Petition For Indirect Contempt vs. Lorraine Badoy-Partosa

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
ATTY. RICO V. DOMINGO, DEAN

ANTONIO GABRIEL M. LA VIÑA,
DEAN MA. SOLEDAD DERIQUITO-
MAWIS, DEAN ANNA MARIA D.
ABAD, DEAN RODEL A. TATON,
ATTY. ARTEMIO P. CALUMPONG,
ATTY. CHRISTIANNE GRACE F.
SALONGA, ATTY. RAY PAOLO J.
SANTIAGO, and ATTY. AYN RUTH
Z. TOLENTINO-AZARCON,
Petitioners,
--versus-- G.R. No. _________________

For: INDIRECT CONTEMPT
OF COURT under Section 3(d),
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
LORRAINE MARIE T. BADOY-
PARTOSA,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------x
URGENT PETITION FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT
“So, if I kill this judge and I do so out of my political belief that all allies of
the CPP NPA NDF must be killed because there is no difference in my mind
between a member of the CPP NPA NDF and their friends,
then please be lenient with me.”
~ Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa,

Former Spokesperson of the National Task Force
to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC)
***
“The Court STERNLY WARNS those who continue to incite violence

through social media and other means which endanger the lives of judges
and their families, and that this SHALL LIKEWISE BE CONSIDERED A
CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT and will be dealt with accordingly.”
~ Supreme Court of the Philippines En Banc

Press Briefer Statement Re: Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar,
A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC, 27 September 2022
(Emphases and underscoring supplied.)
Atty. Rico V. Domingo, et al. vs. Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa
Page 2 of 38
Petitioners ATTY. RICO V. DOMINGO, DEAN ANTONIO

GABRIEL M. LA VIÑA, DEAN MA. SOLEDAD DERIQUITO-
MAWIS, DEAN ANNA MARIA D. ABAD, DEAN RODEL A.
TATON, ATTY. ARTEMIO P. CALUMPONG, ATTY.
CHRISTIANNE GRACE F. SALONGA, ATTY. RAY PAOLO J.
SANTIAGO, and ATTY. AYN RUTH Z. TOLENTINO-AZARCON
(collectively, the “Petitioners”), through the undersigned counsels and
unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully aver that:
NATURE OF THE PETITION
1. This is an Urgent Petition to Declare Respondent Lorraine

Marie T. Badoy-Partosa GUILTY of Indirect Contempt of Court, as
provided under Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court for her
unabashedly persistent and contumacious series of social media posts
aimed to assault and humiliate the person of the Presiding Judge of
the City of Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Hon. Marlo
Apalisok Magdoza-Malagar (“Judge Malagar”). Such shameless and
public behavior towards an honorable public official is not only a
conduct that tends to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration
of justice, but is ultimately a direct affront against the dignity, honor,
prestige, and independence of the entire judicial system.
2. Given the gravity and hostility displayed by the conduct

of Respondent Badoy-Partosa, Petitioners pray that the Respondent be
accordingly PUNISHED with the maximum penalty of six (6) months
of IMPRISONMENT and FINED in the maximum amount of Thirty
Thousand Pesos (PhP 30,000.00).
TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION
3. On or about 23 September 2022, Respondent Badoy-

Partosa unleashed her series of disparaging remarks directed against
Judge Malagar and in response to the dismissal of a petition to declare
the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army
as “terrorist groups” through Resolution dated 21 September 2022 as
promulgated in the case entitled ‘Department of Justice vs. The
Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army also
known as Bagong Hukbong Bayan’ docketed under Civil Case No. R-
MNL-18-00925-CV, and presently pending before the City of Manila
Regional Trial Court, Branch 19 (the “Manila RTC”).
A copy of Resolution dated 21 September 2022 penned by Judge

Malagar is attached hereto as Annex “A”.
Page 3 of 38
4. Considering that this exhibit is comprised of “official acts”

of the Manila RTC, the same need not be proved before this Honorable
Court. Thus, Petitioners invoke the “doctrine of mandatory judicial
notice,” as provided under Rule 129, Section 1 of the Rules of Evidence:
RULE 129
What Need Not Be Proved
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall take

judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their
seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the
official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments
of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and
the geographical divisions. (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)
5. The corresponding docket and other lawful fees and

deposit for costs are paid simultaneously with the filing of this
Petition.
THE PARTIES
6. PETITIONERS ATTY. RICO V. DOMINGO, DEAN

ANTONIO GABRIEL M. LA VIÑA, DEAN MA. SOLEDAD
DERIQUITO-MAWIS, DEAN ANNA MARIA D. ABAD, DEAN
RODEL A. TATON, ATTY. ARTEMIO P. CALUMPONG, ATTY.
CHRISTIANNE GRACE F. SALONGA, ATTY. RAY PAOLO J.
SANTIAGO, and ATTY. AYN RUTH Z. TOLENTINO-AZARCON
are all Philippine lawyers and members in good standing of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. As such, Petitioners are “officers of
the court” comprised of legal luminaries; law school deans, professors,
administrators, and/or academicians; and private law practitioners.
7. For purposes of the instant Petition, all of the abovenamed

Petitioners may be served with pleadings, orders, resolutions, and
other papers of this Honorable Court through the designated common
address of the undersigned counsels, as indicated below.
8. RESPONDENT LORRAINE MARIE T. BADOY-

PARTOSA (“Badoy-Partosa”) is a licensed physician and former
Undersecretary of the Presidential Communications Operations Office
(“PCOO”) for New Media and External Affairs during the term of then
Philippine President Rodrigo R. Duterte. She also served as the
Page 4 of 38
Spokesperson of the National Task Force to End Local Communist

Armed Conflict (“NTF-ELCAC”) up until the end of the Duterte
administration. At present, Respondent is affiliated with the SMNI
News Channel where she regularly appears as a news anchor and/or
commentator of said network’s ‘Laban Kasama Ang Bayan’ segment.
Petitioners are not aware, nor is there any publicly accessible

official document on the matter, whether Respondent Badoy-Partosa
continues to hold any public office or government post. Nevertheless,
Respondent continues, and is allowed to continue, to speak to the public
and to the media on behalf of the NTF-ELCAC. In her official Facebook
page, Respondent declares herself to be the “Undersecretary at Office
of the Press Secretary; November 1, 2017 – Present.”
Respondent Badoy-Partosa may be served with pleadings,

summons, orders, resolutions, and other papers of this Honorable
Court through her last known address located at SMNI News Channel,
ACQ Tower, Santa Rita Street, Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City, Metro
Manila, OR SMNI News Channel, JC Compound, Philippine-Japan
Friendship Highway, Catitipan, Davao City.
JURISDICTION/VENUE OF THE PETITION
9. While under Section 5, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court a charge

for “indirect contempt” that has been committed against a Regional
Trial Court, or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or against an officer
appointed by it, may be filed with such court, herein Petitioners most
respectfully aver that the contumacious conduct of Respondent
Badoy-Partosa and her supporters – comprised of online vilification, red-
tagging, and doxing – constitutes a patently gross attack against the
Philippine Judiciary as an institution.
10. The vicious assault against Manila RTC Judge Malagar has
alarmed and shaken both the judicial magistrates and practitioners of
law to the core so much so that the Philippine Judges Association
(“PJA”) has referred to the evils of online vilification and red-tagging,
sought to be prevented by this Petition, as “undeserved” and “life-
endangerment of a member of the judiciary.” Another group of judges,
HUKOM, Inc., has likewise viewed the same acts as “attacks on the
rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.”
11. The seriousness and gravity of the attacks against Judge

Malagar led this Honorable Court to act motu proprio on the matter,
and docketed the same in A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC (Re: Judge Marlo A.
Magdoza-Malagar). The Honorable Court likewise issued a stern
Page 5 of 38
warning against those who “continue to incite violence through social

media and other means which endanger the lives of judges and their families,”
treating this as contempt of court that shall be dealt with accordingly.
12. This is consistent with the stance taken by this Honorable

Court when it released A Statement of the Members of the Court En
Banc Responding to Calls for Action on the Killings of Lawyers and
Threats to Our Judges dated 23 March 2021.1
13. The Honorable Court, as the constitutional body vested

with “judicial power” by virtue of Sections 1 and 6, Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, has the exclusive
authority to render administrative supervision over all courts and
personnel thereof, including the Manila RTC as presided by Judge
Malagar.
14. Thus, Petitioners humbly beg the kind indulgence of the

Honorable Court and hereby plead that the Honorable Supreme Court
relax the rules given the “transcendental importance” of the issues
herein brought forth and take cognizance of the instant Petition.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
15. On 21 September 2022, Manila RTC Presiding Judge Hon.

Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar promulgated a 135-page Resolution (the
“Resolution”) dismissing the petition for proscription as filed by the
Department of Justice (“DOJ”) against the Communist Party of the
Philippines (“CPP”) and the New People’s Army (“NPA”).2 Said
petition prayed for the CPP and the NPA to be declared as “terrorist
groups” as defined under Section 17 of the (now repealed) Republic Act
No. 9372, otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007 (“HSA”).3
16. Under its Resolution, the Manila RTC opined that the
complained acts of the CPP and the NPA “(a) have been committed to
achieve a political purpose; and, (b) have been primarily directed at State
agents, and not against civilians. Not having met the stringent requirements
of HSA of 2007, the nine (9) acts of atrocities committed by the NPA can only
qualify as incidents of ‘rebellion’.”4
1
Available at the Supreme Court’s website, <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/17874>; last accessed on
03 October 2022.
2 Department of Justice vs. The Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army a.k.a.
Bagong Hukbong Bayan docketed under Civil Case No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV.

