SENATE President Vicente Sotto III dismissed Saturday as a nuisance a petition for indirect contempt filed against him by lawyer Ferdinand Topacio before the Supreme Court.
Sotto said his public criticism of a court ruling is protected by the Constitution and established jurisprudence, and that Topacio's petition has no legal or factual basis.
“Simply expressing a disagreement or the mere act of criticizing the decision of the courts cannot constitute indirect contempt,” Sotto said in a statement. “As a lawyer, Atty. Topacio should know this.”
The Senate president argued that under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, indirect contempt refers to acts committed outside the courtroom that tend to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.
He maintained that none of his statements met that threshold.
“I did not do any of those acts. I disagreed with the court’s decision. That is protected speech under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution,” he said, invoking the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
Sotto cited jurisprudence to support his position, including In re Kelly, where the high court held that criticism of judicial acts is punishable only when it poses a “clear and present danger” to the administration of justice.
He likewise referenced Estrada v. Desierto, in which the tribunal underscored that courts are not immune from criticism and are expected to withstand dissent in a democratic system.
Legal observers note that the power to cite individuals for indirect contempt is exercised sparingly, particularly when the alleged acts involve public commentary, given the constitutional protections afforded to free expression.
The Supreme Court has historically balanced its authority to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings with the public’s right to scrutinize and debate court decisions.
Sotto said he would formally respond to the petition once directed to do so by the high court.