TINAWAG ni Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III na “nuisance suit” ang petisyon para sa indirect contempt na isinampa laban sa kanya ni Atty. Ferdinand Topacio at iba pa, at iginiit na wala itong legal o factual na batayan at publicity stunt lamang.
Sa isang press statement sinabi ni Sotto: “The recent petition for indirect contempt filed against me by Atty. Topacio is a nuisance suit. It has no legal or factual basis. It is a mere publicity stunt.”
Dagdag pa niya: “Simply expressing a disagreement or the mere act of criticizing the decision of the courts cannot constitute indirect contempt. As a lawyer, Atty. Topacio should know this. He has a long record of publicly criticizing court decisions that are unfavorable to his clients.”
Ipinaliwanag ni Sotto na sa ilalim ng Rule 71 ng Rules of Court, ang indirect contempt ay nangangailangan ng gawain sa labas ng korte na “actually tends to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.”
Sinabi rin niya: “I did not do any of those acts. I simply expressed a disagreement with the court decision. That is protected speech under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.”
Ayon kay Sotto, may pananaw ang Korte Suprema na ang pagpuna sa mga hukom o sa mga desisyon ng korte ay mapaparusahan lamang kapag nagdudulot ito ng “clear and present danger” sa administration of justice—ibig sabihin, may agarang banta itong makagambala sa mga proseso ng korte o makapanghina sa kakayahan nitong gampanan ang tungkulin nito—na iniuugnay niya sa In re: Kelly (G.R. No. 11715, December 21, 1916; 35 Phil. 944).
Binanggit din niya ang isa pang desisyon: “Also, in the case of Estrada v. Desierto the Supreme Court ruled that courts are not immune from criticism and are expected to withstand dissent in a democratic system.”
Sinabi ni Sotto na pormal niyang sasagutin ang petisyon kapag hiniling na ito ng Supreme Court.
Sa mas naunang mga komento na nakapaloob sa pahayag, tinanong ni Sotto ang selective na pagtutok sa kanya: “… what about those who are aligned with my opinion such as: Retired SC Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino UP College of Law Assoc Dean Paolo Emmanuel S. Tamase Atty. Wilfredo Garrido Law Dean Mel Sta. Maria Manolo Quezon III and others that pointed out the factual errors of the decision and the possibility of a judicial legislation? Ako lang ba?”
The post Sotto tinawag na publicity stunt petisyon vs sa kanya appeared first on Journal News Online.
