The Supreme Court has dismissed an indirect contempt case against Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III over his public criticism of the Court’s ruling on the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.
The SC En Banc ruled that Sotto’s statements were protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, particularly on political matters.
The case stemmed from Sotto’s media interviews and social media posts questioning the ruling.
He reportedly said the decision showed that the justice who wrote it was unfamiliar with congressional rules and effectively amended the Constitution.
Lawyer Manuelito Delos Reyes Luna and others later asked the Court to cite Sotto for indirect contempt, arguing that his remarks disrespected the Judiciary and could weaken public trust in the courts.
However, the SC ruled that Sotto’s statements did not constitute contempt.
The Court stressed that political speech deserves the highest level of constitutional protection and that public officials and government institutions, including the Judiciary, must remain open to public scrutiny and criticism.
It also explained that statements about public officials performing their duties do not automatically become punishable simply because they are false, harsh, or offensive.
“In determining whether speech may be restricted, courts must consider not only what was said, but also “how, when, where it was expressed, and who spoke it,” the SC said.
“Citing Tolentino v. Heydarian (G.R. Nos. E-01742 and E-01747), also penned by Senior Associate Justice Leonen, the SC reiterated that the Judiciary, like the other branches of government, remains subject to public scrutiny and criticism,” it added.
Applying the incitement test, the SC found that Sotto’s remarks did not pose an imminent threat of encouraging the public to distrust.
“In contempt cases involving speech, the SC explained that the key question is whether the statements intentionally incite the public to lose trust in the independence of the Judiciary or to obstruct the administration of justice, and whether, considering the totality of circumstances, there is a likelihood and imminence that the statements will produce these effect.”
The Court also recognized how social media can spread misleading information and take statements out of context.