By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The Supreme Court has dismissed an indirect contempt complaint against Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III over his criticism of the high court and its ruling on Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment, reaffirming that political speech enjoys the highest degree of constitutional protection—even when directed against the judiciary.
In a decision promulgated en banc on October 7, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that Sotto’s public statements did not constitute indirect contempt, emphasizing that freedom of expression protects not only polite disagreement but also criticism expressed in less restrained terms.
The complaint was filed by a group of lawyers over Sotto’s remarks concerning the ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives, which dealt with the impeachment proceedings against the Vice President.
The decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, underscored the constitutional importance of protecting political expression in a democratic society.
“The guarantee of free speech was enacted to protect not only polite speech, but even in its most unsophisticated form,” the Supreme Court said in a statement.
The high court explained that political speech receives the highest degree of protection because it represents a direct exercise of the people’s sovereignty.
In evaluating Sotto’s statements, the court applied the “incitement test,” examining whether the senator had intentionally incited the public to lose trust in the judiciary.
The Supreme Court said that even if the statements were treated as incitement, they did not result in violence, whether stochastic or otherwise.
The ruling also recognized that criticism and disagreement over judicial decisions are inevitable in a democratic system. The judiciary, the court stressed, must remain receptive to criticism rather than treat every expression of dissent as contempt.
“With this decision, we double down not only on freedom of expression but on full respect for the respondent,” the Supreme Court said.
The dismissal leaves the contempt complaint against Sotto without further action in this case and reinforces the constitutional protection afforded to political criticism of government institutions, including the judiciary.
ia/xf
