SC defends judiciary from online abuse

“By merely having access to social media, private individuals could publish their thoughts without need of self-policing or adhering to the ethical standard required of the press. As a result, content could be created and shared with abandon, purely for clout for ‘likes’ and even disregard for the truth.”

That rebuke came from no less than the Supreme Court, in a unanimous verdict finding Lorraine Badoy-Partosa guilty of indirect contempt of court for statements she made online in September 2022 attacking Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 19 Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar. Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen wrote the 52-page decision.

Badoy-Partosa, former NTF-ELCAC spokesperson, posted her attacks on Facebook after Judge Magdoza-Malagar, on Sept. 21, 2022, dismissed the Department of Justice’s petition to proscribe the CPP-NPA as a terrorist group under the Human Security Act of 2007.

Among others, the high court took note of the following: Badoy claimed that the judge was friendly with the CPP-NPA, “weaponiz[ing] the court to further inflict harm on the people” allegedly caused by the latter. She threatened to kill Judge Magdoza-Malagar (“… if I kill this judge…out of my political belief that all allies of the CPP-NPA must be killed… please be lenient with me”). She threatened to bomb the offices of judges whom she considered to be “friends of terrorists.” She called the judge “unprincipled and rotten” and claimed the latter’s husband was a CPP-NPA member.

Her attacks online, the ruling noted, generated comments and responses filled with the same vitriol as her posts, openly supporting and even offering assistance. 

The petition asking the SC to cite Badoy for indirect contempt was filed by a group of lawyers led by the Movement Against Disinformation (MAD), organized by the activist Antonio La Vina.

In resolving the petition, the SC stressed the need to balance the exercise of free speech and the protection of judicial independence. While the freedom of expression must be as fully protected as possible, “its exercise must never transgress the equally important aspects of democracy, not least of all the Judiciary’s dignity and authority.”

To ensure judicial