Case Digest (A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC)
Case Digest (A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC)
Facts:
In re: Published Alleged Threats Against Members of the Court in the Plunder Law Case Hurled by Atty. Leonard De Vera, A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC, July 29, 2002, Supreme Court En Banc, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court. The matter is an administrative contempt proceeding initiated by the Court against Atty. Leonard De Vera for public statements reportedly aimed at influencing the Court’s resolution of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law (Republic Act No. 7080) in G.R. No. 148560 (Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Sandiganbayan [3rd Division] and People of the Philippines).The Court quoted two newspaper reports from the Philippine Daily Inquirer (November 6 and November 19, 2001) attributing to Atty. De Vera statements that (a) urged the Court to dispel rumors that it would vote to declare the Plunder Law unconstitutional and (b) warned that a decision declaring the law unconstitutional would trigger mass actions “probably more massive than those that led to People Power II,” suggesting the people “wouldn’t just swallow any Supreme Court decision that is basically wrong.” The En Banc, by Resolution dated December 11, 2001, directed De Vera to explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt.
In his Answer, De Vera admitted making the quoted statements and defended them as efforts to protect the Court’s credibility by dispelling malicious rumors and to warn of possible public reaction; he also invoked his right to freedom of speech and framed his remarks as opinion and historical comparison. The Court found De Vera’s explanations unsatisfactory after considering his admissions and the quoted newspaper reports.
The Supreme Court En Banc found Atty. Leonard De Vera guilty of indirect contempt for utterances aimed at influencing and threatening the Court while the Estrada plunder case was pending, applied Rule 71, Section 3(d) of the Revised Rules of Court and related precedents, and imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) payable within ten days. The decision lists the concurrence of Chief Justice Davide, Jr. and the other participating justices; there are no separately filed concurring or dissenting opinions in the report.
Issues:
- Did Atty. Leonard De Vera commit indirect contempt of court by publicly making statements that aimed to influence or threaten the Supreme Court while the plunder case in G.R. No. 148560 was pending?
- If so, are De Vera’s statements protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)