13/10/2026
The has dismissed the petition for indirect contempt against Senator Vicente โTitoโ Sotto III over his public criticism of the Courtโs ruling on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte (G.R. Nos. 278353 and 278359, Duterte v. House of Representatives et al.), holding that his statements are protected by the constitutional freedoms of speech and expression.
In a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC En Banc reaffirmed that freedom of speech and expression enjoys the highest constitutional protection, particularly when the speech involves political matters.
In media interviews and social media posts, Senator Sotto questioned the Courtโs ruling, claiming, among others, that the ponente was unfamiliar with congressional rules and that the decision effectively amended the Constitution.
The SC found that Senator Sottoโs statements did not amount to indirect contempt.
Under Rule 71, Section 3(d) of the Rules of Court, conduct that impedes or obstructs the administration of justice may be punished as indirect contempt. However, when the alleged contempt involves speech, courts must also consider the constitutional protections of free speech and expression. In determining whether speech may be restricted, courts must consider not only what was said, but also โhow, when, where it was expressed, and who spoke it.โ
Citing Tolentino v. Heydarian (G.R. Nos. E-01742 and E-01747), also penned by Senior Associate Justice Leonen, the SC reiterated that the Judiciary, like the other branches of government, remains subject to public scrutiny and criticism.
Under the doctrine of fair comment, statements concerning public officials in the performance of their duties are protected. Such statements do not automatically become punishable simply because they are false, harsh, or offensive.
As the Court explained, โthe guarantee of free speech was enacted to protect not only polite speech, but even in its most unsophisticated form.โ
Furthermore, the SC emphasized that โpolitical speech is accorded the greatest degree of protectionโ because it is a direct exercise of the peopleโs sovereignty.
The SC considered Senator Sottoโs position as a public official. It acknowledged that โthe reach of his statements is largeโ and that his authority โundeniably influences many in the public sphere.โ However, it noted that he made most of his statements in response to media questions.
The Decision stated that โthere is no showing he intended to incite or rally the public to lose trust in the independence of the Judiciaryโ and that โthere is no sign of bad faith or malice.โ
The SC warned that punishing someone for expressing disagreement with a court ruling would amount to โan undue stifling of the ordinary exercise of free expression.โ
Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174762
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution
