2/8/2016

G.R.No.176389

ThisisGoogle'scacheofhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/176389_brion.htm.Itis
asnapshotofthepageasitappearedon3Feb201603:05:17GMT.
Thecurrentpagecouldhavechangedinthemeantime.Learnmore
Fullversion

Textonlyversion

Viewsource

Tip:Toquicklyfindyoursearchtermonthispage,pressCtrl+ForF(Mac)andusethefindbar.

G.R. No. 176389 ANTONIO LEJANO, petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,respondent.

G.R. No. 176864 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus HUBERT

JEFFREYP.WEBB,etal.,appellants.

Promulgated:

December14,2010
xx
SUPPLEMENTALOPINION

BRION,J.:

Inadditiontomyvoteandindependentlyofthemeritsofthepresentcase,Iwritethis
opiniontopointoutthegrowingdisregardandnonobservanceofthesubjudicerule,tothe
detriment of the rights of the accused, the integrity of the courts, and, ultimately, the
administrationofjustice.Iseizethisopportunityfullyawarethatthepresentcasedubbedin
thenewsmediaastheVizcondeMassacreisoneofthemostsensationalcriminalcasesin
Philippine history in terms of the mode of commission of the crime and the personalities
involved. From the time the charges were filed, the case has captured the publics interest
thatanunusualamountofairtimeandprintspacehavebeendevotedtoit.Oflate,withthe
publics renewed interest after the case was submitted for decision, key personalities have
again been unabashedly publicizing their opinions and commenting even on the merits of
thecasebeforevariousformsofmedia.ASeniorJusticeofthisCourt,whowasawitnessin
thecase(whilehewasinprivatelawpractice)andwhoconsequentlyinhibitedhimselffrom
participation, was even publicly maligned in the print and broadcast media through
unsupportedspeculationsabouthisinterventioninthecase.Thatwashowbadandhowlow
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/176389_brion.htm

1/8

2/8/2016

G.R.No.176389

commentsaboutthecasehadbeen.

In essence, the sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to
pendingjudicialproceedings.Therestrictionappliesnotonlytoparticipantsinthepending
case,i.e., to members of the bar and bench, and to litigants and witnesses, but also to the
publicingeneral,whichnecessarilyincludesthemedia.AlthoughtheRulesofCourtdoes
notcontainaspecificprovisionimposingthesubjudicerule,itsupportstheobservanceof
therestrictionbypunishingitsviolationasindirect contempt under Section 3(d) of Rule
71:

Section3.Indirectcontempttobepunishedafterchargeandhearing.xxxaperson
guiltyofanyofthefollowingactsmaybepunishedforindirectcontempt:

xxxx

(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or

degradetheadministrationofjustice[.]

Personsfacingchargesforindirectcontemptforviolationofthesubjudiceruleoften
invoke as defense their right to free speech and claim that the citation for contempt
constitutesaformofimpermissiblesubsequentpunishment.

WehavelongrecognizedinthisjurisdictionthatthefreedomofspeechunderSection
4,ArticleIIIoftheConstitutionisnotabsolute.Averyliteralconstructionoftheprovision,
[1]
asespousedbyUSSupremeCourtJusticeHugoBlack, mayleadtothedisregardofother
[2]
equally compelling constitutional rights and principles. In Vicente v. Majaducon, this
Court declared that [the freedom of speech] needs on occasion to be adjusted to and
accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests such as the
maintenance of the integrity of courts and orderly functioning of the administration of
justice. Courts, both within and outside this jurisdiction, have long grappled with the
dilemma of balancing the publics right to free speech and the governments duty to
administer fair and impartial justice. While the sub judice rule may be considered as a
curtailmentoftherighttofreespeech,itisnecessarytoensuretheproperadministrationof
[3]
justiceandtherightofanaccusedtoafairtrial. Both these latter concerns are equally
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/176389_brion.htm

2/8

2/8/2016

G.R.No.176389

paramountandcannotlightlybedisregarded.

Before proceeding with this line of thought, however, let me clarify that the sub
judice rule is not imposed on all forms of speech. In so far as criminal proceedings are
concerned,twoclassesofpublicizedspeechmadeduringthependencyoftheproceedings
canbeconsideredascontemptuous:first,commentsonthemeritsofthecase,andsecond,
intemperate and unreasonable comments on the conduct of the courts with respect to the
case.Publicizedspeechshouldbeunderstoodtobelimitedtothoseairedorprintedinthe
variousformsofmediasuchastelevision,radio,newspapers,magazines,andinternet,and
excludes discussions, in public or in private, between and among ordinary citizens. The
Constitution simply gives the citizens the right to speech, not the right to unrestricted
publicizedspeech.

