The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the indirect contempt citations filed by several lawyers against a political analyst, a Party-List congressman, and a former presidential adviser for their comments on its 2025 decision that junked the 2024 impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Dismissed were the indirect contempt citations against Richard J. Heydarian, Rep. Percival Cendana, and ex-presidential adviser Lorenzo “Larry” G. Gadon.

In its July 25, 2025 decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC declared unconstitutional the impeachment complaint filed by the House of Representatives (HOR) before the Senate, as Impeachment Court, against Vice President Duterte.

The SC said the 2024 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.

But the SC clarified in its July 25, 2025 decision that it “is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting Feb. 6, 2026.”

The Vice President is now undergoing trial before the Senate sitting as Impeachment Court on the impeachment complaints filed against her early this year.

Immediately after the release of the SC decision in 2025, Heydarian – also a journalist and member of the academe – posted on his social media platform X (formerly Twitter): “DUTERTE had APPOINTED as many as 13 of 15 SUPREME COURT justices.”

Cendana, on the other hand, released a video statement on his Facebook page, which, among other things, stated: “The dismissal of the impeachment sets a dangerous precedent. Lahat ng tiwaling pulitiko pwedeng magtago sa likod ng Supreme Court at takasan ang pananagutan sa sambayanan. A [disastrous] day for Philippine democracy.”

Gadon referred to the SC as “tuta ng mga Duterte" (literally: "lapdog of the Dutertes" or "puppet of the Dutertes").

In their indirect contempt citations, lawyers Mark Kristopher G. Tolentino and Rolex Suplico claimed that Heydarian’s comment was not merely “commentary on appointments or a general critique of political influence" but it willfully portrays the Justices of the Supreme Court as "beholden to former President Rodrigo Duterte" and imputing impropriety, lack of independence, and judicial bias" to the High Court as an institution.

They also claimed that Cendana’s statement accused the SC of enabling political protection, and that his use of the term "Supreme Coddler" insinuates bias and has the potential to undermine the legitimacy of judicial decisions which will erode the public's confidence in the Court.

Thus, they claimed that the comments went beyond fair commentary and amounted to sweeping allegations of judicial corruption couched in "derisive language intended to provoke public distrust and outrage."

In his complaint, lawyer Ferdinand S. Topacio, on the other hand, said that Gadon’s public statements are considered improper conduct as it "tends to undermine the confidence of the people in the honesty and integrity of the court and its members.”

Heydarian told the SC that his statement cannot be deemed contemptuous as “it merely made a factual assertion, one that is irrefutable, true, and publicly verifiable.”

He also said that his single sentence should not be read in isolation, but in the context of his other statements on the same subject, pointing out that in the same X (formerly Twitter) thread, he also stated: “Nevertheless, the decision was unanimous .and it would be unfair to automatically cast judgment just because of appointment patterns.”

Among other things, Cendana acknowledged that his exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression has its limits. But he insisted that the alleged contumacious statement was "a legitimate expression of opinion made in good faith" on a matter of significant interest to the public.

Gadon, on the other hand, said he was merely exercising his right to freedom of expression as he pointed out that he never accused the SC of corruption or of accepting bribes from the Dutertes.

He also said his statements were simply an expression of frustration with what he perceived as the Court's countless bias in favor of Vice President Duterte.

In resolving the issue, the SC – in a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Leonen -- said the judiciary settles actual controversies involving enforceable rights and determines if any branch or instrumentality of the government gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The SC said: “Our judicial system is designed to provide a peaceful and orderly means of resolving disputes by entrusting the administration of justice to the courts. It ensures that grievances are addressed through established legal processes rather than through violence, 80 mob rule, or extrajudicial means. In this way, the people are assured that their rights can be vindicated and conflicts settled within the framework of law.”

Dismissing the indirect contempt citations, the SC ruled:

“Criticizing the Court for its decisions and policies is one of the most protected forms of political expression. Thus, before it may be deemed as contemptuous, the danger of the speech must not only be clear and present danger to the Court's administration of justice. It must also incite the public to lose trust in the Judiciary, and the imminence and likelihood of this intended effect must also be established.

“In dismissing the Petitions, the Court affirms its commitment that public discussions on matters of paramount public interests should be free. There should be space for democratic discourse where the people are given the widest latitude to express their opinions without fear of being subsequently punished.

“In today's digital world, where social media sites allow anyone to share their concerns and their ‘hot takes’ on public issues, this Court should also be selective in deciding what is worthy of its time and attention. On the other hand, while the public has the right to be critical about the Court's decisions and its policies, there is no license for anyone to abuse their freedom of speech.

“The Court will not hesitate to punish those who utter false comments. However, political speech must amount to the level of not only inciting the public to lose trust in the Judiciary, but the circumstances must also be assessed as to whether the communicative impact of the speech can imminently result to the intended outcome of the speaker. In wielding our inherent power of contempt, this Court should also be wary and discerning of attempts of others to suppress critical speech that feeds democracy.

“ACCORDINGLY, the Verified Petitions for Indirect Contempt in G.R. Nos. E-01742 and E-01747 are DISMISSED for lack of merit.”