Case Digest (A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC and G.R. No. 263384, decided August 15, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc resolved contempt charges against Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa (the respondent) for threatening and disparaging statements she posted on her public Facebook page from September 23 to 26, 2022. These posts criticized and vilified Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Manila, after the judge dismissed the Department of Justice’s petition to proscribe the Communist Party of the Philippines–New People’s Army–National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDF) under the Human Security Act. In her posts titled “A Judgment Straight from the Bowels of Communist Hell,” “The Judge Marlo Malagar Horror Series,” and follow-up entries, Badoy-Partosa accused the judge of bias, threatened to kill her, urged the bombing of judges’ offices, and questioned her integrity and independence. Scores of followers echoed her vitriol, prompting denouncements from legal organizations lik Case Digest (A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the proscription case
- On September 21, 2022, Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar of RTC Manila Branch 19 dismissed the DOJ’s petition to proscribe the CPP-NPA-NDF as a terrorist group under the Human Security Act.
- The decision applied “leniency” to political crimes and held the CPP-NPA-NDF not organized for terrorism.
- Badoy-Partosa’s series of Facebook posts (September 23–26, 2022)
- “A Judgment Straight from the Bowels of Communist Hell” (Sept 23): multiple insults, false imputations that the judge “lawyered” for the CPP-NPA-NDF, threats to kill the judge, and incitement of violence.
- “The Judge Marlo Malagar Horror Series” (Sept 23): threats to bomb judges’ offices, urging formation of a violent group.
- Follow-up posts (Sept 24–26): red-tagging the judge, alleging her husband’s CPP ties, soliciting names of supposed CPP cadre friends, mocking legal statements.
- Reactions and institutional responses
- Legal organizations (HUKOM, Philippine Judges Ass’n, IBP) denounced Badoy-Partosa’s “malicious and dangerous” vitriol.
- On October 4, 2022, the SC motu proprio issued a warning and Show Cause Order in A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC, requiring Badoy-Partosa to explain her posts as contempt.
- October 3, 2022: A group of lawyers filed an Urgent Petition for Indirect Contempt (G.R. No. 263384) against Badoy-Partosa.
- Respondent’s and petitioners’ pleadings; consolidation
- Badoy-Partosa’s Comment/Opposition: defended her posts as fair comment, journalistic criticism, “hypothetical syllogism” of the judge’s reasoning.
- Petitioners’ Reply: argued no good faith, posts full of half-truths, clear and present danger to judicial independence.
- February 14, 2023: SC consolidated G.R. No. 263384 with A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC for joint resolution.
Issues:
- Do the petitioners in G.R. No. 263384—lawyers and deans—have legal standing to file the Urgent Petition for Indirect Contempt against Badoy-Partosa?
- Should Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa be cited for indirect contempt of court for her Facebook statements threatening and vilifying Judge Magdoza-Malagar and the Judiciary?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)