3 Republic Act No. 9372, Human Security Act of 2007, 06 March 2007.
4 See pages 128-129 of Annex “A” of this Petition.
Page 6 of 38
17. Meanwhile, Respondent Badoy-Partosa, a publicly known

staunch supporter of former Philippine President Rodrigo R. Duterte,
maintains a verified Facebook account accessible by the public via the
URL address: https://www.facebook.com/lorraine.badoy where she
regularly posts her television interviews and write-ups that are
directed against the CPP and the NPA, as well as against all activist
organizations, public figures, and private citizens who express their
freedom to peaceably assemble and/or air out their disagreements on
certain policies issued by both the Duterte administration and the
present administration.
18. Significantly, the verified “Lorraine Marie T. Badoy”

twice suspended Facebook account is active with restrictions and has
already garnered at least 166,000 followers at present time. For the
Honorable Court’s ease of reference, screenshots of Respondent
Badoy-Partosa’s Facebook page, including the page sections detailing
her academic and professional profiles, are attached hereto as Annexes
“B” with sub-markings.
19. On or about 23 September 2022, and in response to the

Manila RTC Resolution penned by Judge Malagar, Respondent Badoy-
Partosa uploaded a public post on her Facebook page entitled “A
Judgment Straight From the Bowels of Communist Hell,” wherein she
threatened to murder Judge Malagar, among other serious threats and
accusations hurled against the honorable trial judge, as quoted below
in verbatim:
“A Judgment Straight From the Bowels of Communist Hell
In the proscription case against them, the CPP NPA NDF did not
make an appearance nor send any evidence to refute all charges
against them by the National Task Force to End Local
Communist Armed Conflict- NOT ONE.
Turns out, they didn’t need to. Judge Marlo Malagar, in about
135 pages passionately lawyered for them.
She consistently used the Constitution of the CPP NPA NDF,

this terrorist organization, to back up her shameless decision,
going as far as saying that ‘An NPA member engages in violence
and employs force, not for violence’s sake, but in pursuit of the
higher ideals contained in the Constitution of the CPP.’
Meaning, the cold blooded murder of Kieth Absalon where he

was shot point-blank between his eyes as he begged for his life,
the massacre of 39 members of the Bagobo Tagabawa tribe –
MORE THAN HALF OF THEM CHILDREN who were hacked
to pieces and decapitated, the recruitment of our children into
violent extremism where countless numbers of them have died
Page 7 of 38
as TERRORISTS, the murders of thousands upon thousands of

tribal chiefs, rape, child slavery, human trafficking, kidnapping,
the burning of government equipment, blowing up to pieces of
cell towers, the economic sabotage – all these are not acts of
terrorism according to Judge Malagar because they were done in
pursuit of the higher ideas of the CPP NPA NDF.
What higher ideals is this unprincipled judge talking about?

The CPP NPA NDF has one goal and one goal alone: the seizure
of political power THROUGH VIOLENT MEANS.
There is nothing lofty about the murder of our citizens - who are
seen as collateral damage to their stupid war – that is deeply
ingrained in the core of the CPP NPA NDF.
This Judge also said that the CPP NPA NDF was not organized
for the purpose of engaging in terrorism but that this “armed
struggle is only a means to achieve the CPP’s purpose”.
Huh?
What she’s saying is we must excuse the violence of the CPP

NPA NDF, kayo naman. Don’t focus on the killings. So Vilma
Absalon, mother of Kieth, must not focus on the inhumane and
brutal death of her son but must instead, tell herself that his
death was a small price to pay for the CPP to achieve its purpose.
What she’s telling us is this: Philippines, ano ba kayo? Hindi

terorista ang CPP NPA NDF. Wag nyo masyadong pansinin ang
pagpapatay, torture, pagpapasabog ng mga sundalo at kapulisan natin
or pag ang anak mo ang pinatay, isipin mo ganito ha: PARA SA
MATAAS NA LAYUNIN NG CPP NPA NDF YAN.
In other words, this idiot judge is telling us that we’re so

sensitive weeping over the dead bodies of our children. Ano ba,
mga nanay. Namatay na bayani ang mga anak nyo. O diba? Sounds
familiar? CPP na CPP ang linya ni Judge.
She also claims that the incidents of terrorism that government

presented did not cause “widespread and extraordinary fear and
panic” among Filipinos. Those excesses were merely “pocket and
sporadic occurrences” that occurred in limited and scattered
areas in the country.
That we were constantly on the top 10 list of the Global

Terrorism Index because of the CPP NPA NDF before NTF
ELCAC came along is not something this Judge worries her
pretty head over.
There in her airconditioned office in Manila, she has not seen

the wide-eyed panic and fear of our indigenous peoples who
were targeted by this terrorist organization from its very
inception. She has not heard the screams of terror and grief of
Page 8 of 38
mothers, fathers, siblings, at the murder of their loved ones

right before their eyes. She has not seen our mothers claw the
earth for the bodies of their children and she has not heard
their wails of grief of a mother cradling the dead body of her
child.
No, this judge who is obviously a friend of the CPP NPA NDF
has a helmet as thick as the helmet of the urban operatives of
the CPP NPA NDF that she can step over the dead bodies of
our children and pen this shameless decision to lend powerful
support and cover to these terrorists who have stolen our
children from us.
Judge Malagar asks that all those acts of terrorism of the CPP
NPA NDF should be considered as “political crimes and
therefore be treated with leniency.”
So if I kill this judge and I do so out of my political belief that

all allies of the CPP NPA NDF must be killed because there is
no difference between a member of the CPP NPA NDF and
their friends, then please be lenient with me.
Like the true ally that she is of this terrorist organization, Judge
Malagar spoke about an issue that wasn’t even part of this case
and that is a weapon badly needed by the CPP NPA NDF to
continue recruitment of our children, their fund-
raising/extortion activities and propaganda against
government: red-tagging.
In other words, siningit ni Judge ang isang issue na hindi naman

parte ng kaso na ito. Pinilit nyang maisingit ang mahalagang oxygen
na ito ng teroristang CPP NPA NDF.
And of course this Judge ruled contrary to the ruling of the

Supreme Court when the highest court of the land wrote, in
Zarate vs. Aquino, that there is no danger to life, liberty and
security when one is identified as a member of the CPP NPA
NDF.
No urban operative of the CPP NPA NDF – not Teddy Casiño,

Neri Colmenares, Sol Taule, Cristina Palabay, Raoul Manuel,
Arlene Brosas, France Castro, Carlos Zarate, Carol Araullo,
Sonny Africa, Renato Reyes – has foisted a more impassioned
nor a more punctilious defense of the CPP NPA NDF than
Judge Marlo Malagar did.
Nor more blatantly shameless and brazen display of abuse of

power by weaponizing a court of law to further inflict harm on a
people that have long suffered the excesses and inhumanities of
this terrorist organization for over 5 decades.
The silver lining to this is that it gives the Filipino people a clear
picture and a deeper understanding of why this terrorist
Page 9 of 38
organization has lasted over half a century and who the traitors
are.
It is not only because of the CPP NPA NDF but its friends in
high places: in the judiciary, Senate, Congress, business
leaders, university presidents, university chancellors etc.
It is as the former rebels have told us: they are everywhere.
There is something though that the CPP NPA NDF doesn’t have
and it is THE FILIPINO PEOPLE who are now AWAKE and now
know who the enemy is.
This is a mere hiccup in our fight to finally rid our country of

communist terrorist vermin.
This Judge gave the CPP NPA NDF – a terrorist organization

that is down on its knees and begging for its mother – what
they think is a gift: propaganda material.
But the Filipino people are the angels of acrid necessity that have
come to tell these terrorists that it’s all over.
By our Unity and by our Strength, we will deliver that message

each and every time they open their stupid mouths and use
Judge Malagar’s good housekeeping seal of ‘WE ARE NOT
TERRORISTS, SABI NG AMIGA NAMIN, BEH BEH BEH BEH
BEH.’
NO, YOU ARE TERRORISTS.
Judges like this Judge Malagar are a dime a dozen and she
doesn’t get to define the parameters of this war we are waging.
We do. We get to call it.
The CPP NPA NDF is a terrorist organization and that is written

in the heart and soul of every Filipino. We will never forgive. We
will never forget. And we will no longer allow this terrorist
organization to go one step further with us.
We are a people rising and we have driven our sword into the
heart of that beast, the TERRORIST ORGANIZATION CPP NPA
NDF.” (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)
A computer screenshot of the aforequoted Facebook post by

