Case Digest (G.R. No. 168056) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In 506 Phil. 306 (2005), the Supreme Court, En Banc, resolved several consolidated petitions challenging the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on Republic Act No. 9337 (the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law). On July 1, 2005, the Court granted a TRO suspending the law’s implementation. Former Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima publicly expressed extreme disappointment over the TRO and, according to newspaper reports dated July 10–12, 2005, hinted that President Gloria Macapagal‐Arroyo and Malacañang had influenced the Court’s decision. On July 12, 2005, the Court issued an order requiring Purisima to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for statements that allegedly put the Court and its Members into dishonor and discredit. Purisima filed a compliance denying any insinuation of presidential pressure on the Court and explaining that his inquiries were motivated by reports of Cabinet discussions on postponing RA 9337. F Case Digest (G.R. No. 168056) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Cases
- Multiple petitions (G.R. Nos. 168056, 168207, 168461, 168463, 168730) challenged the Supreme Court’s July 1, 2005 TRO suspending Republic Act No. 9337 (the “e-VAT law”).
- Petitioners included party‐list officers, legislators, gasoline dealers and local government officials.
- Show-Cause Order Against Purisima
- On July 12, 2005, the Court issued a resolution requiring then-Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for allegedly claiming that Malacañang influenced the Court’s TRO.
- The resolution cited press reports attributing to Purisima insinuations of presidential or executive‐branch meddling in the judiciary.
- Purisima’s Compliance and Denials
- Purisima filed a compliance denying he ever claimed or insinuated that the President influenced the Court, explaining his inquiries to cabinet colleagues were limited to whether Malacañang discussed deferral of the law.
- He asserted his disappointment over the TRO but denied any intent to disparage the Court or hold it in contempt.
Issues:
- Whether Secretary Purisima’s public statements and media-reported insinuations that the President influenced the Supreme Court’s TRO constitute indirect contempt of court.
- Whether Purisima’s delayed denial and failure to promptly correct misreports aggravated the contempt by allowing public distrust in the judiciary to fester.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)