For indirect contempt of court, the Supreme Court (SC) has imposed a P30,000 fine on Lorraine Marie T. Badoy, former spokesperson of the National Taskforce to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC).

Badoy was fined “for her vitriolic statements and outright threats (on her social media posts) against Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar (of the Manila regional trial court) and the Judiciary.”

In a unanimous full court decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC warned Badoy that “repeating the same or similar acts will lead to a more severe penalty.”

“As a fundamental principle of every democratic government, the public's freedom of expression should be respected and protected to the fullest extent possible,” the SC declared.

But the SC stressed that “these rights must never threaten other equally important public interests, such as the maintenance of the courts' integrity and the orderly administration of justice.”

“Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts are not constitutionally protected speech and may constitute contempt of court,” it pointed out.

On Oct. 4, 2022, the SC ordered 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, on its own, initiated the indirect contempt case against Badoy on “threats” she aired in her social media posts against Judge Malagar who, on Sept. 21, 2022 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 Sept. 27, 2022, 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 on Sept. 23, 2022, Badoy accused Judge Malagar of "lawyering" for the CPP-NPA.

Badoy 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 on Sept. 24, 2022.

At the time the SC was holding its full court session on Oct. 4, 2022, law deans and lawyers filed a petition and asked the High Court 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.”

They told the SC that “the Facebook posts of respondent Badoy 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.”

They also said Badoy’s social media posts threatened the lives of Judge Malagar and her husband. “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,” they added.

The Philippine Judges Association said that the judiciary is the last bulwark of democracy and “any unfounded assault on a judge in whatever form or manner is an assault on democracy.”

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), on the other hand, “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.”

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) and the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) also asked the SC to cite Badoy in contempt of court.

Even the 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.”

In her explanation, Badoy told the SC that her social media posts were done “in the exercise of journalistic comments and constitute fair comments on a matter of public interest.”  She also said that her comments were fair because of the “palpable errors” in the ruling handed down by Judge Malagar.

Thus, she said, her social media posts were valid criticisms and she should not be cited in contempt. She also denied threatening the judge with her “honest and informed criticisms” and that her statement did not impede the administration of justice.

Resolving the case on its merits and citing previous decisions on similar issues, the SC said:  

“The freedoms of expression, speech, and the press enjoy a preferred status in our hierarchy of rights. Without the enjoyment of these rights, ‘a free, stable, effective, and progressive democratic state would be difficult to attain.’

“Nevertheless, the exercise of these freedoms is not absolute. The realities of life in a complex society require a degree of moderation. ‘The freedom to express one's sentiments and belief does not grant one the license to vilify in public the honor and integrity of another. Any sentiments must be expressed within the proper forum and with proper regard for the rights of others.’

“Courts are not immune to criticism. The public has the right to criticize court issuances, proceedings, and the public persona of members of the Judiciary. However, there is a well-defined line between legitimate criticism and utterances that are intended to attack the integrity of the courts or are aimed at influencing court decisions.

“Contrary to respondent's (Badody) allegation, her posts made on Sept. 23, 2022 and Sept. 25, 2022 constitute ‘improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice’ which equates to indirect contempt.

“Her assertion that Judge Magdoza-Malagar dismissed the Department
of Justice's petition because of her supposed friendly ties with the CPP-NPA-NDF threatens the impartial image of the Judiciary. Her claim that the judge lawyered for one of the parties due to her alleged political leanings similarly harms the court's administration of justice. Respondent even claimed that the judge was assisted by the CPP-NPA-NDF when she wrote the decision, putting into question its legality.

“These statements constitute conduct that ‘tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice.’

“By alleging that Judge Magdoza-Malagar had basis other than the Constitution and the law in dismissing the proscription case, and by claiming that the decision was written by the winning party, respondent cast doubt on its legitimacy.

“The success of her efforts is evident in the overwhelming response she attained -- which she would even compile later and post as a collection to further amplify the caustic voices-with numerous members of the public prejudging the case.

“Respondent clearly intended to prejudge the issue, influence the court, and obstruct the administration of justice, the very evil that the sub judice rule seeks to avoid.

“Respondent's assertion that she was merely exercising her freedom of
expression cannot exculpate her from liability. ‘Liberty of speech must not be confused with abuse of such liberty.’ "As earlier discussed, the ferocity with which she responded to the trial court's ruling can in no way be considered as a legitimate exercise of her constitutional right.

“Citizens have a right to scrutinize and criticize the Judiciary, but it is their ethical and societal obligation not to cross the line.”