Comments on the merits of the case may refer to the credibility of witnesses, the
characteroftheaccused,thesoundnessofthealibisoffered,therelevanceoftheevidence
presented, and generally any other comment bearing on the guilt or innocence of the
[4]
accused. Thedangerposedbythisclassofspeechistheundueinfluenceitmaydirectly
exert on the court in the resolution of the criminal case, or indirectly through the public
opinionitmaygenerateagainsttheaccusedandtheadverseimpactthispublicopinionmay
haveduringthetrial.Thesignificanceofthesubjudiceruleishighlightedincriminalcases,
as the possibility of undue influence prejudices the accuseds right to a fair trial. The
principalpurposeofthesubjudiceruleistopreservetheimpartialityofthejudicialsystem
[5]
byprotectingitfromundueinfluence. Publicopinionhasnoplaceinacriminaltrial.We
ruledthat

it is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the
decisionofissuesoffactandlawshouldbeimmunefromeveryextraneousinfluencethat
factsshouldbedecideduponevidenceproducedincourtandthatthedeterminationof
[6]
suchfactsshouldbeuninfluencedbybias,prejudiceorsympathies.

Therighttoafairtrialisanadjunctoftheaccusedsrighttodueprocesswhichguarantees
[him] a presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved in a trial x x x where the
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/176389_brion.htm

3/8

2/8/2016

G.R.No.176389

conclusionsreachedareinducednotbyanyoutsideforceorinfluencebutonlybyevidence
[7]
andargumentgiveninopencourt,wherefittingdignityandcalmambianceisdemanded.

Inforeignjurisdictions,thecourtsdonothesitatetoexercisetheirpowertopunishfor
contemptwherenecessarytodisposeofjudicialbusinessunhamperedbypublicationsthat
[8]
tendtoimpairtheimpartialityofverdicts.

Ifthemediapublishprejudicialmaterial,theycanappeartourge,ormayinfactbe
urging, a particular finding: the media can wage a campaign against one of the parties to
proceedings. If the jury decides in accordance with an outcome promoted by the media, it
will appear as if the jurors were swayed by the media. By the same token, if the jurys
decision does not accord with media opinion, it may appear as if they were deliberately
reactingagainstit.Eitherway,itmayappearthatthejurysdecisionwasnotimpartialand
[9]
basedontheevidencepresentedincourt,evenifitwas.

[10]
Theaccusedmustbeassuredofafairtrialnotwithstandingtheprejudicialpublicity
he
hasaconstitutionalrighttohavehiscausetriedfairlybyanimpartialtribunal,uninfluenced
[11]
bypublicationorpublicclamor.
Thesubjudicedoctrineprotectsagainsttheappearance
[12]
ofdecisionshavingbeeninfluencedbypublishedmaterial.

As may be observed from the cited material, the sub judice rule is used by foreign
courtstoinsulatemembersofthejuryfrombeinginfluencedbyprejudicialpublicity. But
thefactthatthejurysystemisnotadoptedinthisjurisdictionisnotanargumentagainstour
observanceofthesubjudicerulejusticesandjudgesarenodifferentfrommembersofthe
jury,theyarenotimmunefromthepervasiveeffectsofmedia.Itmightbefarcicaltobuild
around them an impregnable armor against the influence of the most powerful media of
[13]
publicopinion.
AsIsaidinanothercase,inaslightlydifferentcontext,eventhosewho
[14]
aredetermined,intheirconsciousminds,toavoidbiasmaybeaffected.
Also,itisnotnecessarythatthepublicityactuallyinfluencedthecourtsdispositionof
thecasetheactualimpactofprejudicialpublicityisnotrelevanttoliabilityforsubjudice
[15]
contempt.
Inseveralcases,theCourthasnotedthe

enormouseffectofmediainstirringpublicsentiencexxxEvenwhileitmaybedifficultto
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/176389_brion.htm

4/8

2/8/2016

G.R.No.176389

quantify the influence, or pressure that media can bring to bear on [witnesses and judges]
directlyandthroughtheshapingofpublicopinion,itisafact,nonetheless,that,indeed,it
doessoinsomanywaysandinvaryingdegrees.Theconsciousorunconsciouseffectthat
suchacoveragemayhaveonthetestimonyofwitnessesandthedecisionofjudgescannot
be evaluated but, it can likewise be said, it is not at all unlikely for a vote of guilt or
[16]
innocencetoyieldtoit.

