The Supreme Court (SC) has asked Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III to answer the petition filed by several lawyers to cite him in indirect contempt for alleged public criticisms of the High Court’s 2025 ruling that dismissed the impeachment complaint filed against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a full court resolution issued last April 8 but was made public by the petitioners on Monday, May 4, Sotto was given 10 days from receipt of notice to answer the petition.

The petitioners were lawyers Manuelito Luna, Ferdinand Topacio, Harold Respicio, and Virgilio Garcia; businesswoman Cathy Binag; and former congressman Michael Defensor.

They alleged that Sotto’s utterances undermine public faith in the judiciary by reportedly crossing the line from fair commentary into “improper conduct” that demeans the dignity of the SC.

In a decision issued on July 25, 2025, the SC declared unconstitutional the impeachment complaint filed by the House of Representatives before the Senate as impeachment court.

The SC declared that the impeachment complaint is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

It affirmed its decision in a resolution issued on Jan. 28, 2026.

The petitioners for indirect contempt told the SC that Sotto labeled the 2025 decision as a “sad day for Constitutional Law," and accused the High Court of judicial overreach and judicial legislation.

They claimed that Sotto’s status as Senate president gives his statements greater weight that could cause significant damage to the judiciary’s reputation than statements made by private individuals.

Reacting to the indirect contempt citation, Sotto said the case filed against him is a "nuisance suit" and a "mere publicity stunt;"

He pointed out that simply expressing a disagreement or the mere act of criticizing the decision of the courts cannot constitute indirect contempt.

"As a lawyer, Atty. Topacio should know this. He has a long record of publicly criticizing court decisions that are unfavorable to his clients," he said.

He cited that under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, indirect contempt requires conduct committed outside the court that actually tends to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.

"I did not do any of those acts. I simply expressed a disagreement with the court decision. That is protected speech under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution," Sotto stressed.

At the same time, he said that criticism of judicial acts is punishable only when it poses a clear and present danger to the administration of justice.