The Supreme Court (SC) has cleared political analyst Richard Heydarian, Akbayan Party-list Representative Perci Cendaña, and Presidential Adviser for Poverty Alleviation Larry Gadon of indirect contempt charges.
The complaints were filed over public comments they made regarding the high tribunal’s 2025 decision that blocked an impeachment bid against Vice President Sara Duterte.
The legal dispute arose after the High Court’s July 25, 2025 ruling, authored by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, which voided the House of Representatives’ impeachment complaint against the Vice President. The court ruled that sending the complaint to the Senate violated the constitutional one-year bar rule under Article XI, Section 3(5), as well as Duterte’s right to due process.
However, the judiciary made it clear that the ruling was not an acquittal.
“is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting Feb. 6, 2026.”
Duterte is currently facing a separate, subsequently filed impeachment trial in the Senate.
Following the 2025 decision, Heydarian, an academic and political commentator, posted on X (formerly Twitter): “DUTERTE had APPOINTED as many as 13 of 15 SUPREME COURT justices.”
Around the same time, Cendaña posted a video on Facebook criticizing the ruling’s impact on government accountability.
“The dismissal of the impeachment sets a dangerous precedent. Lahat ng tiwaling pulitiko pwedeng magtago sa likod ng Supreme Court at takasan ang pananagutan sa sambayanan. A [disastrous] day for Philippine democracy.”
Gadon also targeted the tribunal, calling the body “tuta ng mga Duterte”
Lawyers Mark Tolentino and Rolex Suplico filed a petition against Heydarian and Cendaña, arguing that Heydarian’s remarks went beyond fair commentary by implying the justices lacked independence and were beholden to former President Rodrigo Duterte. They further accused Cendaña of eroding public trust by suggesting the judiciary was shielding corrupt officials.
In a separate petition, lawyer Ferdinand Topacio targeted Gadon, asserting that his remarks degraded public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.
Defending his post, Heydarian explained to the court that his statement was a verifiable fact that should be viewed in its full context, noting he had followed up with:
“Nevertheless, the decision was unanimous .and it would be unfair to automatically cast judgment just because of appointment patterns.”
Cendaña asserted that while free speech has boundaries, his criticism was a good-faith opinion on an issue of deep public interest.
Gadon similarly maintained he was exercising his right to free expression, clarifying that he never accused the court of corruption but was simply expressing frustration over what he perceived as bias toward the Vice President.
In throwing out the complaints, the Supreme Court emphasized the judiciary’s mandate to resolve conflicts orderly and review potential government abuses of discretion.
“Our judicial system is designed to provide a peaceful and orderly means of resolving disputes by entrusting the administration of justice to the courts. It ensures that grievances are addressed through established legal processes rather than through violence, mob rule, or extrajudicial means. In this way, the people are assured that their rights can be vindicated and conflicts settled within the framework of law.”
The tribunal strongly defended the protection of open democratic debate and political criticism.
“Criticizing the Court for its decisions and policies is one of the most protected forms of political expression. Thus, before it may be deemed as contemptuous, the danger of the speech must not only be clear and present danger to the Court’s administration of justice. It must also incite the public to lose trust in the Judiciary, and the imminence and likelihood of this intended effect must also be established.”
The Court added that robust public discourse must be preserved.
“In dismissing the Petitions, the Court affirms its commitment that public discussions on matters of paramount public interests should be free. There should be space for democratic discourse where the people are given the widest latitude to express their opinions without fear of being subsequently punished.”
Acknowledging how social media has transformed public commentary, the justices noted:
“In today’s digital world, where social media sites allow anyone to share their concerns and their ‘hot takes’ on public issues, this Court should also be selective in deciding what is worthy of its time and attention. On the other hand, while the public has the right to be critical about the Court’s decisions and its policies, there is no license for anyone to abuse their freedom of speech.”
The SC warned that while malicious falsehoods remain punishable, political criticism does not warrant contempt unless it poses a direct, imminent threat to the justice system.
“The Court will not hesitate to punish those who utter false comments. However, political speech must amount to the level of not only inciting the public to lose trust in the Judiciary, but the circumstances must also be assessed as to whether the communicative impact of the speech can imminently result to the intended outcome of the speaker. In wielding our inherent power of contempt, this Court should also be wary and discerning of attempts of others to suppress critical speech that feeds democracy.”
Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the cases entirely.
“ACCORDINGLY, the Verified Petitions for Indirect Contempt in G.R. Nos. E-01742 and E-01747 are DISMISSED for lack of merit.”