Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, August 17) — The Supreme Court En Banc has penalized five lawyers for posting homophobic remarks on social media, saying the right to privacy of lawyers is limited especially when it comes to their online activities.

Lawyers Noel V. Antay, Jr., Morgan Rosales Nicanor, Joseph Marion Peña Navarrete, and Israel P. Calderon were reprimanded with stern warning, while lawyer Atty. Ernesto Tabujara III was dealt with a heavier punishment of ₱25,000 fine and stern warning. They were found in violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The decision stemmed from a Facebook post initiated by Antay who posted that he prosecuted a case for estafa against a member of the LGBTQIA+ community. He alleged the convicted individual cursed at him and accused him of being a bigot. He then narrated that the judge, whom he described as “somewhat effeminate,” chastised the convict.

The high court said Antay opened the conversation with homophobic undertones.

“These descriptions are uncalled for and have no context in the narrative, thus showing his gender bias,” read the decision signed by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo and 14 justices and released on Wednesday.

Nicanor, Navarrete, and Calderon chimed in on Antay’s post. The justices noted that their comments reeked of misleading stereotypes and wrong, perverse undertones often pinned against members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Tabujara was meted with the heaviest penalty among the five lawyers.

He commented under Antay’s post: “(s)ino 'yung bakla na judge…(n)aka eye liner and eye shadow pag naghe-hearing. Ang taray pa!” He later on commented that the joke among lawyers is that in a certain courthouse, “sa 2nd floor puro may sira ulo mga judge, sa baba bakla at mga corrupt.”

[Translation: Who is the gay judge who wears eyeliner and eyeshadows during hearings? And so prickly! In the second floor, the judges are crazy, but in the first floor, you can find the homosexuals and the corrupt ones.]

It said Tabujara lumped the alleged homosexual judges with the allegedly corrupt ones, thereby implying that homosexual judges have the same degree of immorality as those of corrupt judges. It added that unlike the other lawyers, Tabujara did not sincerely apologize and showed no hint of remorse, which the court found disturbing.

It also slammed Tabujara’s comments that he is an ally of the LGBTQIA+ sector to explain his side.

“It smacks of hypocrisy,” the decision read. “If hurt was unintentionally inflicted, a sincere apology can lessen the sting.”

The magistrates ruled that lawyers’ right to privacy vis-a-vis online activities is not absolute.

“It is not a defense that the discriminatory language was uttered in what was seemingly intended to be private exchanges among the macho men. The fact that their exchanges became public trumps whatever intention they may have had to keep their communications private… Unfortunately or fortunately, respondents’ true character came to light,” the court said.

All five lawyers were told that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.