Respondent Badoy-Partosa is attached hereto as Annex “C” with sub-
markings.
20. While the original of said Facebook post was later deleted
by Respondent Badoy-Partosa, several other Facebook users have
since captured images of this post and re-posted the same both on
Page 10 of 38
Facebook and other social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Instagram,

and the likes) thereby attesting to the fact that the subject post has
certainly been uploaded by the Respondent and has thereafter reached
public audience.5
21. On or about the same date, Respondent Badoy-Partosa

subsequently uploaded yet another post on her Facebook page which
she dubbed as “The Judge Marlo Malagar Horror Series”. In this post,
the Respondent threatened to bomb the offices of judges which she
deemed as “friends of terrorists”. This post included a photo of Judge
Malagar and reads, as follows:
“The Judge Marlo Malagar Horror Series,
(Where I shall recount to you the horrific parts of the decision

she SHAMELESSLY and with GREAT IMPUNITY penned
that echo what the CPP-NPA NDF urban operatives have
foisted on us for decades: their LIES that have harmed us
gravely. Napakarami so let’s break it down).
This is Part 1
Judge Marlo Malagar, friend and defender of the CPP NPA

NDF, in her decision denying proscribing the CPP NPA NDF as
a terrorist organization wrote,
‘An NPA member engages in violence and employs force, not for
violence’s sake but in pursuit of the higher ideals contained in
the Constitution of the CPP.’
The Judge, in other words, based her decision on the

Constitution of this terrorist organization, the CPP NPA NDF
and not on the laws and the Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines.
Yup, NOT ONCE did this Judge base her decision on any of
our laws. Hard to believe but true.
So in this egregious Judge’s mind, when the CPP NPA NDF

blew up 21 year old football superstar Kieth Absalon with an
improvised explosive device, it wasn’t terrorism but because
they were pursuing the HIGHER ideals of this terrorist
organization.
And when Kieth, child of Vilma Absalon, light of his father’s life,
and Kuya Superstar to his siblings, survived the blast and knelt
5
On 29 September 2022, this particular post (see Annex “C” with sub-markings of this Petition)
resurfaced on Respondent’s Facebook page as she re-posted the same with a caption that reads:
“The post that media said I deleted and where CPP NPA NDF urban operatives said I threatened
etc etc – Alam nyo naman yang mga Sinungaling na yan, walang pahinga haha. Judge for yourself.
Mahaba yan ha. Warning lol.”
Page 11 of 38
before those terrorists and held his hand in surrender, trembling

and begging for his life and shooting him anyway between his
eyes, this, according to this horrible judge, wasn’t terrorism but
in fact, in PURSUIT OF THE HIGHER IDEALS OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE CPP NPA NDF.
And when the NPAs massacred 39 members of the Bagobo

Tagabawa tribe- more than half of them children- as they
peacefully heard mass, decapitated them and where the last
moments of children were running away in terror from a
TERRORIST with a machete who gleefully chopped them up to
pieces- THIS, according to this Judge straight from the bowels
of Hell- is NOT terrorism.
Why, what it was the pursuit of higher ideals of the Constitution

of the terrorist CPP-NPA-NDF by the noble NPAs.
Choke on that, Philippines.
How about this Judge –
I really reallllly want to build an organization with the noble

ideal of establishing a Justice system that is free from the
infiltration of the terrorist vermin - the CPP NPA NDF - then
members of my organization will start bombing the offices of
these corrupt judges who are friends of terrorists- even if they
kneel before us and beg for their lives – the very same way Kieth
Absalon begged for his life - then, going by your Marco
Valbuena/Teddy Casiño/Neri Colmenares/Joma Sison logic,
my organization won’t be a terrorist organization, right?
O ano, Judge, game? Are you willing to go through what the

Filipino people have gone through and continue to go through
for the past 53 years?
PM is key.” (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)

Respondent Badoy-Partosa, which has already gained at least 1,300
reactions, 576 comments, and 642 shares as of 25 September 2022, is
attached hereto as Annex “D”.
22. On or about 24 September 2022, Respondent Badoy-

Partosa uploaded on her Facebook page the following post riddled
with malicious and deliberate “intriguing against the honor” of Judge
Malagar’s husband, Atty. Leo Malagar, as well as of other human
rights lawyers, thereby describing the Manila RTC Judge as
“unprincipled and rotten,” among other things. Again, this post
included a photo of Judge Malagar and reads, as follows:
Page 12 of 38
“Questions we need to ask Judge Marlo Malagar.
1. Is it true that your husband, Atty Leo Malagar, who is

currently the 2nd UP Cebu Chancellor was a cadre of the
CPP NPA NDF in the Youth Sector?
2. Is he still active with the CPP NPA NDF?
3. How true is it that the ones who helped you craft your
malodorous decision regarding the terrorist organization
CPP NPA NDF were Edre Olalia, Sol Taule and Rachel
Pastores?
For those who don’t know it yet, these 3 are urban operatives of
the CPP NPA NDF who lawyer for the ENTIRE CPP NPA NDF.
They pass themselves off as human rights lawyers but nothing

could be further from the truth.
What they are are lawyers for active operatives of the CPP NPA
NDF who murder, extort, kidnap, traffic, rape, destroy private
property etc.- and they front for the NUPL that targets those in
the legal and paralegal profession for recruitment into this
terrorist organization.
NUPL is connected to the underground Lupon Ng Mga

Manananggol Para sa Bayan or LUMABAN that actively seeks
to overthrow the government through violent means and has
been declared a terrorist organization by the Anti-Terrorism
Council (like the CPP NPA NDF).
So all these time, according to our asset, that Judge Malagar was
pretending to do independent research, the ones helping her
craft her obscene decision were some of the most fanatical and
hard core urban operatives of the CPP NPA NDF who get their
directives straight from the Central Committee of the terrorist
CPP NPA NDF and from the terrorist Joma Sison himself.
In other words, the decision this unprincipled and rotten judge

wrote was really by the Communist Party of the Philippines, a
terrorist organization.
No wonder then - what she wrote were pages straight out of the
CPP NPA NDF Constitution and 100% faithful to the CPP NPA
NDF propaganda lines - like attacks on the NTF ELCAC and
about “weaponization of the law”.
She was so well-versed about a constitution that only CPP NPA

NDF members know by heart including her discourse on
guerilla warfare that rationalized it as “not terrorism” at a level
of expertise not seen in ordinary citizens.
Page 13 of 38
She slipped and used a term that only CPP NPA NDF cadres
know: NDMO (national democratic mass organization) when
she weirdly discussed an issue that wasn’t part of this case but
essential to the lifeblood of this terrorist organization: red-
tagging.
NDMO is an internal operational word within the CPP NPA

NDF. Why did Judge Malagar know about it?
And again (because it bears repeating), why was she so well-

versed about a constitution that only CPP NPA NDF members
know?
4. Who wrote your decision, Judge Malagar? Was it the CPP

NPA NDF cadre operatives Edre Olalia, Sol Taule, Rachel
Pastores?
If so, that horrific decision that has enraged an entire nation

was written by no less than the TERRORIST Joma Sison and
the Central Committee of this TERRORIST ORGANIZATION
the CPP NPA NDF.
Kung ito ay tutoo, napakalaki at napakawalang hiyang

pagtataksil itong ginawa mong ito sa bayan, Judge Malagar.
Aantayin ng mamamayang Pilipino ang mga sagot mo sa mga

seryosong paratang sayo.”6 (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)

Respondent Badoy-Partosa, which has already gained at least 2,400
reactions, 696 comments, and 1,000 shares as of 25 September 2022, is
attached hereto as Annex “E”.
23. Thereafter, the aforementioned Facebook posts were

followed by a string of similarly crafted remarks, comments, images,
and videos as uploaded and/or shared by Respondent Badoy-Partosa
and her followers who seemingly await for Respondent’s instructions
and call to action. Some of these posts, as uploaded on Respondent’s
Facebook page sometime between 23 September 2022 until 26
September 2022, read as follows:
Peter Flores Serrano: “Doc Lorraine Marie T. Badoy calls out Judge
Marlo Magdoza Malagar of the Manila Regional Trial Court
on her treachery. ‘She made this country the saddest country
for the mothers.’ We are right behind you, Doc Lorraine.
Just let us know what to do and we will oblige.”
6
On 29 September 2022, this particular post (see Annex “E” of this Petition) is also re-posted by
Respondent on her Facebook page.
Page 14 of 38
Ka Eric Almendras: “The voice of our people is more SUPREME

AND SOVEREIGN than the illogical and distorted
political exhortation cum decision of this Manila RTC
JUDGE who exhibits a pattern of mindset as a CPP-
NPA-NDF lover and promoter of perpetual protracted
destruction of our country through justification using
‘higher ideals and political cause…’ This Judge needs to be
REMINDED THAT:
ANG LAHAT NG MGA KALAYAAN AT KARAPATAN

NG MGA INDIBIDWAL AY DAPAT NAKABATAY SA
PAG-IRAL AT PAGIGING PANGUNAHIN NG BATAS!”
Respondent Badoy-Partosa: “Judge Malagar saying the CPP NPA

NDG is not a terrorist organization is like Maria Ressa getting
the Nobel Peace Prize and Leni getting in Harvard.
Pure propaganda being forced down our gullets by the

powerful rotten bastards of humanity: ultra liberals and
communists x x x”
Respondent Badoy-Partosa: “Sabi ni Judge Marlo Malagar, ‘an

NPA member engages in violence and employs force, not for
violence’s sake but in pursuit of the higher ideals contained in
the Constitution of the CPP’ x x x
What higher ideals is this unprincipled judge talking

about?
x x x Why does this Judge sound exactly like the urban

operatives of the CPP-NPA-NDF x x x”
Respondent Badoy-Partosa: “x x x Judge Marlo Malagar, friend

and defender of the CPP NPA NDF x x x
The Judge, in other words, based her decision on the

Constitution of this terrorist organization, the CPP
NPA NDF, and not on the laws and the Constitution of
the Republic of the Philippines.
Yup, NOT ONCE did this Judge based her decision on

any of our laws. Hard to believe but true x x x”
Pastor Apollo YouTube video: “You’re fired! Nakakahiya ka!

