“Freedom of speech, while sacrosanct, finds its limits at the doorstep of responsibility”
THIS is Part 2 of the series I began last April 27 on a decision by the Supreme Court penalizing former Undersecretary Lorraine Badoy for attacking a Judge.
Now, what exactly did Badoy say?
While the Supreme Court decision reproduced significantly more of the text and language to highlight the exact passages which crossed over into unprotected speech, for the purposes of this discussion, further spreading and reproducing the harmful speech would be counterproductive.
Briefly. On Sept. 23, 2022, Badoy called the judge a “friend” and “true ally” of the CPP-NPA, calling the decision propaganda mere material that may have been written by the group and not by reason of the rule of law.
Essentially, that our judicial system is being controlled by puppet strings and shadowy players.
Worse, she goes further to say that, hypothetically, she should not be punished for taking the life of the judge if she can invoke general ideological beliefs.
The criticism was red-tagging, which is violative of local and international laws.
A single brief excerpt of the posts is below, showing what Badoy attempted to pass as criticism.
“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 posted on Sept. 24.
Again, Badoy was well within her rights to disagree with the decision.
However, she went further – questioning whether the decision was written by the judge, backed by the Constitution, or if the decision was even a valid exercise of judicial authority.
She asserted the decision was illegitimate for being a product of puppet writers and undue influence, as if the court itself was a farce.
Taken together with the reactions they drew, her words were tantamount to a call for violence against the bench and the judge, possibly with very real repercussions in the real world.
It was not a stretch for Judge Magdoza-Malagar to fear for her safety, it was a stretch for Badoy to imagine that the consequences of her post were limited to the four corners of a screen.
For me and my co-author, Ally Munda, our Constitutionally protected rights come with a disclaimer – these cannot be wielded haphazardly, to the detriment of everyone else around you.
After all, one’s rights end where another’s begin.
The toes that Badoy have stepped on belong to the Court and this offense was not slight in character, it was a stab at the very integrity of the courts that Filipinos must have to be assured the rule of law still prevails.
It was a two-fold transgression – first, against the safety of Judge Magdoza-Malagar and, second, against the integrity of our courts themselves.
On Sept. 27, the first case began.
Under A.M. 22-09-16-SC, the Court, acting motu proprio, which is without an official request from another party, took the initiative to address the acts of Badoy.
It resulted in a stern warning that Badoy and others who use social media to incite violence against the court and judges will be dealt with by holding them in contempt of court.
After full court deliberations, the Supreme Court issued a resolution sternly warning those “who continue to incite violence through social media and other means which endanger the lives of judges and their families.”
A Show Cause Order was also issued, which required Badoy to explain why she should not be penalized for her posts.
The second case was an Urgent Petition for Indirect Contempt filed by lawyers Roico V. Domingo, Dean Antonio Gabriel M. La Viña, Dean Ma. Soleded Deriquito-Mawis, Dean Anna Maria D. Abad, Dean Rodel A. Taton, Artemio P. Calumpong, Christianne Grace F. Salonga, Ray Paolo J. Santiago, and Ayn Ruth Z. Tolentino-Azarcon.
Freedom of speech, while sacrosanct, finds its limits at the doorstep of responsibility.
Ultimately, Badoy was held liable for Indirect Contempt of Court and fined P30,000.00 for her injurious acts against the bench and the judiciary.
The Court’s decision underscores a broader principle that we, as responsible members of society, should remember: the freedom of speech and the freedom to critique the actions of those in power does not extend to actions that would imperil the judiciary’s ability to deliver impartial justice.
Website: tonylavina.com Facebook: Tony La Viña or tonylavs X: tonylavs
