Sotto on indirect contempt case: ‘Merely a publicity stunt’

MANILA, Philippines — Senate President Vicente Sotto III on Saturday said the indirect contempt case filed against him before the Supreme Court (SC) by several lawyers, including Ferdinand Topacio, was “merely a publicity stunt,” emphasizing that he just expressed disagreement with the high court’s decision on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. 

Topacio and fellow lawyers Manuelito Luna, Harold Respicio, Mary Catherine Binag, and Virgilio Garcia asked the SC on Friday to cite Sotto in indirect contempt for his statements following the high court’s decision to affirm its earlier ruling striking down the impeachment complaints against Duterte. 

READ: SC still unanimous: VP impeachment void

Upon the filing, Topacio said the petitioners believed that Sotto’s public statements exceeded the legitimate commentary and transgressed “into territory of statements that tend to demean and destroy the credibility and undermine the faith of the people in the Supreme Court.”

Topacio also said Sotto had expressed that first-year law students do better than the justices of the SC, emphasizing that Sotto is free to say whatever he wants as long as it does not violate the rules of contempt. Topacio added that SC is just doing its job and “what the Senate President is doing is totally uncalled for.”

Sotto, however, said the contempt petition was a “nuisance suit. It has no legal or factual basis. It is merely a publicity stunt.”

“Simply expressing a disagreement or the mere act of criticizing the decision of the courts cannot constitute indirect contempt. As a lawyer, Atty. Topacio should know this. He has a long record of publicly criticizing court decisions that are unfavorable to his clients,” Sotto said in a statement. 

READ: Sotto: Impeachment now an ‘impossible dream’ after SC ruling

Sotto earlier commented that with the high court’s decision, impeachment is now an “impossible dream.”

He also said that Jan. 29, the day the SC upheld with finality the unconstitutionality of the impeachment, was a sad day for constitutional law students and professors and that “when the law is clear, there is nothing to interpret, as any first-year law student knows.”

The SC earlier ruled that the complaint was barred by a one-year period where no official must face more than one impeachment proceeding in the same year. 

Citing Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, where indirect contempt consists of impeding the obstruction or degrading the administration of justice, Sotto said that he did not commit any of these acts.

“I did not do any of those acts.  I simply expressed a disagreement with the court decision. That is protected speech under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution,” Sotto added. 

Sotto also said that he will formally respond to the petition filed against him once the SC asks him to do so. /das