Hindi ka dapat maging Judge!”
Ka Eric YouTube video: “Sinadya niyang hindi alamin ang batas

pabor sa makakaliwang grupo.”
Respondent Badoy-Partosa: “Hindi ko na nga mabilang mga kasong

sinampa sa akin (na binasura agad agad kasi nonsense shit).
Tumahimik ba ako? Natatakot ba ako? Lol.”
Page 15 of 38
Respondent Badoy-Partosa: “Nanay ni Keith Absalon na pinatay ng

CPP NPA NDF galit sa desisyon ni Judge Malagar x x x
I dunno about you but that sounds like Edre Olalia, Sol Taule,
Rachel Pastores, and other urban operatives of the CPP NPA
NDF.
So I’m asking Judge Malagar – is it true that these 3

notorious members of the CPP NPA NDF were your
resource persons and helped you write your decision?
If so, then that decision was rendered by the Central

Committee of the CPP NPA NDF and the terrorist Joma
Sison.
Which makes a lot of sense.
I’m still waiting for Judge Malagar to respond. We all

are.”
Peter Flores Serrano: “Mas malala pa sa spokesperson ng CPP-

NPA-NDF terrorist group si Malagar kasi ginamit n’ya
ang batas eh. And I am entitled to that opinion.”
Sen. Bato dela Rosa YouTube video: “Bato sinupalpal si Judge

Malagar. Kumpirmadong kampon ni Joma?”
The computer screenshots of the aforequoted Facebook posts,

as uploaded and/or shared by Respondent Badoy-Partosa and/or her
Facebook followers between the period of 23 September 2022 to 26
September 2022, are attached hereto as Annexes “F” to “U”.
24. Said series of social media posts on Respondent Badoy-

Partosa’s Facebook account then prompted the legal community to
issue their respective official statements all denouncing the
Respondent’s malicious and dangerous utterances on social media.
25. Such statements include those issued by an organization of

trial court judges called HUKOM, Inc.; no less than the Philippine
Judges Association (“PJA”), the only association of Regional Trial
Court judges that is duly recognized by the Supreme Court; and, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”), the official organization of
all Philippine lawyers.
Copies of the respective Official Statements of HUKOM, Inc.

(issued on 24 September 2022), the PJA (issued on 26 September 2022), and
the IBP (issued on 26 September 2022) are attached hereto as Annexes
“V” to “X”.
Page 16 of 38
26. In its statement dated 24 September 2022, HUKOM, Inc.

quoted from the “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary”
declared by United Nations (UN) Congress on the Prevention of Crime
and Treatment of Offenders (1985) as encapsulated in the UN General
Assembly Resolution Nos. 40/32 and 40/46,7 thus, pronouncing that such
acts of “red-tagging, online vilification, and doxing” must be called out
because of their “chilling effect” on the exercise of their judicial
functions and the lasting damage that they cause to the Philippine
Judiciary as an institution, thus:
“Another member of the Bench is again challenged. A much

respected, upright, and competent judge, after resolving a case
against the government over a repealed law, had been red-
tagged.
We are painfully aware that prior to this incident, judges had

been vilified with labels such as hoodlums in robes, protectors of
drug pushers and drug lords, and some have even been killed.
Except for the usual statement of condemnation and call to action

every time a member of the Bench has fallen in the line of duty,
we, members of the court, have often kept silent whenever our
decisions came under attack. We have chosen to let our decisions
speak on our behalf, aware that judicial remedies are available
for the parties affected.
Recent events, however, have magnified the effect of criticisms

on the judiciary. Accessibility to social media platforms has
exacerbated and intensified the formation of public views, in
many cases, without the solid backing of verified facts. Worse,
threats of physical harm are unabashedly posted on social
media without consideration for the law and public order.
We, members of HUKOM, Inc., an organization of trial court

judges, view these acts (e.g., red-tagging, online vilification,
doxing, etc.) as attacks on the rule of law and the independence
of the judiciary. We cannot rest easy and accept them as normal
and ordinary. These acts must be called out because of their
chilling effect on the exercise of our judicial functions and the
lasting damage they cause to our institution.
As members of the Bench, we call on our fellow judges: let us

refuse to be victims; let us choose to be enablers of the rule of
law. Let us not normalize the use of violence against persons as
a form of redress by being silent. And we appeal to all sectors to
7 “The judiciary shall decide on matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in
accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures,
threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.” – Basic Principles on
the Independence of the Judiciary, UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of
Offenders (1985), UN General Assembly Resolution Nos. 40/32 and 40/146.
Page 17 of 38
help us serve the public better by allowing us the space to do so

without threats, pressures, and improper interference.
Without fear or favor, we will persevere.”

27. Two days later, the Philippine Judges Association issued

an equally strong statement describing said acts by Respondent
Badoy-Partosa as an “underserved vilification, red-tagging, and life-
endangerment of a member of the judiciary” and an “irresponsible and
unfounded assault on a trial judge,” to wit:
“The Judiciary is the last bulwark of democracy. A judge is such

bulwark personified set out to administer justice as best as
he/she sees fit and proper in light of the evidence, law, and
jurisprudence before him/her x x x Any unfounded assault on
a judge in whatever form or manner is an assault on
democracy.
In this light, the PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION (PJA)

deplores in no uncertain terms the undeserved vilification,
red-tagging, and life-endangerment of a member of the
judiciary. We call on the leadership of the present
administration to declare that in no time under its watch, will
democracy be imperiled by an irresponsible and unfounded
assault on a trial judge.
The PJA upholds the rule of law and not the rule of men. We
remind everyone that individuals, including judges, have
protected constitutional rights, and personal attacks and
threats against them and the judiciary should never be
tolerated. To this end, we call upon government offices and
private organizations to see to it that the actions of their members
are legal, moral, and form part of the acts of a civilized society.
We likewise take this opportunity to assure the public that we, a

sentinels of democracy, will continue to perform our
constitutionally-mandated duty undeterred by threats or
undeserved vilification for nothing can guarantee a vibrant
democratic society more than an independent judicial system.”
28. Also on 26 September 2022, the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines 25th Board of Governors likewise released their official
statement quoting from Philippine jurisprudence and thereby
condemning the “abuse, harassment, and outright red-tagging” of
Judge Malagar aptly described as “capricious and dishonest statements
that go beyond reasonable discussion” which “foment vitriol and hate against
our judges,” viz:
Page 18 of 38
“On 21 September 2022, the Honorable Judge Marlo Apalisok

Magdoza-Malagar of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
19 dismissed a petition for proscription filed by the government
to declare the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New
People’s Army as terrorist groups. Immediately thereafter, the
Honorable Judge herself became the subject of online attacks
and even threats in social media for her dismissal of the said
petition, with one reportedly threatening her with bodily
harm, while the rest accusing her of being an ally or friend of
the CPP-NPA.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines condemns the abuse,

harassment, and outright red-tagging of another member of the
Judiciary. These capricious and dishonest statements go
beyond reasonable discussion. They foment vitriol and hate
against our judges.
Stating rational reservations on the decisions of the judiciary is

normal. Attacking its members and threatening them with
bodily harm is not. The judiciary’s job is to decide disputes. And
no judge should ever feel threated just by performing that duty.
As the Supreme Court once stated, “a judicial officer in

exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon
his own convictions, without apprehension of personal
consequences to himself.”
To threaten members of the judiciary is to “sow fear” at a

“critical element” of the legal system. Broadcasts and posts
showcasing those who verbally assault judges encourages the
public to do the same. If judges can be treated disdainfully
without consequence, the Rule of Law becomes a hollow
promise.
In IN RE: JURADO (A.M. No. 93-2-037 SC, April 6, 1995), the

