The Supreme Court (SC) cautioned against the danger of publicity in judicial proceedings that might directly influence a judge or be swayed indirectly by public opinion in resolving a particular case.
However, the SC acknowledged “the equally important right of the media to give legitimate publicity to newsworthy criminal investigations, especially high-profile criminal cases and heinous crimes.”
“This right is not absolute, and its exercise must be balanced with the equally important duty of the court to administer justice and uphold its independence,” the SC stressed in a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
The SC reminded that in the exercise by members of the media or the press of their freedom to give publicity to news in court proceedings, they have the corresponding duty to ensure that they are not infringing upon the rights of the accused to a fair trial.
The decision, which was made public on Jan. 5, granted the petition filed by ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN) and its reporter Jorge Cariño as it dismissed the case for indirect contempt filed by Datu Andal Ampatuan Jr.
The Court of Appeals (CA) had affirmed the ruling of the regional trial court (RTC) which denied the petition filed by ABS-CBN and Cariño to dismiss the indirect contempt charge. The case reached the SC.
The indirect contempt citation arose during the trial of the Maguindanao massacre where 58 persons died, 32 of them journalists on Nov. 23, 2009. Andal Jr. was one of those convicted by the Quezon City RTC in a decision handed down on Dec. 19, 2019.
On June 23, 2010, ABS-CBN aired the interview by Cariño with Lakmodin Saliao who claimed he was present when the Ampatuan family planned the killings. Saliao, in the same interview, also named the Ampatuan family members who were present during the meeting.
ABS-CBN’s broadcast of Saliao’s statements prompted Andal Jr. to file a petition against the television firm and Cariño for indirect contempt. Andal Jr. claimed that Saliao’s interview was “calculated to interfere with court proceedings to serve Saliao’s own interest without passing through the scrutiny of the police of the National Prosecution Service….”
Andal Jr. also asked the trial court to stop Saliao, ABS-CBN, and Cariño from making further statements in any forum or media during the pendency of the Maguindanao massacre cases.
ABS-CBN and Cariño asked the trial court to dismiss Andal Jr.’s petition for failure to state a cause of action. The trial court’s dismissal of the motion of ABS-CBN and Cariño was elevated to the CA which upheld the ruling.
In granting the petition by ABS-CBN and Cariño, the SC reexamined the basis of its contempt powers and defined what constitutes contemptuous speech and why such is punished, the SC’s public information office (PIO) said in a summary of the decision.
The PIO said that contempt of court is “disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice, and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders, but such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice.”
It said the SC stressed that the power to punish for contempt, vested in all courts, is inherent in the exercise of judicial power as stated under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.
“Courts exercise inherent contempt powers by restricting speech that tends to bring the court into disrespect or scandalize the court, or where there is clear and present danger that would impede the administration of justice,” the PIO said quoting from the decision.
It said the SC stressed that the exercise of contempt powers ensures the decisional and institutional aspects of judicial independence crucial in the administration of justice.
However, it said the SC cautioned that given the contempt power’s “drastic and extraordinary” nature, its exercise must be restrained and judicious and “used only in flagrant cases and with utmost forbearance.”
“Specific to contemptuous speech, it is restrained by the courts by way of punishment for indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 3(d) of the Rules of Court,” the PIO said.
Among those considered contemptuous speech, the PIO noted, is the violation of the sub judice (literally means under the judge or case under trial) rule, which generally restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings, including the contents of actual pleadings filed, comments on the credibility of witnesses, assessment of the evidence offered, the relevance of the evidence presented, and any other matter that is presented in the trial for a judge’s appreciation.
“The rationale of the sub judice rule is to protect against the dangers of the publication to directly influence a judge or indirectly through public opinion in resolving a particular case,” the PIO said based on the decision.
It also said the SC pointed out that while the right to free speech includes the right to know and discuss judicial proceedings, this does not include statements that are aimed to influence judges in deciding a pending case.
There must be “a showing of the serious and imminent threat of an utterance on the court’s administration of justice before it can be punished,” the PIO’s summary also stated.
It said the SC warned that the contempt powers of the court, while may be used to restrict the speech of the media and the public, must not be broadly exercised as to deter the freedom of the press and its right to give legitimate publicity of matters of public interest.”
“Our power to punish for contempt should never be wielded to stifle comments on public interest,” the SC said according to the PIO.
In the case of Andal Jr.’s contempt petition against ABS-CBN and Cariño for alleged violation of the sub judice rule, the PIO said the SC found that the contempt petition must be dismissed for failing to state all the required facts.
The PIO said the SC cited four elements must be cited in a petition for indirect contempt, namely: (1) that public statements were made regarding the merits of the case while it is pending before the courts; (2) the mental element of the speaker who uttered the contemptuous speech showing that the purpose of the speech is to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; (3) the clear and present danger of the utterance to the court’s administration of justice, specifically identifying the importance and saliency of the information on the ability of courts to make an impartial decision; (4) the effect of the speech on the administration of justice such that the utterance will influence the court’s independence in ruling on a case, which will, in turn, affect public confidence in the Judiciary.
It said the SC found that Andal’s petition failed to state the second and third requirements. The relevant mental element to prove the existence of actual malice or deliberate or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement was not stated.
Also, it said the SC found that neither was there sufficient allegation of the clear and present danger of the interview and its broadcast to the court’s administration of justice.
“Those accused of indirect contempt should not be compelled to proceed to trial when the charges are grossly insufficient,” the PIO said citing the SC’s decision.
Finally, the SC said:
“Freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press have always been considered primordial and fundamental by this Court, but it has never been cast as absolute.
“Certainly, it should not be selfishly exercised at the expense of the fundamental right of others, to further injustice, to undermine the
dignity of the human person or their identities, and to undermine the ability of our courts to fully administer justice.
“Our Constitution has never imagined that everyone, in the exercise of their rights, will be privileged against the rights of other individuals. In recognizing the rights of others, even as we claim ours, we fulfill our responsibility towards what makes us true human beings: individuals who also know that their survival depends on community and compassion.
“After all, the Constitution did not imagine that only one person, or one class, or one identity will lord over all the rest: it imagined a sovereignty composed of all our peoples.”