LAST Tuesday, Judge Maria Angelica P. de Ramos of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 98 heard the oral arguments on the grave threats case filed against Vice President Sara Duterte by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
According to media friends who covered the hearing, it was held behind closed doors. However, sources said that de Ramos herself revealed that she and Duterte were sorority sisters in Sororitas Reginae Juris, a law school sorority at the San Beda College of Law.
For the record, de Ramos is hearing the case docketed as People of the Philippines v. Sara Duterte y Zimmerman (Case Nos. R-QZN-26-06956 to 06958-CR), involving three counts of grave threats under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, or Republic Act 10175.
While both the prosecution and defense lawyers acknowledged the judge’s disclosure, something needs scrutiny.
You see, while Sororitas Reginae Juris is guided by their foundational statement, “A sisterhood of noble women versed in law and in the administration of justice,” their fraternity upholds the motto, “Unbreakable: Forged by Resilience. Our sisterhood is a powerful testament to unity and unwavering support.”
Unbreakable. Forged by resilience. Unity and unwavering support. The question is for whom? For law and justice? Or for their sorority sisters?
Of course, we appreciate the fact that Judge de Ramos openly admitted her being a sorority sister of VP Sara, whose case she is handling. But what is surprising here is that the prosecution reportedly did not move for the judge to inhibit herself.
Two things here. For ordinary observers, it would cast doubt on the prosecution’s sincerity and seriousness in prosecuting the case, as they totally ignored the possible relationship between the judge and the accused being sorority sisters.
But, on the other hand, the prosecution, insisting they have prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction against Duterte, is confident they have a strong case and is relying on de Ramos’ impartiality to win it.
And in the event that de Ramos denies the defense’s motion to quash the case and eventually secures a conviction, it would come in a most convincing fashion, as no less than a sorority sister of the vice president had handed down the decision. Any doubt of a whitewash would easily be invalidated.
And that would be most welcome. I’m just hoping they made the right move.
****
I totally agree that even civil servants enjoy their right to free speech and they can discuss public issues and the work of their leaders.
However, that right is not absolute. As public servants, they are bound by professional conduct, and they cannot use rude, threatening, or defamatory language against bosses or officials.
I’m raising this matter after I ran across a news article published in an online publication regarding an incident involving an elected councilor of Pagbilao, Quezon, and an individual believed to be an employee of the municipal government.
During Pagbilao’s 296th founding anniversary, councilor Angelo Laurence Arriola posted an item on his social media account questioning the images used for the event’s promotion, which he said were plainly generated by artificial intelligence, as evidenced by the fabricated-looking people. This was despite the municipal government having in its possession photos taken by its own photographers, Arriola stressed.
Arriola, however, clarified that he joined the mounting public criticism on the use of the materials, but this was not tantamount to attacking the municipal government; his main objective was only to push officials to correct weaknesses in the delivery of services.
However, the issue escalated when someone posted on social media, using an account called “Katotohanan ng Pagbilao,” attacking his shared post and telling him, in effect, to stop making noise and simply support the administration.
Investigating the matter, Arriola told the municipal council in a privileged speech that he had traced a phone number associated with the account to a municipal employee. He presented the link as his own finding during the speech.
Arriola also presented another social media post, which he attributed to a municipal employee drawn into the same dispute over artificial intelligence. The post defended work on the Mayor’s Cup 2026 logo and mocked anticipated criticism that the design had been created using AI.
Arriola hit it right when he said, “The purpose of criticism is not to tear down. Its aim is to improve service, rectify shortcomings, and safeguard the trust reposed in us by the people.”
Exactly in the same manner the employee who reportedly made the social media post should see it and respond to it. He or she may enjoy the right to free speech and criticize with the purpose of correcting a weakness and strengthening the delivery of public service. And not to attack an elected official, which is an insult to the office he or she represents.
The town’s vice mayor, Wally Dapla, has stepped into the issue, declaring that they “do not curtail freedom of speech. But if, for example, this is becoming abusive, then of course, something needs to be done.”
Again, we all enjoy the right to free speech, including government employees. But be reminded that ranting or launching malicious attacks can count as “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service” or insubordination.
