Lorraine Marie T. Badoy, former spokesperson of the National Taskforce to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), sought the dismissal of the indirect contempt case initiated against her by the Supreme Court (SC) itself.
Badoy was charged with indirect contempt 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.
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 Sept. 24.
After the SC’s motu proprio (on its own initiative) case denominated as A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC (Re: Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar), several groups asked the High Court to cite Badoy in contempt of court.
Penalty for indirect contempt of court is a fine of at least P30,000 or six-month prison term, or both.
Among other legal arguments, Badoy – through lawyer Harry L. Roque Jr. – told the SC the contempt citation infringes on her constitutional right to free speech.
In Badoy’s behalf, Roque told the SC:
“The use of contempt powers of the Supreme Court against a fair criticism by Dr. Badoy in her exercise of journalistic comment of an erroneous decision of a lower court judge constitutes punishment and thus infringes on her freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
“Badoy was a spokesperson for the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict before hosting an SMNI News program.
“Moreover, Badoy’s social media comment did not contain incendiary language that breaches the clear and present danger rule.
“If at all, Dr. Badoy’s words are a clear example of hyperbole, or reductio ad absurdum (a reduction to an absurdity) to stress a point.
“The Supreme Court has consistently shown leniency toward criticisms made by lawyers and laymen on the decisions and conduct of lower court judges.
“Based on existing jurisprudence, ‘the Supreme Court has tilted in favor of freedom of expression over the administration of justice where offending remarks were leveled against the lower court judges.’
“Badoy’s criticisms fall under the doctrine of fair comment on matters of public interest that is enshrined in Philippine jurisprudence.
“In the Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel of slander.’
“Badoy’s social media post criticizing Malagar’s refusal to proscribe the CPP-NPA as a terrorist group constitutes fair comment. It is consistent with the High Court pronouncement in the Borjal vs. Court Appeals.
“Judge Malagar erred in resolving the case for proscription under the old Human Security Act (HAS) despite being superseded by the Anti-Terror Act of 2020.
“The lower court’s decision also contradicts the designations made by the European Union, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand that the CPP-NPA is a terrorist organization.
“For speech to be considered incitement, it must reach a high threshold, which in Philippine jurisprudence is speech that threatens to provoke imminent lawless action.
“Based on the phrasing of Badoy’s ‘if-then’ statement, there was no intention to incite violence nor provoke imminent harm to Malagar, her family, or members of the judiciary. Malagar and the rest have not been harmed in connection with Badoy’s social media posts.”
The motu proprio case against Badoy was taken up by the SC last Sept. 27. It 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."
After its full court deliberation last Oct. 4, the SC 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.”
The SC also directed Badoy respond d 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.”
TAGS: #SC #Badoy #Judge Malagar