Fine or imprisonment or both will be imposed on “those who continue to incite violence through social media and other means which endanger the lives of judges and their families.”
The warning was issued by the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday, Sept. 27, as it tackled motu proprio (on its own) during its full court session the social media posts of Loraine Marie T. Badoy, former spokesperson of the National Taskforce to End Local Communist Armed Conflict, against Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar.
It was not known immediately if the SC would order Badoy to explain or comment on a possible charge of contempt of court.
Last Sept. 21, Judge Malagar promulgated her ruling which denied the petition for proscription filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA).
Judge Malagar’s declaration that the CPP and NPA are not terrorist organizations drew criticisms from the public, one of them the social media posts of Badoy.
In a press statement, the SC’s public information office (PIO) said:
“Today, the Supreme Court En Banc tackled motu proprio possible actions in A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC (Re: Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar) regarding statements made by a certain Lorraine Badoy containing threats against Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar of the Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch 19.
"The Court STERNLY WARNS those who continue to incite violence through social media and other means which endanger the lives of judges and their families, and that this SHALL LIKEWISE BE CONSIDERED A CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT and will be dealt with accordingly."
In her Facbook post last Friday, Sept. 23, Badoy accused Judge Malagar of "lawyering" for the CPP-NPA.
"So if I kill this judge and I do so out of my political belief that all allies of the CPP NPA NDF (National Democratic Front) must be killed because there is no difference in my mind between a member of the CPP NPA NDF and their friends, then please be lenient with me," Badoy also stated in her Facebook post that was deleted last Saturday, Sept. 24.
The Philippine Judges Association (PJA) and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) had condemned the social media attacks against Judge Malagar.
In its statement, the PJA said that the judiciary is the last bulwark of democracy and that “a judge is such bulwark personified set out to administer justice as best as he/she sees fit and proper in light of the evidence, law and jurisprudence before him/her.”
“Any unfounded assault on a judge in whatever form or manner is an assault on democracy,” the PJA said although it did not mention the name of Judge Malagar.
“The PJA upholds the rule of law and not the rule of men. We remind everyone that individuals, including judges, have protected constitutional rights, and personal attacks and threats against them and the judiciary should never be tolerated,” it said.
For its part, the IBP – the official organization of lawyers in the country – called for the immediate activation of the Judicial Marshall Service for the protection of judiciary members and personnel.
The Judiciary Marshals Act under Republic Act No. 11691 provides for the creation of an office which will be “primarily responsible for the security, safety, and protection of the members, officials, personnel, and property of the Judiciary, including the integrity of the courts and its proceedings.”
In its statement, the IBP said: “The Integrated Bar of the Philippines condemns the abuse, harassment and outright red-tagging of another member of the Judiciary. These capricious and dishonest statements go beyond reasonable discussion. They foment vitriol and hate against our judges.”
It lamented that “the Honorable Judge herself became the subject of online attacks and even threats in social media for her dismissal of the said petition, with one reportedly threatening her with bodily harm, while the rest accusing her of being an ally or friend of the CPP-NPA.”
It said: “False reports about a public official or other person are not shielded from sanction by the cardinal right to free speech enshrined in the Constitution. Even the most liberal view of free speech has never countenanced the publication of falsehoods, specially the persistent and unmitigated dissemination of patent lies.”
It pointed out that it is not against the expression of opposition over a court ruling.
“Stating rational reservations on decisions of the judiciary is normal. Attacking its members and threatening them with bodily harm is not. The judiciary’s job is to decide disputes. And no judge should ever feel threatened just performing that duty,” the IBP stressed.
It reminded the public of the SC ruling which declared “a judicial officer in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.”
“To threaten members of the Judiciary is to ‘sow fear’ at a ‘critical element’ of the legal system. Broadcasts and posts showcasing those who verbally assault judges encourages the public to do the same. If judges can be treated disdainfully without consequence, the Rule of Law becomes a hollow promise,” it said.
Earlier, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin C. Remulla said the DOJ will no longer appeal the RTC’s ruling on CPP and NPA.
Remulla said a new petition will be filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) which has jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 11479, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020.
Remulla said the Manila RTC resolved the DOJ’s 2018 petition under the provisions of RA 9372, the Act to Secure the State and Protect Our People from Terrorism or the Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA 2007), which had been repealed by the 2020 ATA.
“Kaya (because of this) appealing the case with the RTC will not serve us anything good. Under the new law (RA 11479), the jurisdiction for proscription of terrorist organizations will lie in the Court of Appeals,” he said.