Columnist, solon in hot water

A journalist and a partylist lawmaker are facing contempt charges before the Supreme Court for allegedly making “malicious” public statements about the recent high court ruling that junked the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Lawyers Mark Kristopher Tolentino and Rolex Suplico filed the petition on Wednesday, naming self-proclaimed political analyst and columnist Richard Heydarian and Akbayan Partylist Rep. Percival Cendaña as respondents.

The move stems from comments the two made shortly after the Supreme Court on 25 July declared the articles of impeachment against Duterte “void from the beginning,” citing a grave abuse of discretion by the House of Representatives.

The court ruled that even though impeachment is a political process, it is still subject to judicial review when constitutional due process is violated.

But Heydarian and Cendaña weren’t buying it.

In a post on his X (formerly Twitter) account, Heydarian wrote:

“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.”

That post, also shared on Facebook, drew substantial impressions.

Agenda imputed

The petitioners claimed the posts went beyond criticism and were meant to cast doubt on the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court, suggesting the camp of former President Rodrigo Duterte influenced it.

Cendaña, meanwhile, told reporters: “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.”

That quote was widely picked up by the media and shared across platforms, the petition noted.

Tolentino and Suplico argued that such remarks, coming from individuals with influence and public stature, “magnified the damage” and exposed the judiciary to “public ridicule, suspicion, and condemnation.”

As lawyers, they said, they had a duty to defend the court’s authority. They accused Heydarian and Cendaña of violating Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, which deals with indirect contempt. In their view, the two interfered with and disrespected the judicial process.

They said that while freedom of speech is protected under the Constitution, that right does not include statements that, in their words, “obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.”

The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to require Heydarian and Cendaña to explain why they should not be held in contempt, and to issue a cease-and-desist order to stop them from making further comments that “undermine the judiciary.”