SC declines to punish personalities who criticized ruling on Sara impeachment

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

'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,' the Supreme Court says in its 87-page decision

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) en banc unanimously dismissed the petition of Duterte-allied lawyers that sought to punish certain public officials and a private citizen over their remarks against the High Court.

In a decision made public on Thursday, July 16, the High Court junked the indirect contempt petition filed by lawyers Mark Tolentino and Rolex Suplico against Akbayan Representative Perci Cendaña and political analyst Richard Heydarian.

The SC also dismissed lawyer Ferdinand Topacio’s petition against Presidential Adviser on Poverty Alleviation Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon.

“Accordingly, the verified petitions for indirect contempt in GR Nos. E-01742 and E-01747 are dismissed for lack of merit,” said the 87-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

Under Philippine laws, indirect contempt is a type of contempt or violation against a tribunal committed out of the court’s presence. The punishment varies, but penalties may include a fine.

The SC case stemmed from Cendaña, Gadon, and Heydarian’s commentaries following the High Court’s Duterte v. House of Representatives decision that blocked Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial in 2025.

According to the petitioners, the three should be punished for their alleged “deliberate, malicious, scandalous, offensive, and outrageous public remarks” against the High Court.

But in dismissing the petitions, the High Court reiterated that public discussions that concern public interests should be free. Leonen said there should be space for democratic discourse where citizens have “the widest latitude” to express their opinions without fear of being subsequently punished.

The senior magistrate also said the SC should be selective in deciding what is worthy of its time and attention. While the public has the right to be critical about SC decisions, this does not give them the license to abuse their freedom of speech, Leonen said.

“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,” the ruling read.

“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,” it added. – Rappler.com