PHOTO CREDIT: SC

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional right to freedom of expression after dismissing indirect contempt petitions filed against political analyst Richard Heydarian, Akbayan Rep. Percival Cendaña, and Presidential Adviser for Poverty Alleviation Secretary Lorenzo Gadon over their public statements criticizing the Court's 2025 ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives.

In a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the Supreme Court En Banc ruled that the statements made by the three respondents did not constitute indirect contempt because they were not intended to obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice.

The petitions stemmed from public reactions following the Court's 2025 decision in Duterte v. House of Representatives, which declared the fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.

After the ruling was released, Heydarian posted on X and Facebook that former President Rodrigo Duterte had appointed up to 13 of the Supreme Court's 15 justices by 2022. Meanwhile, Cendaña shared a Facebook video claiming that the Court disregarded the Constitution, its own previous rulings, and the principle of separation of powers. He also referred to the Supreme Court as the "Supreme Coddler of the Philippines."

Gadon, meanwhile, described the High Court in media interviews as "tuta ng mga Duterte."

The statements prompted lawyers Mark Kristopher Tolentino, Rolex Suplico, and Ferdinand Topacio to file separate petitions asking the Supreme Court to cite the three respondents for indirect contempt. They argued that the remarks questioned the Court's independence, weakened the authority of its decisions, and undermined public confidence in the judiciary.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the statements did not meet the requirements for indirect contempt.

Under Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, acts that degrade the courts or obstruct the administration of justice may be punished as indirect contempt. However, the Court emphasized that liability exists only when it is clearly shown that a statement was intended to interfere with or disrupt the proper administration of justice.

The High Court also stressed that political speech—including discussions about government actions, public officials, and issues of public concern—enjoys the highest level of protection under the Constitution. It said such speech is not automatically punishable even if it contains harsh language or factual inaccuracies.

Applying the "incitement test," the Court said speech may only be restricted if it is intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action. In determining this, courts must consider not only the words used but also the speaker's intent, the context in which the statement was made, and its likely effect.

Using this standard, the Supreme Court found that the statements made by Heydarian, Cendaña, and Gadon were political expressions concerning the impeachment of Vice President Duterte, a matter of significant public interest, and were not intended to interfere with any court proceeding.

The Court said Heydarian's remarks amounted to reasonable criticism on an issue of public concern and did not demonstrate malice or disrespect toward the judiciary. It likewise ruled that Cendaña's statements reflected his disagreement with the Court's decision and did not amount to an attempt to obstruct the administration of justice.

As for Gadon, the Court acknowledged that his remarks were disrespectful but ruled that they did not rise to the level of indirect contempt because they were not intended to interfere with court proceedings or influence any pending case.

While dismissing the petitions, the Supreme Court reminded the respondents to help promote meaningful public discussion on judicial decisions and encouraged them to express their criticisms in a respectful, fair, and responsible manner.