SC issues show cause order vs Lorraine Badoy | Inquirer News

SC issues show cause order vs Lorraine Badoy

/ 04:16 PM October 04, 2022
SC issues show cause order vs. Badoy

FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines — Former National Task Force to End Local Armed Conflict (NTF-Elcac) spokesperson Lorraine Badoy is now the subject of a show cause order from the Supreme Court (SC) asking her to explain why she should not be cited for indirect contempt for her statements against Manila Regional Trial Court Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar.

Badoy was given 30 non-extendible calendar days upon notice to explain why she should not be cited in contempt of the judiciary and the SC.

ADVERTISEMENT

Specifically, the high court required Badoy to explain the following:

  • If she posted statements attacking the resolution issued by Manila RTC Judge Magdoza-Malagar;
  • If her social media post “encouraged more violent language against the judge concerned in any or all of her social media platforms;
  • If her post “in the context of social media and in the experience of similar incendiary comments here or abroad, was a clear incitement to produce violent actions against a judge and is likely to produce such act; and
  • If her statements on her social media accounts, “implying violence on a judge, is part of her protected constitutional speech

The SC, in the same order, took note of the statement made by Hukom Inc., an organization of trial court judges, in reaction to the social media posts made by Badoy against their colleague.

FEATURED STORIES

In her social media post, Badoy called Manila Regional Trial Court Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar an “idiot judge” who lawyers for the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA). She also made a hypothetical situation about her “killing” the judge but she can beg for leniency as it was done because of her political belief. The post has since been deleted and denied.

In a separate post, Badoy asked why Magdoza-Malagar was “so well-versed” about the Constitution of the CPP-NPA that only the group’s members should supposedly know. She also mentioned human rights lawyers Edre Olalia, Maria Sol Taule, and Rachel Pastores, asking if they were the ones who wrote her decision.

“Recent events, however, have magnified the effect of criticism of the judiciary … We cannot rest easy and accept them as normal and ordinary. These acts must be called out because of the chilling effect on the exercise of our judicial functions and the lasting damage they cause to our institution,” Hukom said in a statement.

READ: Trial court judges slam Badoy for ‘red-tagging’ of Manila judge

The SC likewise noted the statement made by the University of the Philippines College of Law, calling on the high court to take action against Badoy’s statements.

Meanwhile,  the Office of the Court Administrator has already taken steps to ensure the safety and security of Magdoza-Malagar.

ADVERTISEMENT

This is not the first time that the SC acted against red-tagging of members of the Bar and the Bench.

In March, the SC said the killings and threats against judges and lawyers are “no less than an assault on the judiciary.”

“The Court condemns in the strongest sense every instance where a lawyer is threatened or killed, and where a judge is threatened and unfairly labeled. We do not and will not tolerate such acts that only perverse justice, defeat the rule of law, undermine the most basic of constitutional principles, and speculate on the worth of human lives,” it said.

The SC also enumerated what it has done to address the threats and killings.

RELATED STORIES

Lawyers ask SC to cite Lorraine Badoy for indirect contempt for threat vs judge

SC warns: Anyone red-tagging, threatening judges may be cited for contempt

JMS
Read Next
Don't miss out on the latest news and information.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

TAGS: Lorraine Badoy, NTF-ELCAC, Supreme Court
For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.



© Copyright 1997-2022 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.