Case Digest (A.M. No. 93-2-037 SC)
Facts:
In re Emil (Emiliano) P. Jurado, Administrative Matter No. 93-2-037 SC, promulgated April 06, 1995, the Supreme Court En Banc, Narvasa, C.J., writing for the Court.The proceeding was initiated after publications by Emil (Emiliano) P. Jurado, a Manila Standard columnist (who also is a lawyer), accused members of the judiciary of systemic corruption in numerous columns from October 1992 to March 1993. Jurado used epithets and collective labels such as the “Magnificent Seven” and the “Dirty Dozen,” alleged that six unnamed Supreme Court justices and their families had a paid vacation in Hong Kong arranged by a “public utility firm,” and reported other allegedly corrupt practices and fraternization involving judges and banking/travel interests.
Against this background — and in the wake of public controversy touching the Court (including the Court’s 9–4 decision in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Eastern Telephone Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 94374, Aug. 27, 1992) — Chief Justice Narvasa issued Administrative Order No. 11-93 creating an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate reports of corruption in the judiciary. The ad hoc committee invited Jurado to give information; Jurado did not appear, asserting procedural and source-protection reasons.
On February 10, 1993 Vicente R. Samson, First Vice‑President of PLDT, submitted a letter and sworn affidavit to the Chief Justice denying that PLDT had paid for any such Hong Kong trip and requesting appropriate action. An affidavit by Atty. William Veto likewise contradicted Jurado’s account of a bank “penthouse” luncheon. The Court, by Resolution dated February 16, 1993, ordered the PLDT letter and the Veto affidavit docketed as an official Court proceeding, directed that travel agencies and Jurado be notified and give sworn statements or comments, and later (March 2 and March 18, 1993 resolutions) required Jurado to file comments and to clarify his status (journalist, lawyer, or both).
Jurado filed a Comment (Mar. 1, 1993), a Supplemental Comment (Mar. 15, 1993) and a Manifestation (Mar. 31, 1993) invoking journalistic practice, confidentiality of sources under R.A. No. 53, as amended by R.A. No. 1477, and press freedom. The Court received affidavits from the two travel agencies denying any arrangements for such a trip. The matter was then considered by the Court En Banc as an administrative contempt inquiry.
By decision promulgated April 6, 1995, the Court (Narvasa, C.J.) found Jurado guilty of contempt for publishing demonstra...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court, exercising its inherent power, cite a journalist for contempt for published statements that are shown to be false or misleading and derogatory of the courts even when no criminal libel or pending case-based direct contempt is involved?
- Does R.A. No. 53, as amended by R.A. No. 1477, or the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press (Art. III, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution) immunize a journalist from being held liable or punished for publishing false or unverified allegations against judges?
- On the facts, did Emil P. Jurado publish statements that warranted a contempt sanction ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)