The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday, Oct. 4, ordered Lorraine Marie T. Badoy, former spokesperson of the National Taskforce to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), to explain in 30 days why she should not be cited in contempt of court which carries a penalty of fine of at least P30,000 or six-month prison term, or both.
The 30-day period starts from the time Badoy receives the SC resolution.
The SC, on its own, initiated the indirect contempt case against Badoy on “threats” she aired in her social media posts against Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar who, last Sept. 21, ruled that the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) are not terrorist organizations.
The motu proprio (on its or one’s initiative) case denominated as A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC (Re: Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar) was first taken up last Sept. 27.
After its full court deliberation last Sept. 27, the SC issued a resolution which states: “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 Facebook post last Sept. 23, Badoy accused Judge Malagar of "lawyering" for the CPP-NPA.
She even called the judge a “friend and true ally” of the communist groups and branded the judge’s ruling as a “judgement straight from the bowels of communist hell.”
"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.
Deliberating anew on the motu proprio case, the SC – during its full court session – resolved to:
“Order Lorraine Marie T. Badoy to show cause, within a non-extendible period of 30 calendar days from the time that this Resolution is served on her, why she should not be CITED IN CONTEMPT OF THE JUDICIARY AND THEREFORE OF THIS COURT. Further, she must respond to the following issues under oath:
“i. Whether or not she posted or caused the posting of the statements attacking the September 21, 2022 Resolution rendered by the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. R MNL-18-00925-CV in any or all of her social media accounts.
“ii. Whether or not her social media post encouraged more violent language against the judge concerned in any or all of her social media platforms.
“iii. Whether or not her post, in in the context of social media and in the experience of similar incendiary comments here or abroad, was a clear incitement to produce violent actions against a judge and is likely to produce such act.
“iv Whether or not her statements on her social media accounts, implying violence on a judge, is part of her protected constitutional speech.”
At the time the SC was holding its full court session on Tuesday, Oct. 4, law deans and lawyers filed a petition and asked the SC to cite Badoy for indirect contempt for her Facebook posts that were intended to “assault and humiliate” Judge Malagar.
Among the petitioners were Philippine Bar Association (PBA) former President Rico V. Domingo, Ateneo Human Rights Center Executive Director Ray Paolo J. Santiago, former Ateneo Law Dean Antonio "Tony" M. La Viña and law school Deans Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis, Anna Maria D. Abad and Rodel A. Taton, lawyers Ayn Ruth Z. Tolentino-Azarcon, Artemio P. Calumpong and Christianne Grace F. Salonga.
They told the SC in their petition that they have legal standing to file the case since it is their duty as lawyers to act as “guardians to the Rules of Law” and to fight any act that is opposed to such objective.
They said:
"Such shameless and public behavior towards an honorable public official is not only a conduct that tends to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice, but is ultimately a direct affront against the dignity, honor, prestige and independence of the entire justice system.
“Indeed, the foregoing Facebook posts of respondent Badoy-Partosa are nothing less than contumacious as they directly besmirch ad tear down the reputation and credibility of Judge Malagar and likewise impair the respect due, not only to Judge Malagar, but also to all members of the Philippine Bench and Bar.
“Respondent Badoy-Partosa’s misconduct and misbehavior call on the public to lose trust and confidence on the authority of the judiciary and to disregard the dignity and integrity of the courts of law. Her actions result to the inevitable discrediting of the authority of the court magistrates, as well as of the entire administration of justice.
“Respondent’s acts are abhorrent to the social order as they threaten to assault the basic rights of the people, particularly of the members of the Bench. This case is a matter of great importance and concern to the public.
"It is slanderous, abusive, unfair and criminal. Respondent has threatened the life of Judge Malagar and her husband, subjects them to slanderous accusations and through her actions, called on the public to do the same. This is truly detrimental to the independence of the judiciary, and grossly violative of the duty of respect for courts.”
Earlier, various groups had issued statements condemning Badoy’s “threats” against Judge Malagar.
The Philippine Judges association said 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,” it said.
For its part, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (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.”
The IBP said it “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.”
National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) President Edre U. Olalia said more than 170 lawyers asked the SC to take “firm action” against Badoy.
“We call on the Supreme Court not to let this pass and to take immediate, concrete, and firm action to protect justice actors and the rule of law. The Court must hold accountable those who threaten and malign our judges and lawyers,” the lawyers said.
The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) also asked the SC to cite Badoy in contempt of court.
FLAG Chairperson Manuel “Chel” L. Diokno said: “Considering her propensity to red-tag, her red-tagging of the spouses Malagar, and the threat she hurled at Judge Magdoza-Malagar, FLAG entreats the Court to order Lorraine Badoy to show cause why she should not be cited in contempt of court.”
Members of the community of the Ateneo de Manila University Law School said the social media attacks against Judge Malagar are “not just irresponsible” but are also “contemptuous.”
“We, the members of the Ateneo Law School community, strongly condemn the red-tagging and inciting of violence against members of the legal profession and the Judiciary, the most recent being the grave online attacks against Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 19 Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar,” Ateneo Law School said in a statement.
Human rights lawyers, led by NUPL members, also asked the SC to take action on the social media attacks against Malagar.
In a letter to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo and all SC justices, 485 human rights lawyers – led by Olalia and lawyer Evalyn G. Ursua – said: “We also hope that the Court will address Ms. Badoy’s attacks against human rights lawyers which were part of her attacks against Judge Malagar.”
Lastly, the Philippine Bar Association (PBA) asked the public to heed the SC’s warning against threats to judges even on social media posts.
“We adhere to the Rule of Law because the alternative is the Rule of Force. When we normalize threatening our judges with violence, we invite the same violence to visit us on the streets and in our homes,” PBA said.
The SC has expressed its gratitude to the Philippine National Police (PNP) for its assurance to protect members of the judiciary from intimidation and threats even on social media.
Chief Justice Gesmundo, in behalf of the SC, has assured members of the judiciary of protection against any form of threat and harassment.
“You can count on us,” Gesmundo declared.
“While it is our constitutional duty to supervise our lower courts, it is our moral duty to protect each of you and ensure that you are able to perform your duties free from any threat, harassment, undue influence, coercion, and, certainly, any form of violence,” he said.
Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin C. Remulla had 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.
TAGS: #SUPREME COURT; #BADOY