Commentontheconductofthecourtswithrespecttothecasebecomessubjecttoa
contemptproceedingwhenitisintemperate,iscontumacious,andundulyimpairsuponthe
dignityofthecourt.Acommentthatimpairsofthedignityofthecourtexcitesinthemind
ofthepeopleageneraldissatisfactionwithalljudicialdeterminations,andindisposestheir
[17]
mindstoobeythem[.]
Ifthespeechtendstounderminetheconfidenceofthepeoplein
the honesty and integrity of the court and its members, and lowers or degrades the
[18]
administrationofjustice,thenthespeechconstitutescontempt.
Unwarrantedattackson
the dignity of the courts cannot be disguised as free speech, for the exercise of said right
cannot be used to impair the independence and efficiency of courts or public respect
[19]
thereforeandconfidencetherein.
Withoutthesubjudiceruleandthecontemptpower,
thecourtswillbepowerlesstoprotecttheirintegrityandindependencethatareessentialin
theorderlyandeffectivedispensationandadministrationofjustice.
This,ofcourse,isnotmeanttostifleallformsofcriticismagainstthecourt.As the
third branch of the government, the courts remain accountable to the people. The peoples
freedom to criticize the government includes the right to criticize the courts, their
proceedingsanddecisions.Thisistheprincipleofopenjustice,whichisfundamentaltoour
democraticsocietyandensuresthat(a)thereisasafeguardagainstjudicialarbitrarinessor
idiosyncrasy, and that (b) the publics confidence in the administration of justice is
[20]
maintained.
Thecriticismmust,however,befair,madeingoodfaith,andnotspillover
[21]
thewallsofdecencyandpropriety.
Andtoenhancetheopencourtprincipleandallow
the people to make fair and reasoned criticism of the courts, the sub judice rule excludes
fromitscoveragefairandaccuratereports(withoutcomment)ofwhathaveactuallytaken
placeinopencourt.

In sum, the court, in a pending litigation, must be shielded from embarrassment or

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/176389_brion.htm

5/8

2/8/2016

G.R.No.176389

[22]
influenceinitsallimportantdutyofdecidingthecase.
Anypublicationpendingasuit,
reflecting upon the court, the parties, the officers of the court, the counsel, etc., with
referencetothesuit,ortendingtoinfluencethedecisionofthecontroversy,iscontemptof
courtandispunishable.Theresulting(buttemporary)curtailmentofspeechbecauseofthe
sub judice rule is necessary and justified by the more compelling interests to uphold the
rightsoftheaccusedandpromotethefairandorderlyadministrationofjustice.

Ifwedonotapplyatallthesubjudiceruletothepresentcase,thereasonisobvious
to those who have followed the case in the media both parties are in pari delicto as both
have apparently gone to the media to campaign for the merits of their respective causes.
Thus,theegregiousactionofonehasbeencancelledbyasimilaractionbytheother.Itisin
this sense that this Supplemental Opinion is independent of the merits of the case. Their
commonaction,however,cannothavetheirprejudicialeffectsonbothwhatevertheresults
may be, doubts will linger about the real merits of the case due to the inordinate media
campaignthattranspired.

Lestwebemisunderstood,ourapplicationofthesubjudiceruletothiscasecannot
serveasaprecedentforsimilarfutureviolations.Precisely,thisSupplementalOpinionisa
signal to all that this Court has not forgotten, and is in fact keenly aware of, the limits of
what can be publicly ventilated on the merits of a case while sub judice, and on the
commentsontheconductofthecourtswithrespecttothecase.ThisCourtwillnotstandby
idlyandhelplesslyasitsintegrityasaninstitutionanditsprocessesareshamelesslybrought
todisrepute.