Supreme Court ruled that “false reports about a public official
or other person are not shielded from sanction by the cardinal
right to free speech enshrined in the Constitution. Even the
most liberal view free speech has never countenanced the
publication of falsehoods, specially the persistent and
unmitigated dissemination of patent lies.”
As officers of the court charged with its protection, the IBP

reserves the right to resort to the appropriate remedies. We also
call for the immediate activation and utilization of the Judicial
Marshall Service recently created by Law.” (Emphases and
underscoring supplied.)
29. On 26 September 2022, and seemingly unaffected by said

statements made by both members of the Philippine Bench and Bar,
Page 19 of 38
Respondent Badoy-Partosa wasted no time and immediately posted

her response to HUKOM, Inc., as quoted in verbatim below:8
“A group of judges who form part of Hukom, Inc. has

complained because a ‘member of the Bench is again being
challenged’ as if members of the Bench ought to be beyond
public scrutiny.
I am presuming they mean Judge Marlo Malagar who recently

came out with a most preposterous decision that went so
completely beyond the pale that it has enraged an entire nation
– her shameless declaration that the CPP NPA NDF – author of
countless murders, massacres, recruitment into terrorism,
human trafficking, kidnapping, sexual abuse, torture, child
slavery, pillage, extorition, destruction of private and
government property, terrorist financing – is not a terrorist
organization.
Shockingly enough, these judges have also used the issue of

red-tagging and have, alarmingly enough, parroted the lines of
the CPP NPA NDF.
How is it possible that officers of the court are not cognizant of

the earlier decisions of Philippine courts – from the Court of
Appeals to no less than the Supreme Court that “red-tagging”
does not exist?
In Zarate vs. Aquino, our Supreme Court has clearly stated that
THERE IS NO DANGER TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND SECURITY
WHEN YOU ARE IDENTIFIED AS A MEMBER OF THE CPP
NPA NDF.
How are they, judges, ignorant of what ordinary Filipinos

already know?
They make a big case out of their lives being threatened,

echoing the CPP NPA NDF lines of twisting my words and
making it mean whatever them want it to mean – an old, worn-
out ploy straight out of the rotten communist terrorist
propaganda machine that the Filipino people are so aware of
now.
And that if they believe I had threatened to kill Judge Malagar,

then their reading comprehension, I am sorry to say, is lower
than a kid fresh out of nursery. As I am sorry if they believed I
had deleted my post.
These are moves straight out of the CPP NPA NDF playbook that
they’ve employed to deceive an entire nation – assisted, on no
small measure, by media they have greatly infiltrated, and sorry
8 See Annex “S” of this Petition.

Page 20 of 38
to say, by a judiciary gone rotten with the pervasive presence

of these communist terrorists.
Instead of worrying their pretty heads over threats to their lives

like the CPP NPA NDF wants them to think, making them see
shadows where there are none (I’m not the murderer here, am
I right Jomang kumag?), they ought to be worrying about the
serious questions I have asked Judge Marlo Malagar from
information we got from a first-hand source.
We were told that when Judge Malagar penned her

malodorous and rotten decision, the one who helped her do so
were CPP NPA NDF urban operatives Edre Olalia, Maria Sol
Taule, and Rachel Pastores of the NUPL – an above ground
organization of the CPP NPA NDF directly connected to the
undergound mass organization that’s been designated by the
Anti-Terrorism Council as terrorist organization – Lupon ng
mga Manananggol ng Bayan or LUMABAN – that espouses the
overthrow of government through violent means.
Terrorism, in other words.
And if so, then the real authors of that obscene and disgusting
decision were members of the Central Committee of the CPP
NPA NDF and the terrorist Joma Sison because urban
operatives get their direct orders from them.
The Filipino people, deceived and raped a million times over,

once again by this terrorist organization as they have for the past
53 years.
The good judges of Hukom, Inc. then should refuse to be used

by the CPP NPA NDF and instead uphold the dignity and
sanctity of their profession and join the Filipino people in our
expressions of rage and our cry to investigate Judge Marlo
Malagar and then if found guilty, strip her of the immense
power she holds so she can no longer hurt the Filipino people.
That’s what they ought to do if they are truly worthy of the noble
profession they claim to value.
Otherwise, they are no different from the Judge they give cover
to who has weaponized the law against the Filipino nation.
Worst of all, they are no different from the terrorist

organization that could be behind this Judge.
The Filipino people are now awake and the writing is on the wall.
The collapse of the terrorist CPP NPA NDF is imminent and it

has come at the hands of the Filipino people.
Page 21 of 38
They can either join us or face the wrath of the entire nation.”
30. Evidently unsatisfied with her threatening remarks against

Judge Malagar, Respondent Badoy-Partosa has now commenced
adding more fuel to the fire as she unabashedly directed her “vitriol
and hate” against all members of the Philippine judiciary as well as the
members of the legal profession who do not agree with her statements.
31. Acting motu proprio on the matter, this Honorable Court

docketed in A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC (Re: Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-
Malagar) the attacks against Judge Malagar. The Honorable Court
likewise issued a stern warning against those who “continue to incite
violence through social media and other means which endanger the lives of
judges and their families,”, thus, treating the same as contempt of the
Honorable Court that shall be dealt with accordingly.
32. Curiously, Respondent Badoy-Partosa has made it known

on her Facebook page that she is quite unperturbed by the Honorable
Court’s stern warning. Respondent and her followers, through
Facebook user named “Peter Flores Serrano,” immediately retorted
and insinuated that the Supreme Court is also “infiltrated by operatives
from the terrorist group of CPP-NPA-NDF,” as quoted below:
“The ‘certain’ Lorraine Marie. T. Badoy has already explained

the whole context of what she’s written and I have read what she
wrote and fully understood her point. If the judicial personnel
will interpret that as a threat, then there is really a major
comprehension problem with the people inside the justice
system. Given this memorandum, I am leaning towards
believing that even that institution may also be infiltrated by
operatives from the terrorist group of the CPP-NPA-NDF.”
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
A computer screenshot of the aforequoted response to the

Honorable Court’s “stern warning,” as posted on Respondent Badoy-
Partosa’s Facebook page on 27 September 2022 and appearing as
caption above an image of the Supreme Court of the Philippines Public
Information Office Press Briefer dated 27 September 2022, is attached
hereto as Annex “Y”.
33. Clearly, this latest display of Respondent Badoy-Partosa’s

propensity to belittle and ridicule the entire Philippine judiciary is
downright contemptuous and is undoubtedly an indication that there
is absolutely nothing that would put an end to the Respondent’s
relentless invite to mockery and condemnation of our judicial system
– unless she is finally held liable and accountable for her actions.
Page 22 of 38
34. In view thereof, it behooves the Honorable Court to

immediately take cognizance of this case and to immediately arrest the
chilling effect resulting from Respondent Badoy-Partosa’s inexorable
and incessant threats, irresponsible and unfounded assaults, and
persistent attacks on the dignity and honor of the judiciary. As
proclaimed by the IBP in their official statement:
“If judges (and justices) can be treated disdainfully

without consequence, the Rule of Law
becomes a hollow promise.”
GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION
A.
PETITIONERS HAVE THE LEGAL STANDING TO FILE
THE INSTANT ‘PETITION FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF
COURT,’ AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 3 (D), RULE 71,
IN LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND
BASED ON PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE.
B.
THE PETITION INVOLVES MATTERS OF PUBLIC
INTEREST AND TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE AS
WOULD JUSTIFY A RELAXATION OF THE PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE ‘DOCTRINE OF
HIERARCHY OF COURTS,' FOR THE HONORABLE
COURT’S ADJUDICATION.
C.
THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE
DANGERS FACED BY LAWYERS AND JUDGES ALIKE
WITH INSINUATIONS THROWN AT THEM WITHOUT
GOING THROUGH THE RIGORS OF PROVING THE
SAME IN A COURT OF LAW.
D.
THE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE RESPONDENT
SHOULD BE DECLARED GUILTY OF INDIRECT
CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ACCORDINGLY BE
PENALIZED WITH THE MAXIMUM PENALTIES OF SIX
(6) MONTHS IMPRISONMENT AND PHP 30,000.00 FINE.
Page 23 of 38
DISCUSSION
A.
PETITIONERS HAVE THE LEGAL STANDING TO FILE THE
INSTANT ‘PETITION FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT,’
AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 3 (D), RULE 71,
IN LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
AND BASED ON PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE.
B.
THE PETITION INVOLVES MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
AND TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE AS WOULD JUSTIFY
A RELAXATION OF THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING THE ‘DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS,’
FOR THE HONORABLE COURT’S ADJUDICATION.
35. Herein Petitioners, who are all lawyers, are bound under
the Lawyer’s Oath to “support the Constitution and obey the laws, as well
as the legal orders, of the duly constituted authorities” of the Republic of
the Philippines. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
Petitioners must uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land,
and promote respect for the law and its legal processes.9
36. The Petitioners cannot truly comply with their oath to

uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law without asserting the
public right to life, liberty, and property against Respondent Badoy-
Partosa. For them, any violation of such public right directly affects the
Petitioners “as officers of the court” who are entitled to such right as
much as any citizen.
37. That being said, the Petitioners have the locus standi (or
“legal standing”) to lodge this Petition. As lawyers and officers of the
court, they have the responsibility to assist in and improve the
administration of justice. As lawyers, they act as guardians to the Rule
of Law. This requires a vigilant attention to the preservation of the
Rule of Law, and, therefore, the elimination of any act that is inimical
to this objective. The acts of Respondent Badoy-Partosa, as set forth in
this Petition, are such acts.
38. The Petitioners’ interest in the issues posed by this Petition

is a direct and personal one. They are citizens who are engaged in the
active practice of law and with the obligation to uphold first and
foremost the Constitution and the Rule of Law. They cannot effectively
9 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1; Rules of Court, Rule 138.

