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 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.

GMA News Online has reached out to Badoy for comment and will publish it once it is available.—RF, GMA Integrated News