1. A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC / G.R. No. 263384 (2023): Freedom of Expression vs. Judicial Authority
In this administrative decision on contempt, the Supreme Court reiterated that the right to criticize the courts — including their decisions, proceedings, and conduct — is subsumed within the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press under the 1987 Constitution. The Court upheld that public discourse on governmental institutions — including the judiciary — is indispensable to democratic accountability. However, the Court also held that speech that attacks the integrity and orderly functioning of the judiciary may be subject to regulation or punishment to preserve judicial independence. The ratio decidendi is that while freedom of expression includes the right to comment upon public affairs and judicial conduct, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against equally vital public interests such as judicial dignity and independence. Criticism that amounts to unwarranted attacks on the courts’ authority, obstructs the administration of justice, or seeks to degrade public confidence falls outside constitutional protection.
Clean link: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/aug2023/am_22-09-16-sc_2023.html
2. Chavez v. Gonzales (G.R. No. 168338, 2008): Freedom of Speech and Press Against Government Restraint
In Chavez v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court underscored that freedom of speech and of the press are preferred constitutional rights. The case involved challenges to government pronouncements that were perceived to restrain media coverage of matters of public concern. The Court held that even statements by government officials warning media organizations against publishing certain materials have a chilling effect on free expression and are subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The ratio decidendi is that the vital need of a constitutional democracy for freedom of speech and of the press is indispensable to public deliberation, and any governmental restraint must demonstrate a clear and present danger before freedom can be curtailed.
Clean link: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/56004
3. ABS-CBN Corporation and Jorge Andalampatuan, Jr. v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 227004, 2023)
In this case, the Supreme Court articulated that the guarantees of free speech and a free press extend to the right to criticize judicial conduct, explicitly including discourse on court rulings and judicial behavior. The Court framed criticism of judicial conduct as a legitimate exercise of free expression so long as it is respectful and bona fide, not intended to undermine the integrity or authority of the courts. The ratio decidendi is that freedom of expression covers public discussion on matters of public concern — including judicial conduct — and protections extend to such dialogue unless speech constitutes libel or direct attacks that subvert jurisprudential functions.
Clean link: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69183
4. Post-Promulgation Clarification in Lorraine Badoy-Partosa Contempt Case (2024)
In its adjudication of an indirect contempt petition against Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa for her attacks on a trial court judge, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that freedom of speech encompasses the right to criticize the judiciary, but with an important qualification: where expressions threaten judicial independence or propose violence, they are not protected and may be sanctioned. The ratio decidendi is that free speech must be balanced with the need to uphold the judiciary’s institutional authority and protect the administration of justice; contempt powers are proper where speech crosses into attacks on judicial function or incitement.
Clean link: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-finds-lorraine-badoy-guilty-of-indirect-contempt-for-attacks-against-judge-warns-online-influencers-to-verify-truthfulness-of-posts/
5. Canonical Principle on Criticizing Judicial Decisions (A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC and Related Jurisprudence)
In elaborating the boundaries of comment on judicial decisions, the Supreme Court iterated that while citizens have the right to comment on and critique judicial decisions and the performance of judges, this right does not include the authority to degrade courts or encourage disregarding their orders. Legitimate criticism must be bona fide, respectful, and within due bounds of decency and propriety. Attacks that are malicious or aimed at destroying public confidence in the judiciary constitute abuses of the freedom of expression and may be subject to indirect contempt or analogous measures. The ratio decidendi is that freedom of expression is a core civil liberty that must be vigorously protected, but courts retain the ability to regulate speech that imperils judicial independence or public order.
Clean link: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/apr2023/gr_227004_2023.html
Synthesis of Legal Principles
From the foregoing decisions and pronouncements, the following core legal principles emerge:
Freedom of expression is a preferred constitutional right under the 1987 Constitution (Article III, Sec. 4) and includes robust protections for public discourse, dissent, and criticism of government institutions.
Criticism of judicial decisions, conduct, and institutional performance is a protected form of expression so long as it is respectful, honest, and bona fide and does not seek to undermine the constitutional functions of the judiciary.
The Supreme Court retains constitutional authority to regulate speech that directly attacks the integrity of the courts, threatens judicial independence, or crosses into contempt, recognizing that freedom of expression is not absolute and must be balanced against other constitutional values.
Balancing tests (e.g., clear and present danger) are applied where speech restrictions are at issue, ensuring that only speech posing a substantive evil can be regulated.
Protected speech includes political commentary, dissent against government decisions, media reportage, and public discourse — all crucial in a deliberative democracy.
Sources
1. A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC / G.R. No. 263384 (2023). LawPhil decision text.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/aug2023/am_22-09-16-sc_2023.html
2. Francisco Chavez v. Raul M. Gonzales (G.R. No. 168338, 2008). SC decision via Judiciary eLibrary.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/56004
3. ABS-CBN Corporation and Jorge Andalampatuan, Jr. v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 227004, 2023). SC decision via Judiciary eLibrary.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69183
4. SC Finds Lorraine Badoy Guilty of Indirect Contempt (SC press release).
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-finds-lorraine-badoy-guilty-of-indirect-contempt-for-attacks-against-judge-warns-online-influencers-to-verify-truthfulness-of-posts/
5. ABS-CBN Corporation and Jorge Andalampatuan, Jr. jurisprudential discussion (public commentary).
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/apr2023/gr_227004_2023.html
(Assisted by ChatGPT, February 13, 2026)
