The Supreme Court has issued a show-cause order against the former spokesperson of the anti-insurgency task force following her statements against a Manila Regional Trial Court judge.
Lorraine Badoy is ordered to explain within 30 days why she should not be cited in contempt of the judiciary and the high court over her social media posts concerning Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar.
The high court said that the controversial former spokesperson of the National Task Force to End Local Community Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) should respond to the following issues under oath:
- Whether or not she posted or caused the posting of the statements attacking the September 21, 2022 Resolution rendered by the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. R MNL-18-00925-CV in any or all of her social media accounts;
- Whether or not her social media post encouraged more violent language against the judge concerned in any or all of her social media platforms;
- Whether or not her post, in the context of social media and in the experience of similar incendiary comments here or abroad, was a clear incitement to produce violent actions against a judge and is likely to produce such act; and
- Whether or not her statements on her social media accounts, implying violence on a judge, is part of her protected constitutional speech
The SC said it had noted the statements of HUKOM Inc., a group of trial court judges, the Philippine Bar Association and the University of the Philippines’ College of Law faculty, which have all condemned and raised alarm over Badoy’s posts.
It added that the tribunal had taken note of actions taken by the Office of the Court Administrator to ensure the safety and security of Magdoza-Malagar.
Last month, the high court tackled motu proprio (on its own) possible actions regarding Badoy’s statements and gave her a stern warning.
The former NTF-ELCAC spokesperson previously threatened Magdoza-Malagar after the latter dismissed a government petition declaring the Communist Party of the Philippines and New People’s Army as terrorists.
Badoy, in a now-deleted post, called on the public to be “lenient” with her if she decides to “kill” the judge. Badoy claimed Magdoza-Malagar was a “friend and defender” of communist rebels.
Meanwhile, the SC’s show-cause order was perceived as a “retribution” by some Filipinos who recalled Badoy’s red-tagging spree against activists, personalities and groups.
“Sana tuloy tuloy na! Justice para sa lahat nang na-red tag,” a Twitter user commented.
“Ganyan dapat. Protect our Judiciary,” a lawyer wrote.
“Tag the [red-tagger],” another Twitter user said.
“A glimmer of hope amid longstanding impunity of vicious state actors,” commented a different Pinoy.
Some of those who Badoy has previously red-tagged are the Angat Buhay non-government organization, a think tank executive, an elderly activist nun, college students and a community pantry organizer, among others.
The SC defines red-tagging as “the act of labeling, branding, naming and accusing individuals and/or organizations of being left-leaning, subversives, communists or terrorists (used as) a strategy… by State agents, particularly law enforcement agencies and the military, against those perceived to be ‘threats’ or ‘enemies of the State.'”
Being red-tagged could expose the individual to several risks, which include interception and recording of the communication, detention without charges, restricted travel and personal liberties, examination of bank records and seizure and sequestration of assets.