In defense of FB rants, Badoy-Partosa claims free speech, press freedom
MANILA, Philippines — Former Palace official Lorraine Badoy-Partosa asked the Supreme Court not to declare her in indirect contempt of court because her social media posts suggesting Manila Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar has links to communist rebels is part of her "freedom of expression and of the press."
The SC has ordered Badoy-Partosa to explain her posts on Facebook that also implied threats to shoot Judge Malagar and to bomb judges' offices.
Badoy-Partosa urged the SC to "tilt anew the balance in favor of freedom of expression and of the press" in her 49-paged comment to the SC’s Show Cause Order, filed through her lawyer Harry Roque, on Thursday.
"The use of contempt powers of the [SC] against a fair criticism by respondent [Badoy] in her exercise of journalistic comment, of an erroneous decision of a lower court judge, constitutes subsequent punishment and thus infringes on respondent’s freedom of expression and freedom of the press," Badoy-Partosa said.
Badoy-Partosa had not previously identified as a journalist but is a commentator for the media network owned by controversial pastor Apollo Quiboloy.
The SC initiated the proceedings against Badoy motu proprio (on its own) over her posts on Judge Malagar who dismissed the government’s proscription petition against communist rebels. But Badoy, a former spokesperson of the Duterte government’s controversial anti-insurgency task force, went to her Facebook — and later, commentaries on SMNI — to even saying:
If I kill this judge and I do so out of my political belief that all allies of the CPP NPA NDF must be killed because there is no difference in my mind between a member of the CPP NPA NDF and their friends, then please be lenient with me.
Worth noting is that when the SC issued its show-cause order, the high court had asked her to explain why she should not be cited in contempt of the Judiciary.
Under the Rules of Court, indirect contempt may be punished by a fine or by imprisonment of six months or both.
Badoy says she's a journalist who used hyperbole
In the face of a show-cause order, Badoy-Partosa echoed her Facebook posts and maintained that Malagar made "eight palpable errors" in her decision and went as far as pinning the "fault" on Malagar.
She told the court that her social media posts were made on a "matter of public interest" and should constitute "fair comment consistent with the pronouncement of the High Court."
She also noted that she is a commentator of SMNI Network and her comments are not only covered by freedom of expression but were also done in the exercise of her rights as a journalist.
"By any current definition, her statements cannot be divorced from the fact that she did so in her exercise of her right to fair journalistic comment," she said in defense of the posts on her personal Facebook page.
Badoy-Partosa also said her post was a hyperbole, to stress her criticism of Malagar’s supposed “erroneous” ruling. “In her own words: she used a hypothetical syllogism to make her point that her decision to not declare the [Communist Party of the Philippines] and [New People's Army] as terrorist organizations were ‘absurd and dangerous.’”
There was also nothing in her post that called to harm the person of Judge Malagar not was the intent to incite violence is supposedly not clear, she said.
Badoy pointed out to the court that the "likelihood of imminent harm" on the Manila judge was belied by the fact that no harm came to Malagar. This, despite the threat to the judge made at a time when the members of the law profession are under attacks and killings that already prompted the SC earlier to warn against perpetrators of these assaults.
READ: Integrated Bar, PJA: Don't tolerate personal attacks and threats vs judges
"Finally, given the context of Dr. Badoy’s statement, both intent to incite and imminent harm as a result of her statement are both unlikely," she said.
- Latest
- Trending
