SC fines lawyer over 'homophobic' social media post

The Supreme Court (SC) has imposed a fine against one lawyer and reprimanded four others over their social media posts that the high court found to have "homophobic undertones."

In a 22-page decision promulgated in April but made public only on Thursday, the Supreme Court en banc reprimanded the four for violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and gave them a stern warning that a repetition of a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

The court, meanwhile, imposed a fine of P25,000 against XXX for violation of the same rule and was also given a stern warning.

"Their fixation on the respective sexual orientation of their subjects was uncalled for and they should be more circumspect in their choice of words and be mindful of gender-fair language," the SC said.

Rule 7.03 states that "a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or in private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession."

The case stemmed from a post by one of the lawyers announcing that they helped convict a member of the LGBTQIA+ community. The post also described the judge as "somewhat effeminate."

XXX then asked about a supposed homosexual judge who wears eyeliner and eye shadow during hearings.

XXX later said that there is a joke among lawyers that there are "crazy" judges on the 2nd floor and "homosexual and corrupt" ones on the ground floor.

According to the Supreme Court, a heavier penalty was imposed against XXX as he violated the rule in a "reckless, wanton, and malevolent manner."

"What makes his infraction worse is that [XXX] made a sweeping statement about the mental fitness of judges and equated homosexual judges with corrupt ones. Such language jeopardizes the high esteem in courts and is prohibited," it said.

The SC also noted that XXX did not apologize for his remarks.

It also said XXX's claim of being an ally and supportive of the LGBTQIA+ community does not absolve him of any liability.

"In fact, it smacks of hypocrisy, for if he was truly unbiased, he would have refrained from engaging in a homophobic and disrespectful conversation," the Supreme Court said.

"No one consciously and intentionally disrespects or humiliates those they hold with esteem and affection. And if hurt was unintentionally inflicted, a sincere apology can lessen the sting," it added.

In ruling the case, the Supreme Court said that the lawyers' right to privacy is limited, especially when it comes to social media.

"It is not a defense that the discriminatory language was uttered in what was seemingly intended to be private exchanges among the macho men. The fact that their exchanges became public trumps whatever intention they have had to keep their communications private," it said.

The Supreme Court said members of the legal profession must respect the freedom of members of the LGBTQIA+ community to be themselves.

"Members of the legal profession must respect LGBTQIA+ individuals' freedom to be themselves and express who they are, as part of their constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of expression," it said. —KBK, GMA Integrated News