Case Digest (G.R. No. 120348)
Facts:
Angel J. Parazo was a duly accredited reporter of the Star Reporter who, in its September 14, 1948 issue, published a front-page story alleging leakage of some bar examination questions in the August 1948 bar examinations and claiming that certain examinees had obtained mimeographed copies before the tests. Following the publication, the Supreme Court caused Parazo to be cited for questioning and investigation, and during proceedings in September and October 1948 he admitted authorship but refused, despite repeated demands, to reveal the identities of the persons who supplied the information on which the story was based.The Court ruled that the demand to disclose the informants’ identities fell under Republic Act No. 53, and that Parazo’s refusal constituted contempt of Court, ordering his confinement for one month unless he complied before the period expired. There were separate opinions: Perfecto, J. agreed with contempt but voted for a lighter penalty, while Paras, J. disse
Case Digest (G.R. No. 120348)
Facts:
- Origin of the controversy
- The matter arose from a news item written and prepared by Angel J. Parazo, a duly accredited reporter of the Star Reporter, a local daily of general circulation.
- The news item appeared on the front page of the Star Reporter issue of September 14, 1948.
- The publication carried the headline “CLAIM 'LEAK' IN LAST BAR TESTS” and the sub-headline “Applicants In Uproar, Want Anomaly Probed; One School Favored”, under the byline “By Angel J. Parazo of the Star Reporter Staff.”
- The Court quoted the news item in full, alleging that:
- Some examinees denounced leakage in bar examination subjects.
- The examinees claimed they had seen mimeographed copies of questions in one subject days before the tests at the Philippine Normal School.
- Only students of one private university in Sampaloc allegedly had those mimeographed questions fully one week before the tests.
- The examinees claimed the bar examinations actually given were similar to those seen among students from the private university.
- The examinees demanded that the Supreme Court institute an immediate probe, find the source of the leakage, and annul the test papers of the students of the particular university who allegedly possessed the leaked tests before the examinations.
- The Court noted that the alleged disclosure came close on the heels of earlier reports in the Philippine Collegian, the official organ of the student body of the University of the Philippines, involving government tests where the questions allegedly came into the possession of nearly all graduates of some private technical schools.
- Supreme Court’s response and the authorization to investigate
- The Court stated that attention of the Supreme Court must have been called to the publication.
- The chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners for the year, Mr. Justice Padilla, instructed Mr. Jose de la Cruz as Commissioner, with the assistance of Mr. E. Soriano, Clerk of Court, to cite Mr. Parazo for questioning and investigation.
- Constitutional and procedural framework for bar examinations
- The Court declared that it was, and had long been, in charge of the Bar examinations held yearly, including the August 1948 examinations.
- The Court cited Sec. 13, Art. VIII of the Constitution of the Philippines, authorizing promulgation of rules concerning admission to the practice of law.
- The Court cited Rule 127 of the Rules of Court as the basis for conducting Bar examinations yearly, appointing a committee of Bar examiners presided by one Justice for one year, acting on the committee’s report, and finally admitting candidates who passed.
- Investigation of Parazo (September 18, 1948)
- The investigation was conducted on September 18, 1948.
- Parazo testified under oath.
- Parazo admitted that he was the author of the September 14, 1948 news item.
- Parazo stated that he wrote and published the story in good faith and in a spirit of public service.
- Parazo stated that he knew the persons who gave him the information but declined to reveal their names.
- Parazo’s reason for refusal was that the information was given to him in confidence and his informants did not wish their identities revealed.
- Investigators repeatedly appealed to Parazo’s civic spirit and sense of public service, urging him to reveal the informants’ names so the Supreme Court could verify the charge and take action against responsible parties if the allegations proved true.
- Parazo consistently refused to reveal the names.
- Subsequent proceedings and the demand to reveal informants (October 7 to October 15, 1948)
- The Court stated that the writer of the opinion became an Associate Justice in late August 1948 and succeeded Justice Padilla as chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners when Padilla became Secretary of Justice.
- The writer received a copy of the transcript of the September 18, 1948 investigation and reported it to the Court.
- The Court issued a resolution dated October 7, 1948 authorizing Justice Montemayor to cite Parazo, explain that the State’s interests required him to reveal the source(s) of his information and news item, warn him that refusal would be treated as contempt of Court, and direct Justice Montemayor to report the result.
- Acting on the resolution, Justice Montemayor cited Parazo to appear on October 13, 1948.
- Parazo was repeatedly explained that:
- The matter seriously involved public confidence in the regularity and cleanliness of the Bar examinations and in the Supreme Court that conducted them.
- The matter also involved the good name and reputation of the Bar examiners, appointed by the Court to prepare the questions and correct examination papers.
- It further affected the confidence of the entire country in the Supreme Court.
- Without Parazo’s help, particularly the identities of the informants, the Court could not begin a thorough investigation due to lack of basis and even of clues to formulate a theory.
- Under the law, Parazo could be punished for refusal to make the revelation, even involving imprisonment.
- Parazo was advised to think it over and, at his request, the investigation was postponed to October 15, 1948.
- October 15, 1948 public hearing; reliance on Republic Act No. 53
- Parazo appeared on October 15, 1948 with counsel, Atty. Felixberto M. Serrano.
- In the presence of counsel, several newspapermen, Clerk of Court Soriano, Deputy Clerk of Court Cruz, and Mr. Chanliongco, the writer of the opinion made a formal demand on Parazo under oath to reveal the identities of his informants.
- Parazo declined and refused to make the revelation.
- Parazo, through counsel, requested that a hearing be accorded before the Court acted on the refusal.
- A public hearing was held on the same day, October 15, 1948.
- Counsel argued in Parazo’s behalf, invoking Republic Act No. 53, particularly Sec. 1, which provided that a publisher, editor, or duly accredited reporter could not be compelled to reveal the source of news-report or information related in confidence, unless the court or a House or committee of Congress found that the revelation was demanded by the interest of the state.
- Majority’s evaluation of evidentiary sufficiency
- The Court ruled that Parazo’s refusal prevented the investigation from progressing.
- The Court noted that in Parazo’s news item, informants allegedly were law graduates and Bar examinees who denounced an alleged anomaly of leaked bar examination questions.
- The Court stated that Parazo’s statements during investigation said that questions in several subjects were involved, but:
- No copy or copies of the alleged examination questions were furnished.
- No witness was willing to testify that he actually saw said copies and that they were carefully compared with legitimate questions and found identical.
- No one was ready and willing to reveal the identities of persons said to have been seen holding the alleged questions, though the university and the persons were allegedly known.
- The law subjects involved were not disclosed.
- Even Parazo’s informants’ identities remained unknown.
- The Court described the August 1948 Bar examinations as having:
- Approximately nine hundred candidates.
- Eight subjects, with each subject prepared by and corresponding to eight Bar examiners.
- Eight sets of questions multiplied by nine hun...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether Republic Act No. 53, Sec. 1 protected Parazo from being compelled to reveal the identity of his confidential informants
- Whether the phrase “interest of the state” in the statute should be confined to security of the state or public safety, as argued by Parazo’s theory.
- Whether “interest of the state” h