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

[1]
SeeJusticeBlacksconcurringopinioninSmithv.California,361U.S.147(1959),partofwhichreads:
CertainlytheFirstAmendment'slanguageleavesnoroomforinferencethatabridgmentsofspeechandpresscanbe
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/176389_brion.htm

6/8

2/8/2016

G.R.No.176389

madejustbecausetheyareslight.ThatAmendmentprovides,insimplewords,that"Congressshallmakeno
law...abridgingthefreedomofspeech,orofthepress."Iread"nolaw...abridging"tomeannolaw
abridging. The First Amendment, which is the supreme law of the land, has thus fixed its own value on
freedomofspeechandpressbyputtingthesefreedomswholly"beyondthereach"offederalpowertoabridge.
NootherprovisionoftheConstitutionpurportstodilutethescopeoftheseunequivocalcommandsofthe
FirstAmendment.Consequently, I do not believe that any federal agencies, including Congress and this
Court,havepowerorauthoritytosubordinatespeechandpresstowhattheythinkaremoreimportant
interests.The contrary notion is, in my judgment, courtmade, not Constitutionmade. (361 U.S. 147, 157
159).
[2]
A.M.No.RTJ021698,June23,2005,461SCRA12,2425,citingChoav.Chiongson,A.M.No.MTJ951063,August9,
1996,260SCRA477,484485.
[3]
Law Reform Commission New South Wales, Discussion Paper 43 (2000) Contempt by Publication,
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/dp43chp02,lastvisitedDecember9,2010.
[4]
Ibid.theDiscussionPaper43(2000)oftheLawReformCommissionofNewSouthWaleshasidentifiedsomehighrisk
publicationsagainstwhichthesubjudiceruleapplies.Theseinclude:
a.Aphotographoftheaccusedwhereidentityislikelytobeanissue
b. Suggestionsthattheaccusedhaspreviouscriminalconvictions,hasbeenpreviouslychargedforcommittingan
offenseand/orpreviouslyacquitted,orhasbeeninvolvedinothercriminalactivity
c.Suggestionsthattheaccusedhasconfessedtocommittingthecrimeinquestion
d.Suggestionsthattheaccusedhasconfessedtocommittingthecrimeinquestion
e. Suggestionsthattheaccusedisguiltyorinnocentofthecrimeforwhichheorsheischarged,orthatthejury
shouldconvictoracquittheaccusedand
f. Comments which engender sympathy or antipathy for the accused and/or which disparage the prosecution, or
whichmakefavorableorunfavorablereferencestothecharacterorcredibilityoftheaccusedorawitness.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Nestlev.Sanchez,Nos.L75209and78791,September30,1987,154SCRA542,546.
[7]
Re: Request RadioTV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases Against the Former President
JosephE.Estrada,A.M.No.01403SC,June29,2001,360SCRA248,259260.
[8]
Peoplev.Godoy,G.R.Nos.11590809,March29,1995,243SCRA64,81,citingU.S.v.Sullen,36F.2d220.
[9]
Supranote3.
[10]
SeeWayneOverbeck,MajorPrinciplesinMediaLaw,p.298.
[11]
Supranote6,at546.
[12]
Supranote3.
[13]
Supranote7,at260.
[14]
Separate Opinion of the author in Louis "Barok" C. Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. Nos.
192935&193036,December7,2010,partofwhichreads:
Wherethegovernmentsimplywantstotellitsstory,alreadylabeledastrue,wellaheadofanycourtproceedings,and
judicialnoticeistakenofthekindofpublicityandthefermentinpublicopinionthatnewsofgovernment
scandals generate, it does not require a leap of faith to conclude that an accused brought to court against
overwhelming public opinion starts his case with less than equal chance of acquittal. The presumption of
innocencenotwithstanding,theplayingfieldcannotbutbeuneveninacriminaltrialwhentheaccusedenters
trial with a governmentsponsored badge of guilty on his forehead. The presumption of innocence in law
cannotserveanaccusedinabiasedatmospherepointingtoguiltinfactbecausethegovernmentandpublic
opinionhavespokenagainsttheaccused.[Citationsomitted]
[15]
Supranote3.
[16]
Supranote7,at259260.
[17]
Supranote8,at82,citingJ.PerfectosdissentingopinioninInreFranciscoBrillantes,42O.G.59.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/176389_brion.htm

7/8

2/8/2016

G.R.No.176389

[18]
Id.at94.
[19]
In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. Amado P. Macasaet Published in Malaya Dated
September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007, A.M. No. 070913SC, August 8, 2008, 561 SCRA 395, 448, citing Roxas v.
Zuzuarregui,G.R.Nos.152072&152104,July12,2007,527SCRA446.
[20]
Id.at434.
[21]
Tiongcov.Savillo,A.M.No.RTJ021719,March31,2006,486SCRA48,64,citingInreAlmacen,infranote22.
[22]
InreAlmacen,No.L27654,February18,1970,31SCRA562.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/176389_brion.htm

8/8