THE Supreme Court has dismissed separate indirect contempt cases against Akbayan Party-list Rep. Percival Cendaña, Presidential Adviser for Poverty Alleviation Lorenzo Gadon and political analyst Richard Heydarian over their public remarks criticizing the court’s 2025 ruling that declared the fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
In an 87-page decision promulgated last April 8, but released on Thursday, the court unanimously ruled that the petitions lacked merit, emphasizing that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression extends to criticism of judicial decisions involving matters of public concern.
The decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, dismissed the petitions filed by lawyers Mark Kristopher Tolentino and Rolex Suplico against Cendaña and Heydarian, as well as a petition by lawyer Ferdinand Topacio against Gadon.
The complaints arose from statements made by the respondents following the Supreme Court’s July 25, 2025, decision in Duterte v. House of Representatives, which struck down the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte as unconstitutional.
After the ruling, Heydarian posted on X that 13 of the Court’s 15 justices were appointees of former president Rodrigo Duterte. Cendaña, on the other hand, said the decision set a “dangerous precedent” and accused the court of disregarding the Constitution, while Gadon described the court as a puppet of the Dutertes.
The petitioners argued that the statements undermined the authority, dignity and integrity of the judiciary, and warranted sanctions for indirect contempt.
In their responses, the respondents invoked their constitutional right to free expression. Heydarian said he merely stated a fact, Cendaña argued that his remarks were not intended to obstruct the administration of justice, while Gadon maintained that his statements reflected public perceptions regarding the court’s alleged bias.
In rejecting the petitions, the Supreme Court said it carefully balanced its authority to protect judicial independence with its constitutional duty to safeguard free expression.
It stressed that the protection of free speech has deep constitutional roots dating back to the 1899 Malolos Constitution and has been reinforced under the present Constitution.
It also noted that courts should exercise restraint before punishing speech concerning public affairs or the official acts of government officials, including members of the judiciary.
The court cautioned against using contempt proceedings to silence criticism.
“In wielding our inherent power of contempt, this court should also be wary and discerning of attempts of others to suppress critical speech that feeds democracy,” it said.
The justices likewise recognized the realities of modern public discourse, observing that social media has enabled citizens to rapidly express opinions or “hot takes” on issues of public concern.
At the same time, the court reminded the public that freedom of expression is not absolute. “While the public has the right to be critical about the court’s decisions and its policies, there is no license for anyone to abuse their freedom of speech,” it said.
Cendaña and Heydarian welcomed the dismissal of the contempt petitions.
“While my statements were indeed critical of the High Court, the ruling affirms every citizens’ freedom of expression, including political expression, made within the bounds of law,” Cendaña said in a statement on Thursday.
Gadon told The Manila Times via Viber he expected the dismissal, saying the case filed against him by Topacio was “purely nuisance.”Topacio “only wanted to gain publicity because that is his specialty — to create noise in the media,” he said.
“All noise. That is why all the cases of his clients, including ex-president Rodrigo Duterte, Alice Guo, Cedric Lee, Deniece Cornejo and many more, were all lost. As a result, they all landed in jail,” Gadon said.
