punished for contempt of court, for making such derogatory statements in his column

against the Supreme Court and its members.

Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense

of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said

decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.

Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words punished for contempt of court, for making
such derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to said
decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by
checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense
of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;" (3) that the words
"stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989 article are not his own
words but that he was merely quoting the words