THE Supreme Court en banc yesterday directed Lorraine Marie Badoy, former spokesperson of the National Task Force to End Local Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) to explain why she should not be cited for contempt over her statements red-tagging and vilifying a Manila judge who junked government’s bid to declare the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing, the New People’s Army, as terrorist organizations.
Last week, the court said it is taking possible actions motu proprio on statements made by Badoy, which were considered by several sectors as threats to Manila Regional Trial Court Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar. The tribunal has also issued a stern warning against individuals who red-tag judges and threaten them and their families with violence, and said they could face contempt charges.
The warning came after several organizations such as the Philippine Judges Association, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and Hukom Inc. asked government to act on threats being hurled against Malagar who junked the government’s petition in a ruling dated September 21.
The show-cause order issued by the en banc yesterday came after a group of lawyers and former deans of law schools filed a petition for indirect contempt against Badoy, also for the statements she made against Magdoza-Malagar.
Badoy has denied threatening the judge.
SC spokesperson Brian Keith Hosaka said the decision to issue the show-cause order was reached by the magistrates in their regular en banc session during which they also took note of the report of the Office of the Court Administrator on the steps taken to ensure the safety of Magdoza-Malagar, and of statements of the lawyers groups and law school professors.
“In today’s deliberation, the Supreme Court ordered Lorraine Marie Badoy to show cause, within a non-extendible period of 30 calendar days from that time that this resolution is served on her, why she should not be cited on contempt of the Judiciary and therefore this Court,” the en banc said.
The en banc further directed Badoy to respond to the following issues under oath: Whether or not she posted or caused the posting of the statements attacking the Magdoza-Malagar’s decision; whether or not her social media post “encouraged more violent language” against the judge in any or all of her social media platforms; whether or not her post, “in the context of social media and in the experience of similar incendiary comments here or abroad, was a clear incitement to produce violent actions against a judge and is likely to produce such act;” and whether or not her statements on her social media accounts, implying violence on a judge, is part of her protected constitutional speech.
INDIRECT CONTEMPT
On the petition for indirect contempt, among the signatories were Rico Domingo, former president of the Philippine Bar Association (PBA); Ray Paolo Santiago, executive director of the Ateneo Human Rights Center; Antonio “Tony” La Viña, former dean of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law; Soledad Deriquito-Mawis, dean of the College of Law of the Lyceum University; Anna Maria Abad, dean of the Adamson University College of Law; and Rodel Taton, dean of the Graduate School of Law of San Sebastian College-Recoletos.
The petitioners are part of the Movement Against Disinformation, a coalition of members of the academe, the legal profession, civil society groups, international and local non-government organizations and other advocacy groups united to prevent what they say is a systematic and unregulated spread of disinformation in social media.
Among its members are the Philippine Bar Association, Philippine Chapter-New York Bar Association, Lyceum of the Philippines University, Ateneo de Naga, Ateneo de Davao, Xavier University, Alternative Law Groups, Ateneo Human Rights Center, SALIGAN, Karapatan, iDefend, Wiki Society of the Philippines, Pinoy Media Center, Foundation for Media Alternatives, Ateneo Sanggunian, and members of the faculty of Ateneo Law.
“We are filing today a petition for indirect contempt for several posts concerning the resolution of judge Malagar. We believe that considering the gravity of the offense, we believe that it should be punishable with indirect contempt,” Domingo said.
‘VICIOUS ASSAULT’
The 35-page petition said Badoy’s statements aims to “assault and humiliate” Magdoza-Malagar after she rendered the decision.
“Such shameless and public behavior towards an honorable public official is not only a conduct that tends to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice, but is ultimately a direct affront against the dignity, honor, prestige and independence of the entire justice system,” the petition said.
The petition said the “vicious assault” against Magdoza-Malagar has alarmed and shaken the judicial magistrates and lawyers so much so that several law groups such as the PBA, Philippine Judges Association Integrated Bar of the Philippines and Hukom Inc. described the online vilification and red-tagging as constituting “endangerment” of a member of the judiciary and an “attack on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.”
To recall, Badoy in a Facebook post accused Magdoza-Malagar of “lawyering” for the CPP-NPA. “So if I kill this judge and I do so out of my political belief that all allies of the CPP NPA NDF 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’s post said. She later deleted the posts but not after netizens managed to take screenshots of her statements.
The petition said Badoy’s Facebook posts were followed by a string of similarly crafted remarks, comments, images and videos uploaded and shared by the former and her social media followers who “seemingly await for respondent’s instruction and call to action.”
Magdoza-Malagar was not the only target of Badoy’s hostile and threatening remarks, the petitioners said, citing her statements against Hukom Inc. after the latter condemned her statement against the judge.
“Evidently unsatisfied with the threatening remarks against Judge Magdoza-Malagar, respondent Badoy-Partosa has commenced adding more fuel to the fire as she unabashedly direct her vitriol and hate against all members of the Philippine judiciary as well as the members of the legal profession who do not agree with her statements,” the petition said, adding that there is nothing in Badoy’s statements that could be categorized as fair and bonafide criticism of a public official’s conduct.
Given the gravity and hostility displayed by Badoy, the petitioners asked the High Court to mete Badoy the maximum imprisonment of six months and fined in the maximum amount of P30, 000.
Domingo said it was not the penalty that they are after but the gravity and the ominous danger to the independence of the country’s judicial systems posed by such threats and vilification.
“Otherwise there will be chaos,” he added.
