Case Summary (G.R. No. 1785)
Key Individuals and Context
• Petitioners: ABS-CBN Corporation and reporter Jorge Cariño (“petitioners”)
• Respondent: Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr. (“Andal”)
• Subject: Petition for indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, alleging violation of the sub judice rule by airing an interview with a key witness in the Maguindanao Massacre cases
• Applicable Law: 1987 Constitution (freedom of speech/press, judicial power under Art. VIII, sec. 1), 1987 Rules of Court (Rule 71), Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability
Petition and Proceedings
• Andal filed a verified petition for indirect contempt against the witness (Lakmodin “Laks” Saliao), ABS-CBN, and Cariño for a June 23, 2010 TV Patrol World interview in which Saliao described planning meetings of the Ampatuans before the November 23, 2009 Maguindanao Massacre.
• Andal alleged the broadcast “improperly interfere[d] with court proceedings” and prejudiced petitioners’ right to fair trial. He sought citation for contempt and prohibition against further comments on the cases.
• ABS-CBN and Cariño answered, asserting (a) failure to state a cause of action, (b) privilege of fair and true reporting, and (c) their right to free speech/press. They sought dismissal and damages.
• The RTC first denied, then granted, petitioners’ motion for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses, ultimately denying those defenses. The CA affirmed, prompting this Rule 45 petition.
Inherent Power to Punish for Contempt
• Under Art. VIII, sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution, courts possess inherent power to punish for contempt—essential for maintaining authority and the administration of justice.
• Contempt may be direct (in facie curiae – misbehavior before the court) or indirect (out of court, after charge and hearing under Rule 71, sec. 3).
• Indirect contempt encompasses “any improper conduct tending ... to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.” It is criminal in nature, requiring intent and due process.
Balancing Free Press and Fair Trial
• The 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and the press (Art. III, sec. 4), and the people’s right to information (Art. III, sec. 7). A free press is indispensable in a democracy.
• Judicial independence (decisional and institutional) is equally vital (1987 Const., Art. VIII, sec. 1; sec. 6). Public confidence in the courts requires them to be free from extraneous influence.
• The “sub judice rule” prohibits public comment on the merits of pending cases that poses a clear and present danger to the administration of justice. Violations are punishable as indirect contempt.
• Legitimate news reporting of judicial proceedings ordinarily enjoys qualified privilege, but airing witness statements outside court—in particular evidentiary matters before presentation and cross-examination—is not covered.
Qualified Privileges
• Private communications and fair, true, good-faith reports of official proceedings are privileged (Revised Penal Code, Art. 354).
• Fair comment on matters of public interest is also privileged, provided opinions are based on established facts.
• Privilege is lost if the speaker acts with actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The burden of proving malice rests on the party seeking punishment.
Speech by Litigants, Counsel, Bench, Bar, Media, Public
• Litigants and counsel: Closest to the trial process; subject to strict limits. Public comments on case merits risk contempt unless they involve bona fide reporting of court proceedings in open court.
• Bench and bar: Must preserve decorum and independence. Lawyers may critique judicial decisions but must avoid imputing dishonorable motives; justices are bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Media and public: Enjoy broad free-speech protections, but defamation, scandalous attacks, and sub judice violations may be punished if they create a serious, imminent threat to justice or eradicate public confidence.
Internet and Social Media
• The rise of online platforms magnifies the reach and speed of information—and misinformation. Courts must recalibrate contempt rules for cyberspace speech that undermines judicial independence or administration of justice.
• Proposed framework: Require speakers to verify or source allegations before sharing; assess clear-and-present-danger based on content, context, and virality. Online defamation or witness interviews outside court may trigger contempt if they satisfy criminal contempt element
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 1785)
EN BANC | G.R. No. 227004 | April 25, 2023
Facts
- On November 23, 2009, the Maguindanao Massacre occurred, leaving at least 57 dead. Criminal cases for murder were filed against 197 persons, including Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr. and members of his family.
- On June 23, 2010, ABS-CBN reporter Jorge Cariao interviewed Lakmodin “Laks” Saliao, who claimed personal knowledge of planning meetings and participants. That interview aired on TV Patrol World before Saliao testified in court.
- On July 16, 2010, Andal filed a petition for indirect contempt against Saliao, ABS-CBN, and Cariao for violating the sub judice rule by publicly airing testimony-style statements relevant to a pending criminal case. Andal sought to bar them from further public statements.
Procedural History
- ABS-CBN and Cariao answered, claiming pretrial news is not prejudicial in judge-only trials and that their broadcast was in good faith and protected by press freedom.
- They moved for a preliminary hearing on their affirmative defenses; the RTC initially denied, then reversed itself and set a hearing. The RTC ultimately denied their defenses and refused dismissal.
- On certiorari, the Court of Appeals upheld the RTC: it found no grave abuse of discretion, pointed out petitioners’ inconsistent positions, and ruled certiorari improper remedy. Their injunction applications also failed.
- Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.
Issue
Whether the lower courts gravely abused their discretion by refusing to dismiss the Petition for Indirect Contempt against ABS-CBN and Cariao for failure to state a cause of action—specifically, whether their interview and broadcast of Saliao’s pre-trial statements violated the sub judice rule and warranted contempt sanctions.
Court’s Rationale
Inherent Power to Punish Contempt
- Under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, all courts have inherent contempt power “essential to the executi