The Supreme Court (SC) has directed Senate President Vicente Sotto III to respond to a petition seeking to cite him for indirect contempt over his public remarks criticizing the High Court’s 2025 ruling that dismissed the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.
In a resolution dated April 8 and released on May 4, the SC gave Sotto 10 days upon receipt of the notice to file his comment.
The Allegations
The petition was filed by lawyers Ferdinand Topacio and Manuelito Luna, businesswoman Cathy Binag, and former Representative Mike Defensor.
They argued that Sotto’s public disapproval of the ruling went beyond fair commentary and amounted to “improper conduct” that undermined the dignity of the judiciary.
The controversy stems from the SC’s July 25, 2025 decision invalidating the House impeachment complaint against the Vice President. The court ruled that the complaint violated the constitutional “one-year bar” rule and infringed upon due process rights.
Petitioners accused Sotto of:
- Calling the ruling a “sad day for Constitutional Law.”
- Accusing the SC of judicial overreach and judicial legislation.
- Using his position as Senate President to give his criticisms undue weight, potentially harming the judiciary’s reputation.
Sotto’s Defense
Sotto dismissed the petition as a “nuisance suit” and a “publicity stunt,” insisting that his remarks were protected speech.
“As a lawyer, Atty. Topacio should know this. He has a long record of publicly criticizing court decisions that are unfavorable to his clients.”
He argued that under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, indirect contempt requires intent or a tendency to obstruct justice—something his comments did not do.
“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 maintained that judicial criticism is only punishable when it poses a “clear and present danger” to the administration of justice, stressing that voicing disagreement with a legal conclusion does not meet that threshold.