malice.”

Falcis added that Secretary Remulla should suspend the prosecutors pending an investigation.

De Lima, for her part, has called on the DoJ to investigate and sanction those responsible, warning that a failure to hold them accountable would set a dangerous precedent.

“If they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone,” De Lima said. “This undermines trust in the rule of law.”

The motion to reverse De Lima’s acquittal drew widespread criticism from the legal community, as the Constitution prohibits any appeal of a judgment of acquittal under the principle of double jeopardy.