Two lawyers were ordered by the Supreme Court (SC) to explain why they should not be sanctioned for spreading false information and for alleged sexist remarks against single mothers.

Ordered to explain in 10 days for spreading false information was lawyer Raul Lambino, a senatorial candidate in the May 2025 elections.

The SC said that in a Facebook Live broadcast on March 11, 2025, Lambino “falsely claimed that the SC had issued a TRO (temporary restraining order) against the arrest of former president Rodrigo R. Duterte.”

Duterte was arrested in the morning last March 11 and was sent on the same day to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands to face charges of crimes against humanity.

In the afternoon of March 11, Sen. Ronald dela Rosa and Duterte, himself, filed a petition before the SC challenging the arrest of the former president.

Lambino came out with a live broadcast in his Facebook that the SC issued a TRO on the petition filed by Dela Rosa and Duterte.

The SC did not issue a TRO.  The SC said: “After a virtual deliberation on the 94-page petition, the SC found that petitioners (Dela Rosa and Duterte) failed to establish clear and unmistakable right for the immediate issuance of a TRO.”

The SC said “the misinformation caused public confusion and misled the people about the SC’s actions.”

Ordered to explain, also in 10 days, for alleged sexist remarks against single mothers was lawyer Christian “Ian” G. Sia, a congressional candidate in Pasig City. 

The complaint against Sia was filed by lawyers Allen Liberato-Espino and Mischelle A. Laserna-Adricula.

Last April 7, GABRIELA, a national alliance of Filipino women, sent a letter to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo and all the SC justices asking to sanction Sia.

Through Clarice Palce, GABRIELA’s secretary general, the SC was told that Sia violated Canon II of the CPRA which “mandates that lawyers must at all times act with propriety.”

Palce specifically cited Section 2 of CPRA’s Canon II which prohibits lawyers from engaging “in conduct that adversely reflects on one’s fitness to practice law, nor behave in scandalous manner, whether in public of private life, to the discredit of the legal profession.”

At the same time, Palce said that the CPRA prohibit lawyers “from engaging in any gender-based harassment or discrimination” and from using “language which is abusive, intemperate, offensive or otherwise improper, oral or written, and whether made through traditional or electronic means, including all forms or types of mass or social media.”

GABRIELA’s letter cited Sia’s utterances during a campaign sortie in Pasig City last April 3. It said that based on a video of the campaign, Sia uttered the following:

“Para sa mga solo parent ng Pasig, minsan sa isang taon, ang mga solo parent na babae, na nirregla pa, na malinaw na nireregla pa, at nalulungkot, minsan sa isang taon, pwedeng sumiping sa akin. Yun hong interesado, magpalista na rito sa mesa sa gilid…”  (To the solo parents of Pasig, once a year for those solo parents who are women and still having their monthly period, they can sleep with me. Those interested can now list their names.)

GABRIELA said that Sia, in a press conference last April 4, apologized for his utterances. But it said the apology “is wanting of any ounce of sincerity and evidently, was merely an afterthought to troubleshoot the public uproar and backlash that he himself created.”

“Worse, instead of taking accountability and responsibility for his action, he blamed the uploader of the video,” it also said.

The SC justices were also told: “We find Atty. Sia’s action appalling and reprehensible. It seeks of misogyny and sexism. It is an attack against the dignity of every woman and a clear disrespect for the pain and struggle every woman solo parent endure day to day.”

The separate orders  on Lambino and Sia were issued by the SC during its full court session in Baguio City.