The Philippine Bar Association (PBA) has asked the public to heed the Supreme Court’s (SC) warning against threats to judges even on social media posts.

Last Sept. 27, the SC issued a stern warning against “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.”

The warning was issued after the SC took up in its full court session the social media posts made by former National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) Spokesperson Lorraine Marie T. Badoy against Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar who ruled that the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) are not terrorist organizations.

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.

Several associations of lawyers have condemned the attacks against Judge Malagar. Almost all of the associations pleaded the SC to cite Badoy in contempt of court.

Even human rights lawyers, who said they were also attacked by Badoy, asked the SC to take action against the former NTF-ELCAC spokesperson.

The PBA said that if the reminder of the SC would not be heeded, “perhaps the motu proprio (on its own initiative) measures alluded to by the Supreme Court will.”

It was referring to the power of the SC to cite an individual in indirect contempt of court even without a complaint.

It stressed that the legal processes should be respected “because of their role in keeping society together.”

“We adhere to the Rule of Law because the alternative is the Rule of Force,” it said.

“When we normalize threatening our judges with violence, we invite the same violence to visit us on the streets and in our homes,” it added.

It reminded that in an adversarial legal system where “one side wins, the other side loses,” results of judge’s decision will always “favor” one side, and “disfavor” another. However, the losing party is always “entitled to appeal a judge’s decision” where disagreements and questions could be raised, it said.

“But to threaten the judge who rendered the decision is not one of the remedies. When that threat alludes to physical violence, then it becomes even more repugnant,” it stressed.