The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition for indirect contempt against Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III over his public criticism of the high tribunal’s ruling on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a statement Tuesday, it said Sotto, who was then Senate president, is “protected by the constitutional freedoms of speech and expression.”

The SC also reaffirmed that “freedom of speech and expression enjoys the highest constitutional protection, particularly when the speech involves political matters.”

Sotto’s public statements were made after the SC released its decision in a case involving the first impeachment proceedings against Duterte.

Sotto questioned the Court’s ruling, claiming, among others, that the ponente was unfamiliar with congressional rules and that the decision effectively amended the Constitution.

Private lawyers Manuelito Delos Reyes Luna and others later asked the SC to cite Sotto for indirect contempt, arguing that his public remarks were highly disrespectful of the Court and could undermine public confidence in the Judiciary.

Under Rule 71, Section 3(d) of the Rules of Court, conduct that impedes or obstructs the administration of justice may be punished as indirect contempt.

However, when the alleged contempt involves speech, courts must also consider the constitutional protections of free speech and expression.

In determining whether speech may be restricted, courts must consider not only what was said, but also “how, when, where it was expressed, and who spoke it,” the SC said.

The SC reiterated that the judiciary, like the other branches of government, remains subject to public scrutiny and criticism.

Under the doctrine of fair comment, statements concerning public officials in the performance of their duties are protected. Such statements do not automatically become punishable simply because they are false, harsh, or offensive, the SC said.

“The guarantee of free speech was enacted to protect not only polite speech, but even in its most unsophisticated form,” the Court said.

The SC also emphasized that “political speech is accorded the greatest degree of protection” because it directly exercises the people’s sovereignty.

The high tribunal also noted the changing digital landscape, observing that social media can amplify content based on users’ preferences and biases, take statements out of context and quickly spread false or misleading information.

As a result, it said, “many ideas that thus emerge in the marketplace of ideas of today are corrupted or are premised on falsities.” (PNA)