黑料社

Invoking freedom of expression and of the press, a former mouthpiece of the government鈥檚 anti-insurgency task force has asked the Supreme Court to set aside the show cause order it issued and not to declare her in contempt of court over her social media posts that allegedly threatened a local judge who had ruled against labeling communist groups terrorists.

Lorraine Badoy, who served under the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-Elcac) during the Duterte administration, said her posts were about a 鈥渕atter of public interest鈥� and should be considered 鈥渇air comment consistent with the pronouncement of the high court.鈥�

In a 49-page comment filed on Thursday, Badoy urged the tribunal to 鈥渢ilt anew the balance in favor of freedom of expression and of the press.鈥�

The court earlier ordered Badoy to explain her statements made in September lambasting Manila Regional Trial Court Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar over her Sept. 21 decision dismissing a Department of Justice petition to outlaw the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People鈥檚 Army (NPA).

Badoy鈥檚 remarks earned the ire of hundreds of lawyers and school deans, who later asked the high court to take action against the former NTF-Elcac official.

Among the statements they cited were Badoy鈥檚 comments calling out Malagar鈥檚 鈥減assionate lawyering for the CPP-NPA鈥� and describing the judge as 鈥渦nprincipled,鈥� a 鈥渢raitor鈥� and an 鈥渋diot.鈥� Badoy also called Magdoza-Malagar鈥檚 ruling a 鈥渏udgment straight from the bowels of hell.鈥�

Shortly after the petition was filed, the Supreme Court issued a statement warning of punitive action against 鈥渢hose who continue to incite violence through social media and other means which endanger the lives of judges and their families.鈥欌��

鈥楬测辫别谤产辞濒别鈥�

In the comment she filed on Thursday, Badoy said: 鈥淭he use of contempt powers of the Supreme Court against a fair criticism by Dr. Badoy in her exercise of journalistic comment of an erroneous decision of a lower court judge constitutes punishment and thus infringes on her freedom of expression and freedom of the press.鈥�

She said her comments were also made in the exercise of her rights as a journalist. Badoy is a commentator on SMNI 黑料社, which airs on the network owned by controversial televangelist Apollo Quiboloy.

鈥淏y 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,鈥� Badoy said.

鈥淚f at all, respondent Dr. Badoy鈥檚 words are a clear example of hyperbole, or a reductio ad absurdum to stress a point,鈥� the comment read. 鈥淚n her own words: she used a 鈥榟ypothetical syllogism鈥� to make her point that her decision to not declare the CPP and NPA as terrorist organizations were 鈥榓bsurd and dangerous.鈥� Defended by Roque

In an interview after the filing, Badoy reiterated that her social media posts about Magdoza-Malagar were 鈥渄efinitely not a threat.鈥�

鈥淲hat I said was an if-then statement. It鈥檚 a syllogism, hypothetical syllogism, deductive reasoning,鈥� said Badoy, who was accompanied by her lawyer, Harry Roque, a former spokesperson of then President Rodrigo Duterte.

鈥淔or speech to be considered incitement, it must reach a high threshold, which in Philippine jurisprudence is speech that threatens to provoke imminent lawless action,鈥� Badoy said, adding she had no track record of threatening and hurting people.

鈥淭he one with that kind of track record is the CPP-NPA-NDF [or the National Democratic Front of the Philippines],鈥� she said.

Also speaking to reporters, Roque said the Supreme Court had consistently shown leniency toward criticism made by lawyers and laymen about lower court judges or decisions.

Based on jurisprudence, he said, 鈥渢he Supreme Court has tilted in favor of freedom of expression over the administration of justice where offending remarks were leveled against the lower court judges.鈥�

Citing Borjal vs Court of Appeals, he said the tribunal ruled that 鈥渇air commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel of slander.鈥� INQ

RELATED STORY:

SC asked to scrap Lorraine Badoy鈥檚 show-cause order