Page 24 of 38
discharge their duties in the administration of justice if they entertain

doubts or had lost their faith in the Rule of law given Respondent
Badoy-Partosa’s acts, if countenanced, have far-reaching implications
not only in the practice of law, but also in their conduct as citizens of
this country.
39. The Petitioners may at any time be called upon to provide

legal services to persons affected by Respondent Badoy-Partosa’s acts
especially where a public right is involved. To be true to their oath and
existence, the Petitioners need not wait for a live case where such
public right is imperiled. It is their duty to assert, here and now, that
public right. The Petitioners’ interest in the issues posed and resolution
of this Petition is thus not only in common with the general public, or
an incidental interest, but a direct and a personal one.
40. Moreover, this Honorable Court has repeatedly

acknowledged that “[i]t is at least the right, if not the duty, of every
citizen to interfere and see that a public offense be properly pursued
and punished, and that a public grievance be remedied.”10 Considering
the overreaching significance of the resolution of the instant Petition
in the people’s constitutional rights, the Petitioners have an adequate
interest in the outcome of the instant controversy.
41. In the case of Arturo M. De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar

Council, et al.,11 the Honorable Court opined that the petitioners
demonstrated adequate interest in the outcome of the controversy to
vest them with the requisite locus standi and ruled in this wise –
x x x the assertion of a public right as a predicate for challenging

a supposedly illegal or unconstitutional executive or legislative
action rests on the theory that the petitioner represents the public
in general. Although such petitioner may not be as adversely
affected by the action complained against as are others, it is
enough that he sufficiently demonstrates in his petition that he
is entitled to protection or relief from the Court in the
vindication of a public right. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)
42. In the case of Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) vs. Hon.
Ronaldo B. Zamora, et al.,12 this Honorable Court assured the public that
where the issues raised are of “transcendental significance” or are of
“paramount importance” to the public, the Honorable Court will
“brush aside technicalities of procedure.” In this particular case,
10 Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, 07 December
2010.
11 G.R. No. 191002, 20 April 2010.
12 G.R. No. 141284, 15 August 2000.
Page 25 of 38
where the IBP assailed the presence of military troops in Metro Manila,
this Honorable Court took cognizance of the IBP Petition explaining
that, “a reading of the Petition shows that the IBP has advanced
constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view
of their seriousness, novelty, and weight as precedents x x x”
43. Anent thereto, in the aforecited De Castro Case, citing the

case of Demosthenes P. Agan, Jr., et al. vs. Philippine International Air
Terminals Co., Inc., et al.,13 the Honorable Court further elucidated on
the Court’s broad discretion to waive the requirement of legal standing
in matters that are found to be of transcendental importance, thus:
In any event, the Court retains the broad discretion to waive the
requirement of legal standing in favor of any petitioner when
the matter involved has transcendental importance, or
otherwise requires a liberalization of the requirement.
Yet, if any doubt still lingers about the locus standi of any
petitioner, we dispel the doubt now in order to remove any
obstacle or obstruction to the resolution of the essential issue
squarely presented herein. We are not to shirk from discharging
our solemn duty by reason alone of an obstacle more technical
than otherwise.
Standing is a peculiar concept in constitutional law because in

some cases, suits are not brought by parties who have been
personally injured by the operation of a law or any other
government act but by concerned citizens, taxpayers, or voters
who actually sue in the public interest x x x But even if strictly
speaking, the petitioners are not covered by the definition, it is
still within the discretion of the Court to waive the
requirement and so remove the impediment to its addressing
and resolving the serious constitutional questions raised.
(Emphases and underscoring supplied; citations omitted.)
44. Further, in the case of Samahan ng mga Progresibong

Kabataan (SPARK), et al. vs. Quezon City, et al.,14 the Honorable Court
has “taken a liberal stance towards the requirement of legal standing,
especially when paramount interest is involved,” thus:
Indeed, where those who challenge the official act are able to
craft an issue of transcendental significance to the people, the
Court may exercise its sound discretion and take cognizance of
the suit. It may do so in spite of the inability of the petitioners to
show that they have been personally injured by the operation of
a law or any other government act.
13 G.R. No. 155001, 05 May 2003.

14 G.R. No. 225442, 08 August 2017.
Page 26 of 38
45. Petitioners also note that with regard to “contempt

proceedings,” the Honorable Court has pronounced that the same is
not required to be initiated only by those who are parties to the action.
In the case of Luis Gavieres, et al. vs. Prudencio G. Falcis, et al,15 this
Honorable Court had the occasion to rule that there is nothing in the
rules that requires that contempt charges should be filed by a party to
the action or proceeding. The Supreme Court held:
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in every court of

justice, as essential to the preservation of order in judicial
proceedings and to the enforcement of court orders and
judgments. While under Rule 71 indirect contempts may be
punished only after the filing of written charges and the accused
or respondent has been given an opportunity to be heard by
himself or counsel, nothing in said Rule may be cited as
requiring that where the imputed contempt consists in
disobedience to a process, writ, order or judgment, the charges
should be filed by a party to the action or proceeding in which
such process, writ or order issued. Whether direct or indirect,
contempt constitutes an affront to the authority and dignity of
the court, to vindicate which it can impose summary punishment
in the case of direct contempts or, in the case of indirect
contempts, initiate the appropriate proceedings motu proprio,
needing not the warrant or authority of a charge filed by any
other person to do so. The reason is simple. A court’s power to
punish for contempt is primarily self-preservative, in the
exercise of which the interest of private parties — be they
litigants or not in the case in which it is invoked — is at best
only a coincidental, not a necessary or an indispensable, factor.
A citation for indirect contempt issued by the court itself, even if
based on information only privately or informally
communicated to the court, operates as the written charge
prescribed by the Rule and if duly and regularly heard, makes a
resulting contempt order no less valid than if it had been
rendered upon formal charges preferred by a party-litigant.
Indeed, it has been held that such charges may be made, not
only by the court or the prosecuting officer, but. . . even by a
private person.” (Emphases and underscoring supplied; citation
omitted.)
46. It bears emphasis that the issue of the propriety of the

imposition of indirect contempt citation on Respondent Badoy-Partosa
is of transcendental importance. The effect of the resolution of the
issue posed in this Petition has far-reaching consequences to our
constitutional democracy and the independence of the Judiciary.
Respondent’s acts are abhorrent to the social order as they threaten
and assault the basic rights of the people, particularly of the members
15G.R. No. 62380, 07 February 1991; citing the earlier cases of In Re: Kelly (35 Phil. 944); Slade Perkins
vs. Director of Prisons (58 Phil. 271, 279); Commissioner of Immigration vs. Cloribel (20 SCRA 1241);
Montalban vs. Canonoy (38 SCRA 1); and Halili vs. CIR (136 SCRA 112).
Page 27 of 38
of the Bench. This case is thus a matter of great importance and concern
to the public.
47. It is also worthy to note that the “faith of the people” in the
Philippine judiciary’s administration of justice is indeed most essential
in order to establish and maintain a just and orderly society. By virtue
thereof, all trial court judges who inevitably stand as the “visible
representation of the law and justice,” most certainly require the
Honorable Court’s immediate and most expeditious protection more
so when subjected to serious threats of bodily harm, verbal abuse, red-
tagging, harassment, and online vilification, as heedlessly done by
Respondent Badoy-Partosa against the honorable Judge Malagar.
48. Given these circumstances, and while it is true that under

Section 5, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court a charge for “indirect contempt”
that has been committed against a Regional Trial Court, or a court of
equivalent or higher rank, or against an officer appointed by it, may be
filed with such court, herein Petitioners most respectfully aver that the
contumacious conduct of Respondent Badoy-Partosa and her
supporters constitutes a patently gross attack against the Philippine
Judiciary as an institution. Hence, such is a matter that needs to be
immediately addressed directly by no less than the Honorable Court.
49. The Official Statements released by the associations of

judges and lawyers’ groups,16 echoed with a stern warning by this
Honorable Court in its A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC (Re: Judge Marlo A.
Magdoza-Malagar), as of today condemning the acts of Respondent
Badoy-Partosa, would clearly attest to this.
50. This is bolstered by the Honorable Court’s own statement,

as released on 27 September 2022, under which the Court has duly
advised the public that in cases where an individual continues to incite
violence through social media and other means which endanger the
lives of judges and their families, as in the facts of the instant case, the
same “SHALL LIKEWISE BE CONSIDERED A CONTEMPT OF
THIS COURT,” and shall be dealt with by the Court accordingly.
51. In light of the foregoing, herein Petitioners humbly beg the

kind indulgence of the Honorable Court and most respectfully submit
that this Honorable Court recognize the legal standing of the
Petitioners and relax the rules given that the issues herein brought
forth are indeed matters of “public interest” and of “transcendental
importance” that warrant the Court’s exercise of its power to
adjudicate this Petition, without any delay and without fear or favor.
16 See Annexes “V,” “W,” and “X” of this Petition.

