A journalist and a party-list lawmaker were slapped with indirect contempt charges before the Supreme Court on Wednesday over their alleged malicious public comments on the recent ruling involving Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case.

The petition was filed by Attorneys Mark Kristopher Tolentino and Rolex Suplico against political analyst Richard Heydarian and Akbayan Party-list Representative Percival Cendaña.

The case stems from public statements made by the two respondents following the Supreme Court’s 25 July decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against VP Duterte unconstitutional.

The high tribunal ruled that while impeachment is a political process, it is not immune from judicial review — especially when constitutional due process is in question.

It found the House of Representatives committed “grave abuse of discretion” by transmitting the articles of impeachment without complying with proper constitutional procedures. The court declared the impeachment complaints void ab initio or null from the very beginning.

After the ruling was made public, the petition claims that Heydarian and Cendaña used their influential platforms to discredit the court and its members.

Heydarian, who has a substantial following on social media, posted on his verified X (formerly Twitter) account:
“Fact: Duterte had appointed as many as 13 out of 15 Supreme Court justices by 2022!! No wonder the SC is now the Supreme Coddler. Welcome to the Philippines.”

The post, which was also shared on Facebook and reportedly garnered millions of impressions, was not a simple critique but a deliberate attempt to paint the justices as “beholden to former President Rodrigo Duterte,” the petition said. It further argued the post implied a lack of independence and judicial bias.

The petition also cited statements from Cendaña, who in a press conference and interviews widely circulated by news outlets, said:
“The Supreme Court has reduced itself to being the Supreme Coddler of Sara Duterte. This is a betrayal of the Constitution and an insult to the people’s right to demand accountability.”

Suplico and Tolentino said that as officers of the court, the two men made statements that constitute “unlawful interference with and derogation of judicial authority,” violating Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

The petitioners argued that the combined reach and public stature of Heydarian and Cendaña have magnified the damage and subjected the Supreme Court to “public ridicule, suspicion, and condemnation.”

They emphasized that while freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, it does not extend to speech that “obstructs or degrades the administration of justice.”

The petition asked the high court to order Heydarian and Cendaña to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt and requested the issuance of a cease-and-desist order to prevent further public statements that may undermine judicial authority.

They also called on the court to affirm its constitutional role as the protector of judicial independence and the rule of law.