The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld free speech in dismissing contempt petitions arising from public criticism of its ruling on the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, holding that criticism of judicial decisions is protected and may be punished as contempt only when it poses a clear and present danger to the administration of justice and is intended and likely to incite public distrust in the Judiciary.

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC dismissed separate petitions for indirect contempt against political analyst Richard Heydarian, Akbayan Rep. Percival Cendaña, and Presidential Adviser for Poverty Alleviation Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon over statements criticizing the Court’s July 25, 2025 decision declaring unconstitutional the fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte. 

“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,” the Court stressed.

FACTS AND ISSUE

The consolidated cases stemmed from public reactions to the SC’s July 25, 2025 decision declaring that the fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte violated the Constitution’s one-year bar on impeachment complaints. 

After the ruling, Heydarian posted on social media that former President Rodrigo Duterte had appointed 13 of the 15 Supreme Court justices by 2022. Cendaña described the SC as the “Supreme Coddler of the Philippines,” while Gadon referred to it as “tuta ng mga Duterte.” 

Lawyers Mark Kristopher Tolentino and Rolex Suplico sought to cite Heydarian and Cendaña for indirect contempt, arguing that their statements imputed judicial bias and undermined public confidence in the Court. 

In a separate petition, lawyer Ferdinand Topacio likewise sought to hold Gadon in indirect contempt over his remarks. The respondents maintained that their statements were protected speech on matters of public concern. 

The main issue before the SC was whether the respondents’ public statements constituted indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. 

RULING

The SC dismissed the petitions, holding that the respondents’ statements constituted protected political speech and did not meet the constitutional threshold for indirect contempt. 

The Court ruled that speech criticizing the judiciary may be punished only if it is intended to impede or degrade the administration of justice, incite the public to lose trust in the Judiciary, and presents a clear and present danger that the speech would produce that result. It found that the petitions failed to establish these essential elements. 

“We uphold respondents’ exercise of their political speech. Thus, this Court hesitates to wield its power of contempt,” the Court remarked.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.