Page 28 of 38
C.
THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE
DANGERS FACED BY LAWYERS AND JUDGES ALIKE WITH
INSINUATIONS THROWN AT THEM WITHOUT GOING
THROUGH THE RIGORS OF PROVING THE SAME
IN A COURT OF LAW.
52. In A Statement of the Members of the Court En Banc

Responding to Calls for Action on the Killings of Lawyers and Threats
to Our Judges dated 23 March 2021, this Honorable Court recognized
the dangers faced by lawyers and judges alike, to wit:
We are all too aware that everything the Court stands for must
bend its arc toward ensuring that all its officers can fairly and
equitable dispense their duties within the legal system,
unbridled by the constant fear that such exercise may exact the
highest cost. In this light, the Court condemns in the strongest
sense every instance where a lawyer is threatened or killed, and
where a judge is threatened and unfairly labeled. We do not
and will not tolerate such acts that only perverse justice, defeat
the rule of law, undermine the most basic of constitutional
principles, and speculate on the worth of human lives.
And in the said Statement, this Honorable Court acted on the

incident involving the labeling of a judge by unknown elements,
knowing the gravity and danger of such an accusation, viz:
Third, we have ordered the Office of the Court of Administrator

to: (1) coordinate with the relevant law enforcement agencies to
investigate the most recent incident of a judge being the subject
of a tarpaulin linking her to organizations considered by law
enforcers as communists and rebels; and (2) survey among trial
court and Shari’a judges the extent of threats they have received
within the last 10 years. The resulting report would be the basis
of further action by the Court.
Verily, this Honorable Court concluded:
We encourage lawyers who have experienced harassment, or

whose clients have experienced threats or harassment, to file the
necessary motions in pending cases, petitions, or complaints in
order that our courts may receive the evidence, determine the
facts, and, based on the issues framed, provide the relevant
reliefs for each case. General invocations of policy will be better
supported by experience with the system. In so doing, we can
assess what revision or institutional change is necessary to
effectively and efficiently further protect our basic rights.
Page 29 of 38
The Supreme Court has always operated within institutional

restraints, but it is far from resigned to spectate as clear breaches
of constitutional rights are carried out beyond its halls. We
remain conscious of our role to ensure that the rule of law is
resilient and effective in a just, fair, and timely manner. The
Bench and the Bar, as well as the public, can rest assured that we
will continue to unflinchingly comply with our constitutional
duty to act decisively when it is clear that injustices are done.
The Supreme Court calls upon the entire Judiciary and all
members of the legal profession to remain strong, steadfast, and
unwavering in the duties they swore an oath to fulfill. At no
more fitting time that now should the Judiciary remain
undaunted, with a clear vision of taking courage, enforcing the
law, and upholding the supremacy of the Constitution.
True to the just virtues we all must fight for, our resolve is
unqualified. We recognize the bravery of all the judges and
lawyers who show up to administer justice in the face of fear.
Let there be no doubt, the Supreme Court stands with them.
(Emphases supplied.)
53. The release of the Statement is not without context. As

stated by a daily broadsheet, “[t]he statement was issued after
following months of calls from lawyers to address their security
concerns as attacks ranging from threats, red-tagging to killings,
continue.”17
54. As reported by news website Rappler, “[d]ata from the DOJ

show that 31 judges and prosecutors were killed in a span of 16 years
from 1999, compared to the 21 judges and prosecutors killed in only
4 years of Duterte.”18
55. Clearly, the unabashedly persistent and contumacious

series of social media posts insinuating that the Hon. Marlo Magdosa-
Malagar is part of the communist movement or, at the very least, is a
staunch supporter, are the very acts that this Honorable Court aims to
address being the acts that threatens the safety and security of judges.
As this Honorable Court mentioned in its Statement:
To threaten our judges and our lawyers is no less than an

assault on the Judiciary. To assault the Judiciary is to shake the
very bedrock on which the rule of law stands.
17 Philippine Star, Supreme Court addresses calls for action on attacks on lawyers, judges, 23 March 2021,
<https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2021/03/23/2086434/full-text-supreme-court-
addresses-calls-action-attacks-lawyers-judges.>.
18
Rappler, As DOJ and Supreme Court meet to examine murders, a 56th lawyer is killed, 20 January 2021
(by Lian Buan), https://www.rappler.com/nation/doj-supreme-court-examine-lawyer-killings/.
Page 30 of 38
D.
THE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE RESPONDENT
SHOULD BE DECLARED GUILTY OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT
OF COURT AND ACCORDINGLY BE PENALIZED WITH THE
MAXIMUM PENALTIES OF SIX (6) MONTHS IMPRISONMENT
AND FINE AMOUNTING TO PHP 30,000.00.
56. In the case of Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, et. al. vs.

Distribution Management Association of the Philippines, et al.,19 the
Supreme Court had the occasion to extensively define and discuss the
concept of “contempt of court,” and ruled in this wise –
Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or

disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt
is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a
legislative or judicial body or an interruption of its
proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its
presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to
impair the respect due to such a body. In its restricted and more
usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the
authority, justice, or dignity of a court. The phrase contempt of
court is generic, embracing within its legal signification a variety
of different acts.
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, and need
not be specifically granted by statute. It lies at the core of the
administration of a judicial system. Indeed, there ought to be no
question that courts have the power by virtue of their very
creation to impose silence, respect, and decorum in their
presence, submission to their lawful mandates, and to preserve
themselves and their officers from the approach and insults of
pollution. The power to punish for contempt essentially exists for the
preservation of order in judicial proceedings and for the enforcement of
judgments, orders, and mandates of the courts, and, consequently, for
the due administration of justice. The reason behind the power to
punish for contempt is that respect of the courts guarantees the
stability of their institution; without such guarantee, the
institution of the courts would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.
Contempt of court is of two kinds, namely: direct contempt,

which is committed in the presence of or so near the judge as to
obstruct him in the administration of justice; and constructive or
indirect contempt, which consists of willful disobedience of the
lawful process or order of the court.
The punishment for the first is generally summary and

immediate, and no process or evidence is necessary because the
19 G.R. No. 155849, 31 August 2011.

Page 31 of 38
act is committed in facie curiae. The inherent power of courts to

punish contempt of court committed in the presence of the courts
without further proof of facts and without aid of a trial is not
open to question, considering that this power is essential to
preserve their authority and to prevent the administration of
justice from falling into disrepute; such summary conviction and
punishment accord with due process of law. There is authority
for the view, however, that an act, to constitute direct contempt
punishable by summary proceeding, need not be committed in
the immediate presence of the court, if it tends to obstruct justice
or to interfere with the actions of the court in the courtroom
itself. Also, contemptuous acts committed out of the presence of
the court, if admitted by the contemnor in open court, may be
punished summarily as a direct contempt, although it is
advisable to proceed by requiring the person charged to appear
and show cause why he should not be punished when the judge
is without personal knowledge of the misbehavior and is
informed of it only by a confession of the contemnor or by
testimony under oath of other persons.
In contrast, the second usually requires proceedings less

summary than the first. The proceedings for the punishment of
the contumacious act committed outside the personal
knowledge of the judge generally need the observance of all the
elements of due process of law, that is, notice, written charges,
and an opportunity to deny and to defend such charges before
guilt is adjudged and sentence imposed.
Plainly, therefore, the word summary with respect to the

punishment for contempt refers not to the timing of the action
with reference to the offense but to the procedure that dispenses
with the formality, delay, and digression that result from the
issuance of process, service of complaint and answer, holding
hearings, taking evidence, listening to arguments, awaiting
briefs, submission of findings, and all that goes with a
conventional court trial.
A distinction between in-court contempts, which disrupt court

proceedings and for which a hearing and formal presentation of
evidence are dispensed with, and out-of-court contempts, which
require normal adversary procedures, is drawn for the purpose
of prescribing what procedures must attend the exercise of a
court’s authority to deal with contempt. The distinction does not
limit the ability of courts to initiate contempt prosecutions to the
summary punishment of in-court contempts that interfere with
the judicial process.
The court may proceed upon its own knowledge of the facts
without further proof and without issue or trial in any form to
punish a contempt committed directly under its eye or within its
view. But there must be adequate facts to support a summary
order for contempt in the presence of the court. The exercise of
the summary power to imprison for contempt is a delicate one
Page 32 of 38
and care is needed to avoid arbitrary or oppressive

conclusions. The reason for the extraordinary power to punish
criminal contempt in summary proceedings is that the
necessities of the administration of justice require such summary
dealing with obstructions to it, being a mode of vindicating the
majesty of the law, in its active manifestation, against obstruction
and outrage.
Proceedings for contempt are sui generis, in nature criminal, but

may be resorted to in civil as well as criminal actions, and
independently of any action. They are of two classes, the criminal
or punitive, and the civil or remedial. A criminal contempt
consists in conduct that is directed against the authority and
dignity of a court or of a judge acting judicially, as in unlawfully
assailing or discrediting the authority and dignity of the court
or judge, or in doing a duly forbidden act. A civil contempt consists
in the failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or judge in
a civil case for the benefit of the opposing party therein. It is at times
difficult to determine whether the proceedings are civil or criminal. In
general, the character of the contempt of whether it is criminal or civil
is determined by the nature of the contempt involved, regardless of the
cause in which the contempt arose, and by the relief sought or dominant
purpose. The proceedings are to be regarded as criminal when the
purpose is primarily punishment, and civil when the purpose is
primarily compensatory or remedial. Where the dominant purpose is to
enforce compliance with an order of a court for the benefit of a party in
whose favor the order runs, the contempt is civil; where the dominant
purpose is to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court,
and to protect the interests of the general public, the contempt is
criminal. Indeed, the criminal proceedings vindicate the dignity
of the courts, but the civil proceedings protect, preserve, and enforce
the rights of private parties and compel obedience to orders, judgments
and decrees made to enforce such rights. (Emphases and underscoring
supplied; citations omitted.)
57. The aforequoted vitriolic social media posts of Respondent

Badoy-Partosa meant to threaten and humiliate the honorable Manila
RTC Judge Malagar, as anchored on the trial judge’s Resolution,
sufficiently establish the contumacious conduct punishable as
“indirect contempt” and as contemplated under Section 3 (d) of Rule
71, which explicitly provides:
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing.

