Gadon v. Topacio: A Contempt Circus at the Edge of Judicial Sanity

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — July 31, 2025

🎬 Cold Open: Because Reality Is Stranger Than Legal Fiction

Some legal dramas are Shakespearean. Others are courtroom thrillers. And then there’s Gadon v. Topacio, a spectacle best described as “Monty Python Presents: Indirect Contempt in the Time of Facebook.”

Picture this: A disbarred lawyer turned presidential adviser—whose professional decorum makes a frat house kegger look like a judicial investiture—fires social media missiles at the Supreme Court, calling it a pack of Duterte lapdogs. Enter Atty. Ferdinand Topacio, always ready to fight for The Rule of Law™ (and perhaps a little airtime), filing a contempt petition so brimming with righteous indignation it could pass for a telenovela script.

Welcome to the Philippine legal system in 2025—where constitutional law collides with keyboard warfare, and where Rule 71 is dusted off like an old relic whenever someone gets a little too spicy on Facebook.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK: Indirect Contempt for the Constitutionally Unhinged

Under Rule 71, Section 3(d) of the Rules of Court, one may be held in indirect contempt for:

“Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.”

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about rude tweets from your tita’s thread. This is about public statements that shake the institutional tree hard enough that the justices start looking up from their ponencias and reaching for their gavels—or, at least, their public information officers.

Also on the table? Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution — that pesky little clause about freedom of speech. But as every law student knows, even free speech has its limits—especially when it slaps the Supreme Court across the face on Viber.

CASE ANALYSIS: The Contempt-Off, Round by Round

⚖ For the Contempt Petition (Topacio’s Position)

Scandalizing the Court (and Then Some)
Gadon accused the Supreme Court of political bias, a damning charge made worse by the fact that it came from a disbarred lawyer now working as a public official. As the Court said in People v. Godoy, G.R. No. 115908‑09 (Feb. 20, 1997), scurrilous abuse undermines the integrity of the judiciary.
Repeat Offender Energy
This is not Gadon’s first ride on the Contempt Carousel. He’s already been disbarred (A.C. No. 13448, June 27, 2023), fined ₱150,000 for perjury (SC, 2024), and publicly reprimanded more times than the House of Representatives changes alliances.
Public Office = Amplified Malice
Under RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), Section 4(a), public officials must “respect the rights of others and the authority of lawful institutions.” Gadon’s statements weren’t just disrespectful—they were radioactive.

⚖ Against the Contempt Petition (Gadon’s Defenses)

Free Speech, Baby
Gadon can (and will) invoke Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech.” Cue In re: Emil Jurado (A.M. No. 93-2-037, April 6, 1995) and Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Pangan (G.R. No. 101456, Sept. 28, 1992) — cases that tolerate strong judicial criticism as long as it’s not inciting violence or degrading the administration of justice.
No Pending Case, No Problem
The Supreme Court ruling was already final. According to Estrada v. Desierto (G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001), post-decision commentary—even when obnoxious—is generally protected unless it clearly obstructs justice.
Hyperbole as Defense
“Lapdog” isn’t a legal term. It’s colorful, maybe even childish, but Gadon will argue it’s political metaphor, not a factual assertion. This echoes US v. Bustos (1920), where rhetorical excess in public debate was deemed permissible. Unless he starts handing out literal dog collars to justices, he might slither under the “protected expression” threshold.

REALITY CHECK: Odds, Strategies, and Possible Outcomes

🎲 Likelihood of Contempt Finding:

Topacio’s Chances: 35%
The law’s on his side, but jurisprudence protects political speech with the kind of parental over-indulgence usually reserved for only children and mediocre senatorial candidates.
Gadon’s Defense: 65%
Free speech. No pending case. Political flavor. Disbarred but unrepentant. If there’s a Philippine equivalent of a Teflon Don, it’s this guy.

🧠 Strongest Arguments:

For Topacio: Public official spewing vitriol that degrades the Court = Rule 71 territory.
For Gadon: “I’m just asking questions!” plus no actual interference with an ongoing case.

🛑 Likely SC Response:

A sternly worded decision reminding everyone that SC justices are not pets.
A ₱30,000 fine, maybe some public dressing-down, but don’t expect jail time unless Gadon crashes oral arguments dressed as the Grim Reaper.

CHARACTER COMMENTARY: The Legal Circus’ Star Clowns

🎭 Larry Gadon: The Disbarred Rooster Who Keeps Crowing

Only in the Philippines can a disbarred lawyer be appointed Presidential Adviser on Poverty Alleviation—though in Gadon’s case, the poverty he alleviates is primarily rhetorical. His entire brand is “shock jock meets bar exam flunker.” The Supreme Court told him to go away, and yet here he is, yelling on Facebook, trashing the judiciary, and throwing shade at Topacio like it’s a Tuesday.

His defense is classic Gadon: “They’re just mad ‘cause I said what everyone’s thinking.” The man makes Kanye look humble.

🎭 Ferdinand Topacio: Defender of the Court, Patron of Publicity

Topacio’s no stranger to theatrics. The man has made more press appearances than some MMDA officers. But this petition, while legally grounded, smells faintly of opportunism. Filing it in the name of “judicial dignity” while publicly mocking Gadon’s lack of clients is… well, ironic.

Still, credit where it’s due: Topacio’s using the system the way it’s designed. Whether for ego, law, or both, he’s keeping judicial accountability in the headlines. Bless his litigious little heart.

BROADER IMPLICATIONS: When Judicial Dignity Meets Meme Culture

This case is more than a spat between two men whose hairlines recede in inverse proportion to their public exposure. It’s a snapshot of a legal culture in flux.

Judicial Respect vs. Public Discourse: If the SC punishes Gadon too harshly, it risks looking thin-skinned. Too lightly, and the Court becomes a punchline on Tiktok.
The Ethics of Appointments: What message does it send when disbarred lawyers are appointed to national office, only to attack the very institution that disbarred them?
Social Media and Legal Accountability: The gadfly generation has gone digital, and the judiciary must now decide how far is too far when a government official launches verbal napalm on Facebook.

VERDICT: The Supreme Court Will Bark, But Won’t Bite (Too Hard)

Topacio’s petition isn’t legally absurd—it’s Rule 71 solid, with a sprinkling of jurisprudential seasoning. But Gadon’s obnoxiousness, while grating, is unlikely to trigger more than a judicial wrist-slap. Expect a fine, a written warning, and a gentle reminder that the next time, contempt might mean more than just scorn.

Unless, of course, Gadon manages to live-stream his next insult from inside the Senate halls. Then all bets are off.

Key Citations:

Rule 71, Rules of Court (Indirect Contempt)
Article III, Section 4, 1987 Constitution – Freedom of Speech
RA 6713 (Code of Conduct for Public Officials)
People v. Godoy, G.R. No. 115908‑09 (Feb. 20, 1997) – Scandalizing the Court –
In re: Emil Jurado (1995) – Journalistic speech vs. contempt
Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Pangan (1992) – Judicial criticism boundaries
Estrada v. Desierto (2001) – Post-ruling speech and contempt
A.C. No. 13448 (Disbarment of Gadon, 2023) – For Gadon’s disbarment
US v. Bustos, 273 U.S. 28 (1920) – Rhetorical exaggeration in public debate

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.