18/07/2026
๐ฃ
Upholding the right to free speech, the (SC) has dismissed petitions for indirect contempt arising from public statements critical of its 2025 decision in ๐๐ถ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ ๐ท. ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ด, which declared the fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
In a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC ๐๐ฏ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ค dismissed the consolidated petitions against political analyst Richard J. Heydarian, Representative Percival Cendaรฑa, and Presidential Adviser for Poverty Alleviation Secretary Lorenzo โLarryโ G. Gadon (respondents).
After the release of the decision in ๐๐ถ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ ๐ท. ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ด, Heydarian posted on X and Facebook that former President Rodrigo โ๐๐ถ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ฅ ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ด ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐บ ๐ข๐ด 13 ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ 15 ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ต ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฃ๐บ 2022โ while Rep. Cendaรฑa posted a video on Facebook claiming that the Supreme Court disregarded the Constitution, its own decision and the principle of separation of powers, calling it โ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด.โ Sec. Gadon, for his part, referred to the SC in media interviews as โ๐ต๐ถ๐ต๐ข ๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฎ๐จ๐ข ๐๐ถ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ.โ
These statements prompted Attys. Mark Kristopher G. Tolentino, Rolex Suplico, and Ferdinand S. Topacio to file petitions asking the SC to cite the respondents for indirect contempt. They claimed that the statements questioned the SCโs independence, undermined its decisions, and weakened public trust in the Judiciary.
The SC, however, found that the statements did not amount to indirect contempt.
Rule 71, Section 3 of the ๐๐ถ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ต punishes conduct that degrades the courts or damages their reputation. There must be a clear showing that the speaker intended to impede or obstruct the administration of justice.
While contempt proceedings help protect judicial independence and public confidence in the Judiciary, the SC emphasized that courts must also respect and uphold the freedoms of speech, expression, and the press.
The SC explained that political speech, which includes statements about government actions, public officials, and matters of public concern, enjoys the highest level of constitutional protection. It is not automatically punishable even if it is harsh or inaccurate.
Applying the stricter incitement test, the SC said political speech may be restricted only if it is intended and likely to cause imminent lawless action. In making this determination, courts look beyond the literal meaning of the words and consider their performative aspect: the speakerโs intent, the context in which the speech was made, and its likely effect.
Under this standard, a person may be held liable for contempt only if the speech advocates lawless conduct that threatens the administration of justice.
Applying these principles, the SC found that the respondentsโ statements were political speech relating to the impeachment case of Vice President Duterte, a matter of significant public interest involving public accountability.
The SC found Heydarianโs post a fair comment on a matter of public interest and, when read together with his other posts, did not show bad faith, malice, or disrespect toward the SC. While the statement may have reflected bias, it remained protected speech.
As for Rep. Cendaรฑaโs remarks, the SC said although they were accusatory, they only showed his disappointment with the ruling and were not meant to interfere with the administration of justice. The SC considered his statements as expressions of opinion and an understandable reaction to an unfavorable decision.
Finally, the SC found that while Sec. Gadonโs remark was disrespectful, it did not amount to contempt because it was not intended to interfere with court proceedings or influence any pending case. Instead, it was an expression of opinion on an issue that was widely debated by both supporters and critics of the SCโs decision.
Respondents were reminded, however, to encourage thoughtful and constructive public discussion of Judiciaryโs decision, to show greater respect, restraint and care in publicly criticizing the Judiciary, and to express their criticisms with civility and fairness.
Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169021
Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168894
Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/e-01742-e-01747-separate-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution
