The Supreme Court (SC), acting on the second case for contempt against Lorraine Marie T. Badoy, ordered her to explain her social media posts that were intended to “assault and humiliate” Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar.
In a resolution issued last Oct. 11 and made public on Wednesday, Oct. 19, the SC directed Badoy, former spokesperson of the National Taskforce to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), to submit her comment in 15 days, without extension, from receipt of the resolution.
The SC acted on the petition filed by members of the Philippine Bar Association (PBA).
The first case was initiated by the SC on its own (motu proprio). The SC, in a resolution issued last Oct. 4, directed Badoy 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 SC initiated the case against Badoy on “threats” she aired in her social media posts against Judge 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 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 last Oct. 4 – 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.”
In its petition, the PBA told the SC:
"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.”
Among the petitioners were 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.
Acting on PBA’s petition, the SC said:
“... the Court resolved, without giving due course to the petition, to REQUIRE the respondent (Badoy) to COMMENT thereon within a NON-EXTENDIBLE period of fifteen (15) days from notice hereof.”
It was not known as of posting, if Badoy has filed her comment on the first case initiated by the SC.
TAGS: #SC #CONTEMPT #BADOY #PBA