— After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity
given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period
as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or
counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be
punished for indirect contempt:
xxx xxx xxx

Page 33 of 38
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to

impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice x x
x” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
58. In Respondent Badoy-Partosa’s Facebook post entitled “A

Judgment Straight From the Bowels of Communist Hell,”20 the Respondent
accused Judge Malagar to have “passionately lawyered” for the CPP
and NPA; described the decision as “shameless”; called the Judge
“unprincipled” and an “idiot”; and, alleged that the Judge is a “friend
of the CPP NPA NDF” with a “helmet as thick as the helmet of the
urban operatives of the CPP NPA NDF.”.
59. In the same post, Respondent Badoy-Partosa likewise

threatened to kill Judge Malagar; called the judge a “true ally” of the
CPP NPA NDF; accused the Judge of having foisted an “impassioned”
and “punctilious” defense of the CPP NPA NDF better than the other
“urban operatives” ever did; alleged that the Judge of having abused
power shamelessly and brazenly; and also accused the Judge of being
a “traitor” and a “friend in high places” of the CPP NPA NDF in the
judiciary.
60. In Respondent Badoy-Partosa’s Facebook post entitled

“The Judge Marlo Malagar Horror Series,”21 Judge Malagar is drawn out
as a “friend and defender of the CPP NPA NDF”; a “horrible judge”
and a “judge straight from the bowels of hell”; and, Respondent
threatened to bomb the offices of “corrupt judges who are friends of
terrorists”.
61. Respondent Badoy-Partosa likewise involved the husband

of Judge Malagar in her malicious posts, alleging that Atty. Leo
Malagar was a “cadre of the CPP NPA NDF in the youth sector”.
Respondent also suggested that other lawyers, who she claims to be
“urban operatives of the CPP NPA NDF,” helped craft Judge
Malagar’s “malodorous decision”; and, insinuated that the Judge is
well-versed about a constitution that “only the CPP NPA NDF
members know”; thus, proclaiming that the “horrific decision” was
“written by no less than the terrorist Joma Sison and the Central
Committee of the terrorist organization the CPP NPA NDF.”
62. Several other posts,22 including Respondent Badoy-

Partosa’s very ill-mannered and insolent response to HUKOM, Inc.’s
statement,23 are all comprised of similar remarks meant to assault the
20 See Annex “C” with sub-markings of this Petition.

21 See Annex “D” of this Petition.
22 See Annexes “E” to “U” of this Petition.
23 See Annex “S” of this Petition.
Page 34 of 38
dignity, honor, prestige, and independence of Judge Malagar and of

the entire judicial system.
63. The posts bordering on hate speech of Respondent Badoy-

Partosa are amplified by a controversial medium distributed through
cyberspace in real time. This Honorable Court recognizes in the case
of Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., et. al. vs. The Secretary of Justice, et. al.24 that
“all is not well with the system since it could not filter out a number of
persons of ill will who would want to use cyberspace technology for
mischiefs and crimes. One of them can, for instance, avail himself of
the system to unjustly ruin the reputation of another or bully the latter
by posting defamatory statements against him that people can read.”
64. Indeed, the foregoing Facebook posts of Respondent

Badoy-Partosa are nothing less than contumacious as they directly
besmirch and tear down the reputation and credibility of Judge
Malagar and likewise impair the respect due, not only to Judge
Malagar, but also to all members of the Philippine Bench and Bar.
65. Respondent Badoy-Partosa’s misconduct and misbehavior

call on the public to lose trust and confidence on the authority of the
judiciary and to disregard the dignity and integrity of the courts of law.
Her actions result to the inevitable discrediting of the authority of the
court magistrates, as well as of the entire administration of justice.
66. This Honorable Court recognizes the right of the public to

comment and have critical evaluation of the courts and the judges,
including issues pertaining to a concluded litigation. However, such
criticism should not spill over the bounds of decency and propriety.
67. As thoroughly discussed in the case of In Re: Emil

(Emiliano) P. Jurado,25 “false reports about a public official or other person
are not shielded from sanction by the cardinal right to free speech enshrined
in the Constitution. Even the most liberal view of free speech has never
countenanced the publication of falsehoods, especially the persistent
and unmitigated dissemination of patent lies.”
68. Applying the wisdom of the Honorable Court to the facts

at hand, Respondent Badoy-Partosa’s litany of falsehoods could not,
by any stretch of the imagination, be categorized as fair and bona fide
criticism of a public official’s conduct. It is slanderous, unfair, abusive,
criminal. Respondent has threatened the life and security of Judge
Malagar and her husband; subjected them to slanderous accusations;
24
G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2014.
25 A.M. No. 93-2-037-SC, 06 April 1995.
Page 35 of 38
and through her actions, called on and encouraged the public to do the
same. This is truly detrimental to the independence of the judiciary
and grossly violative of the duty of respect to courts.
69. Correspondingly, herein Petitioners humbly beg the kind

indulgence of the Honorable Court and most respectfully plead for the
Honorable Court to immediately step in and vindicate the dignity and
authority of the courts by finding Respondent Badoy-Partosa GUILTY
of Indirect Contempt of Court and impose upon her the maximum
punishment set out under Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court,
which provides:
Punishment for indirect contempt. — If the respondent is adjudged

guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial
Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be
punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both x x x”
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that:
a) The instant Urgent Petition for Indirect Contempt be given

DUE COURSE; or
b) Alternatively, be CONSOLIDATED with A.M. No. 22-09-16-

SC (Re: Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar); AND
c) After due notice and hearing, a judgment be rendered

DECLARING RESPONDENT LORRAINE MARIE T.
BADOY-PARTOSA GUILTY OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT
OF COURT, and accordingly IMPOSING a penalty of
IMPRISONMENT of six (6) months and a FINE of Thirty
Thousand Pesos (PhP 30,000.00).
Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises
are likewise prayed for.
Makati City for the City of Manila, 03 October 2022.

Petition For Indirect Contempt vs. Lorraine Badoy-Partosa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition For Indirect Contempt vs. Lorraine Badoy-Partosa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ATTY. RICO V. DOMINGO, DEAN

--versus-- G.R. No. _________________

URGENT PETITION FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT

~ Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa,

“The Court STERNLY WARNS those who continue to incite violence

~ Supreme Court of the Philippines En Banc

Petitioners ATTY. RICO V. DOMINGO, DEAN ANTONIO

NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This is an Urgent Petition to Declare Respondent Lorraine

2. Given the gravity and hostility displayed by the conduct

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

3. On or about 23 September 2022, Respondent Badoy-

A copy of Resolution dated 21 September 2022 penned by Judge

4. Considering that this exhibit is comprised of “official acts”

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall take

5. The corresponding docket and other lawful fees and

6. PETITIONERS ATTY. RICO V. DOMINGO, DEAN

7. For purposes of the instant Petition, all of the abovenamed

8. RESPONDENT LORRAINE MARIE T. BADOY-

Spokesperson of the National Task Force to End Local Communist

Petitioners are not aware, nor is there any publicly accessible

Respondent Badoy-Partosa may be served with pleadings,

JURISDICTION/VENUE OF THE PETITION

9. While under Section 5, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court a charge

11. The seriousness and gravity of the attacks against Judge

warning against those who “continue to incite violence through social

12. This is consistent with the stance taken by this Honorable

13. The Honorable Court, as the constitutional body vested

14. Thus, Petitioners humbly beg the kind indulgence of the

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

15. On 21 September 2022, Manila RTC Presiding Judge Hon.

Bagong Hukbong Bayan docketed under Civil Case No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV.

17. Meanwhile, Respondent Badoy-Partosa, a publicly known

18. Significantly, the verified “Lorraine Marie T. Badoy”

19. On or about 23 September 2022, and in response to the

“A Judgment Straight From the Bowels of Communist Hell

She consistently used the Constitution of the CPP NPA NDF,

Meaning, the cold blooded murder of Kieth Absalon where he

as TERRORISTS, the murders of thousands upon thousands of

What higher ideals is this unprincipled judge talking about?

What she’s saying is we must excuse the violence of the CPP

What she’s telling us is this: Philippines, ano ba kayo? Hindi

In other words, this idiot judge is telling us that we’re so

She also claims that the incidents of terrorism that government

That we were constantly on the top 10 list of the Global

There in her airconditioned office in Manila, she has not seen

mothers, fathers, siblings, at the murder of their loved ones

So if I kill this judge and I do so out of my political belief that

In other words, siningit ni Judge ang isang issue na hindi naman

And of course this Judge ruled contrary to the ruling of the

No urban operative of the CPP NPA NDF – not Teddy Casiño,

Nor more blatantly shameless and brazen display of abuse of

It is as the former rebels have told us: they are everywhere.

This is a mere hiccup in our fight to finally rid our country of

This Judge gave the CPP NPA NDF – a terrorist organization

By our Unity and by our Strength, we will deliver that message

NO, YOU ARE TERRORISTS.

We do. We get to call it.

The CPP NPA NDF is a terrorist organization and that is written

A computer screenshot of the aforequoted Facebook post by

Facebook and other social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Instagram,

21. On or about the same date, Respondent Badoy-Partosa