The usual ulalos (larvae) came out of the woodwork the very day the Supreme Court (SC) came out with its landmark decision invalidating the impeachment complaint against Sara Duterte. The criticisms crescendoed a few days later, until a public relations strategy began to emerge.

The critics would accuse the SC of an “overreach,” wrong factual bases, and being “beholden to the Dutertes.” The House would announce that it would be filing a motion for reconsideration. The administration’s allies in the Senate would press for the chamber to disregard the decision. And then so-called legal experts would call on the SC to revisit and possibly reverse itself.

The goal was clear: to influence the SC to do a volte face and allow the constitutionally flawed impeachment proceedings to continue.

There were the usual suspects, among others, House members who wanted to show the Speaker their canine devotion. Leila de Lima, whose lack of respect for the High Court was very much in evidence when she arrogantly defied a TRO from the SC. Honorific Secretary Larry Gadon who holds the distinction of being the first and only lawyer disbarred twice by the SC with no possibility of reinstatement. Former justices whose legal scholarship has been heavily contaminated by their political color. And Ronald Llamas, whose only claim to fame (if one may call it that) is — aside from once being romantically linked to Risa Hontiveros — having been political adviser to the worst President ever (Noynoy Aquino).

In a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Fundamental Law, an opinion is like an a**hole — every person has one. But when it comes to the SC, there is a standard to which criticism of its decisions must conform: it must not cross the bounds of free speech and tread on the contumacious. This is because, as the Highest Court of the Land, it is a creature of the Constitution and deserves deference.

It is one thing to disagree with the ruling of the SC respectfully and on matters of law or facts. But to call the SC “Supreme Coddlers” of Sara Duterte as Rep. Percival Cedana did; or to say that just because twelve of the SC Justices were Duterte appointees and thus “beholden to Duterte” (Richard Heyderian), or to call the Justices “tuta ng mga Duterte” as twice disbarred lawyer Larry Gadon did, without an iota of proof, is to go beyond legitimate criticism and constitute impermissible contumely.

To cast doubt on the integrity of the Judiciary with no valid basis is not criticism — it is contempt,” so said the SC in “In re: Emiliano Cruz.” Since the SC, not being a political entity, has limited capabilities to defend itself, it is up to the lawyers —officers of the court by law and oath — to defend it against those who would destroy its good name. That is why Attorneys Mark Tolentino, Rolex Suplico, Jing Paras and I took it upon ourselves to take those three aforementioned characters to task for maligning the SC.

The petitions for contempt were not filed to stifle dissent, as the SC’s critics so shallowly argued; they were filed to stop the indecent. Those who commit contempt against the SC — especially lawyers —deserve naught but contempt.