Former NTF-ELCAC spox Badoy counters indirect contempt bid

Lorraine Badoy, the former spokesperson for the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), on Thursday filed her comment over the petition seeking to declare her guilty of indirect contempt of court.

In the comment, Badoy asked the Supreme Court to declare her not guilty of indirect contempt on the grounds that she gave a fair comment and that nothing she said can be considered incitement.

“Wherefore, premises considered, it is most ardently prayed of this Honorable Court to tilt anew the balance in favor of freedom of expression and of the press, and to declare respondent… not guilty of indirect contempt,” it read.

The petition, filed by a lawyer’s group last month, stemmed from Badoy's "contumacious" series of social media posts "aimed to assault and humiliate" Manila Regional Trial Court Presiding Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar.

Badoy criticized Malagar for her decision to dismiss the Department of Justice's proscription case seeking to declare the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army as terrorist groups.

The former spokesperson argued that being cited in contempt will be an infringement of her freedom of expression and freedom of the press as it was a “fair criticism… of an erroneous decision.”

No danger

Badoy further said that there is nothing on her social media posts that could be considered incitement that breaches the clear and present danger rule.

"For speech to be considered incitement, it must reach a high threshold, which in Philippine jurisprudence is speech that threatens to provoke imminent lawless action," she said in her comment.

Regarding her statement on Facebook that the law should be lenient with her if she were to kill Malagar after the judge ruled that the acts of the CPP-NPA should be considered “political crimes,” Badoy argued that this was only an exaggeration.

"If at all, Respondent Dr. Badoy’s words are a clear example of hyperbole, or a reductio ad absurdum to stress a point,” the comment read.

“In her own words: she used a ‘hypothetical syllogism’ to make her point that her decision to not declare the CPP and NPA as terrorist organizations were ‘absurd and dangerous,” it added.

Badoy further said that her post was an “if-then” statement and does not explicitly call for violence against the judge.

“Definitely not a threat. ‘Yung sinabi ko it was an if-then statement. Isa siyang syllogism. Hypothetical syllogism, deductive reasoning doon at saka wala akong track record na nag tre-threaten at nananakit ng tao,” Badoy said in an ambush interview.

(Definitely not a threat. What I said was an if-then statement. It’s a syllogism. Hypothetical syllogism, deductive reasoning. And I have no track record of threatening and hurting people.)

“Ang may track record niyan ang CPP-NPA-NDF. Nowhere in what I wrote was a threat or even an incitement to violence. Because this is exactly what I’ve been fighting for na tigilan ang biolensya,” she added.

(The one with the track record of that is the CPP-NPA-NDF. Nowhere in what I wrote was a threat or even an incitement to violence. Because this is exactly what I’ve been fighting for, the end of violence.)

The Supreme Court previously warned that provoking violence against judges and their families through social media and other means would be considered "contempt."

Badoy’s legal counsel, Atty. Harry Roque, meanwhile said freedom of expression should not only be used by critics of the government.

“Kinakailangan ‘yung mga bumabatikos sa gobyerno kapag sila ay pulaan, tanggapin rin nila ‘yun. Kasi ang malayang pananalita na para lang sa bumabatikos sa gobyerno, ang tawag diyan proapaganda,” he said.

(Critics or government who get criticized must also accept it. Because freedom of speech that is only for critics is called propaganda.) —KBK/RSJ, GMA Integrated News