Case Digest (A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC)
Facts:
On November 6 and 19, 2001, Atty. Leonard De Vera, a leading member of the Equal Justice for All Movement and the Estrada Resign movement, was quoted by the Philippine Daily Inquirer making statements about the pending Supreme Court constitutional challenge to Republic Act No. 7080 (the Plunder Law) in G.R. No. 148560 (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan). In the November 6 report, he alleged rumors of a 6–6 split among justices and warned that the Estrada camp’s alleged P500 million slush fund might coerce a decision to declare the law vague or unconstitutional. In the November 19 article, he cautioned that invalidation of the statute would provoke mass actions more massive than People Power II and warned of a crisis undermining the tribunal’s authority. On December 11, 2001, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a resolution directing him to explain why he should not be held in indirect contempt for uttering statements that purportedly threatened or influenced the Court’s decision while theCase Digest (A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC)
Facts:
- Origin of contempt proceedings
- On December 11, 2001, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a Resolution directing Atty. Leonard De Vera to explain alleged contemptuous statements concerning the pending constitutionality petition against Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law).
- Two Philippine Daily Inquirer articles (November 6 and November 19, 2001) quoted De Vera asserting that rumors of a split Court vote threatened its integrity and warning that a ruling against the Plunder Law’s validity would trigger mass public actions.
- Respondent’s admissions and defenses
- De Vera admitted suggesting the Court “dispel once and for all these ugly rumors” and protesting attacks on the justices’ credibility, claiming a duty to protect the judiciary’s integrity.
- He invoked freedom of speech and opinion, maintained his remarks were historically accurate and factually based, and denied intent to degrade or influence the Court improperly.
Issues:
- Whether Atty. Leonard De Vera’s public statements amounted to indirect contempt of court by undermining the Court’s authority and integrity.
- Whether his exercise of freedom of speech and expression could justify or immunize the alleged contemptuous utterances.
- Whether threats of mass public actions to coerce a favorable ruling constitute an obstruction of the administration of justice.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)