SC: Lorraine Badoy guilty of indirect contempt over remarks vs. Manila judge

The Supreme Court has found former National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) spokesperson Lorraine Badoy guilty of indirect contempt over her “vitriolic statements and outright threats” against a court judge in 2022.

In a 52-page decision, the SC en banc ordered Badoy to pay a fine of P30,000. It also warned Badoy that a repetition of the same or similar acts will merit a more severe sanction.

“For her vitriolic statements and outright threats against Judge Magdoza-Malagar and the Judiciary, respondent is found guilty of indirect contempt,” the SC said.

The case stemmed from Badoy’s remarks against Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar of Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch 19 for her decision to dismiss the Department of Justice’s proscription case seeking to declare the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) as terrorist groups.

In its decision, the court pointed out that in September 2022 Badoy uploaded a Facebook post titled “A Judgement Straight from the Bowels of Communist Hell,” where it said she launched multiple insults against the judge.|

|The SC said that on the same day, Badoy had uploaded a second post titled “The Judge Marlo Malagar Horror Series.” The court said Badoy had threatened to bomb the offices of the judges whom she said were “friends of terrorists.”

The following day, the Court noted that Badoy uploaded another post that described Magdoza-Malagar as “unprincipled and rotten” and claimed that her husband was part of the CPP.

In her defense, Badoy argued that her remarks were misconstrued and were a “hypothetical syllogism.”

However, the Court said Badoy’s assertions that Magdoza-Malagar dismissed the petition due to supposed ties with the CPP-NPA “threatens the impartial image of the judiciary.”

“Her claim that the judge lawyered for one of the parties due to her alleged political leanings similarly harms the court’s administration of justice,” it said.

“These statements constitute conduct that ‘tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the administration of justice’,” it added.

The SC said the former spokesperson’s supposed criticisms were not made in good faith or without malice, adding that Badoy was impelled by a self-seeking motive to stir discontent.

“These explosive statements directed toward respondent's considerable number of followers were clearly made to incite and produce imminent lawless action and are likely capable o f attaining this objective,” the court said.

“Some have even gone as far as asking for Judge Magdoza-Malagar's address, a clear sign that they intended to execute [the] respondent's call. One need not imagine how these responses would have caused Judge Magdoza-Malagar to fear for her life and seek shelter,” it added.

The court said it gave no merit to Badoy’s argument that she did not mean harm or merely employed hypothetical syllogism.

“An incitement to commit lawless violent action and is likely to cause such violent action causing death or injury is not covered by the constitutional privilege of protected speech,” the high court said.

Meanwhile, the SC also clarified that it does not curtail the right of a lawyer or any individual to be critical of courts or judges, as long as they are made in respectful terms.

“Citizens have a right to scrutinize and criticize the judiciary, but it is their ethical and societal obligation not to cross the line,” it said.

Walking free with a fine

For her part, Badoy extended her gratitude to the Supreme Court for allowing her to walk free with only a fine of P30,000.

“Enemies of the state who meant to silence me with this case have lost once again. No one has been silenced, certainly not me. Thanks to our Supreme Court, our country remains the land of free and we can freely speak our minds- as we must,” she said.

“The CPP-NPA-NDF wanted me jailed but instead I am walking free with a 30,000 peso fine. Just a reminder to be more circumspect and to rein it in a bit more,” she added.

She also apologized to the court for her “intemperate language and tenor.”

“I hear them but I maintain that I never threatened anyone with harm. I am not a terrorist. The CPP NPA NDF is,” she said.

Badoy, however, said she stood by her remarks on Facebook.

Despite this, she said that she did not threaten Magdoza-Malagar.

“I never threatened Judge Malagar, no. Because what it was was a figure of speech, no. Hindi kasi ako terorista. Wala ako tine-threaten kahit kanino. ‘Yung aking track record, doktor ako. I preserve life, no. Very sacred ang life sa akin,” she said.

[I never threatened Judge Malagar. Because what it was was a figure of speech. I am not a terrorist, I don't threaten anybody. I have a track record, I am a doctor. I preserve life, which I treat as very sacred to me.]

Fatal consequences

Meanwhile, neophyte lawmaker Raoul Manuel of Kabataan party-list, said the Supreme Court decision proves that Badoy’s rhetoric has fatal consequences and as such, should not be tolerated.

“(Badoy’s) threat to the judiciary is undeniable and stems from a rotten mind, a blind anti-communist logic and red-tagging. Our takeaway here is that the decision spelled out that red-tagging endangers people, is hurtful and incites violence. Red-tagging kills, and red-taggers should be punished for the dangers they bring to public safety,” Manuel said in a press conference on Thursday.

Manuel then said moving forward, there should be clear state policies that sanction red-tagging.

“Even former Vice President Leni Robredo and Speaker Martin Romualdez have been red-tagged even if they occupy a high-ranking position. Imagine what would be the case if the same action is done on ordinary people who are calling on the government to implement reforms?,” Manuel said.—RF/RSJ, GMA Integrated News