SC dismisses indirect contempt raps vs Sotto

MANILA, Philippines — Citing freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has cleared former Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III of indirect contempt after he criticized it for its July 25, 2025 ruling on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

The high tribunal said in a decision dated Oct. 7 that it applied both the “incitement” and “clear and present danger” tests in determining whether the statements of an individual were contemptuous.

In the case of Sotto, his remarks did not pose such a threat as even “provocative, harsh and critical statements are still protected speech” under the Constitution, it noted.

According to the Supreme Court, the incitement test gauges whether the respondent intended to spur the public into losing confidence in the judiciary or into obstructing the administration of justice.

READ: Sotto welcomes SC dismissal of indirect contempt case

In the clear and present danger test, free speech may be curbed if there is a risk of terrorism.

“There is no showing he intended to incite or rally the public to lose trust in the independence of the judiciary,” read part of the high court’s ruling that has yet to be released as of Tuesday night. “There is no sign of bad faith or malice.”

READ: SC orders Sotto to comment on indirect contempt petition

“As a matter of paramount public interest … discussions on impeachment proceedings, including opinions critical of the court’s decisions, should be free and unrestricted by fears of subsequent punishment,” it added.

The Supreme Court also reiterated its stance that the judiciary, just like other branches of government, is “subject to public scrutiny and criticism.”

It said this was likewise the rationale behind its ruling in April that cleared Inquirer columnist Richard Heydarian, Akbayan Rep. Perci Cendaña, and presidential antipoverty czar Larry Gadon of contempt.

The trio had also criticized the Supreme Court ruling that the impeachment proceedings against Duterte were unconstitutional.

‘Clear encroachment’

The case against Sotto, which was filed by Manuelito Luna and other lawyers, stemmed from his response to media queries on Jan. 29 this year, in which he said the high court’s decision virtually amended the Constitution when it committed judicial overreach.

He also called the ruling a “clear encroachment” on the powers of the legislature.

On Tuesday, Sotto thanked the Supreme Court, saying, “This decision protects the right of every Filipino to speak freely on issues that affect the nation.”

“Freedom of speech and expression is one of our strongest safeguards against tyranny. When people are free to question those in power, in any branch of government, power is kept in check,” he said in a statement.

According to him, although he disagreed with the July 2025 decision, it did not mean that he had lost respect for the high court.

“I have always held it in high regard as an institution, and I return the respect it has shown me in its decision,” Sotto said.

“Again, my gratitude to the Court, and I will speak freely, always with respect for our institutions. Praise God!” he added. /cb