Case Summary (A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC)
Applicable Law and Authorities
- Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (freedom of speech and press balanced against institutional integrity and independence of the judiciary).
- Rules: Rule 71, Section 3(d) of the Revised Rules of Court (criminal contempt for conduct directed against the dignity or authority of the court or acts obstructing the administration of justice).
- Statute implicated in the underlying controversy: Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law).
- Precedents and authorities cited by the Court: Lopez v. Roxas; Weston v. Commonwealth; People v. Godoy; Zaldivar v. Gonzalez; Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Sanchez; In re Sotto; and State v. Morril (as referenced in the decision).
Alleged Contemptuous Statements (Factual Allegations)
Two newspaper articles (Philippine Daily Inquirer, November 6 and November 19, 2001) attributed to Atty. De Vera were quoted in the Court’s show-cause resolution. The statements, as reported, urged the Court to dispel rumors that it would vote to declare the Plunder Law unconstitutional, alleged that the Estrada camp might coerce, bribe, or influence justices, warned that a pro-Estrada decision would provoke mass actions more massive than People Power II, and suggested that people would not accept a decision the public perceived as “basically wrong.” These published statements were characterized by the Court as aimed at influencing or threatening the Court while the case was pending.
Procedural History
- The Supreme Court En Banc, on December 11, 2001, issued a resolution directing Atty. De Vera to explain within ten days why he should not be punished for indirect contempt in relation to the quoted newspaper reports.
- Atty. De Vera filed an Answer in which he admitted making or being quoted as making some of the statements and provided explanations and defenses.
Respondent’s Admissions and Defenses
- Admissions: Atty. De Vera admitted the substance of the reported statements, including his appeal to the Court to dispel the rumors and his expressed concern about the Court’s credibility.
- Defenses and explanations advanced: he claimed his remarks sought to protect the integrity of the Court and the reputations of justices being unfairly maligned; he argued that silence in the face of what appeared to be organized efforts to influence the Court would lend credence to anonymous reports; he maintained his statements were historically accurate observations (citing past extra-judicial public actions) and were exercises of his constitutional right to freedom of speech; and he denied any intention to degrade the Court or destroy public confidence in it.
Court’s Assessment of Respondent’s Explanations
The Court found Atty. De Vera’s explanations unsatisfactory. It concluded the statements were not bona fide efforts to protect the Court’s reputation but, as made while the Court was considering the related case, constituted attempts to influence or pressure the judiciary. The Court emphasized that the judiciary must decide cases independently and be free from outside influence; maintaining institutional dignity and public respect for courts are necessary to preserve the administration of justice.
Legal Reasoning: Contempt, Free Speech, and Limits
- The Court applied Rule 71, Section 3(d), which permits criminal contempt liability for conduct directed against the court’s dignity or authority or conduct obstructing the administration of justice.
- On freedom of speech, the Court recognized that while citizens and the press may comment on judicial proceedings, that right is not absolute. The Court explained that speech aimed at undermining the court’s integrity, encouraging the public to disregard court orders, or threatening the judiciary to elicit a particular outcome lies outside constitutionally protected speech. Such conduct is an abuse of freedom of speech because it tends to obstruct justice and destroy public confidence in the judiciary.
- The Court relied on prior rulings (including People v. Godoy and other cited authorities) to reiterate that fair criticism of judicial decisions is permissible, but threats, attempts to degrade the court, or calls that encourage the populace to disregard judicial authority are contemptuous and punishable.
Duty of an Officer of the Court
The Court
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC)
Facts and Background
- The case arises from published newspaper reports attributing allegedly contemptuous statements to Atty. Leonard De Vera concerning the Plunder Law case (Republic Act No. 7080) then pending before the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 148560 (Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan [3rd Division] and People of the Philippines). [1]
- On December 11, 2001, the Court En Banc issued a Resolution directing Atty. Leonard De Vera to explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt for uttering allegedly contemptuous statements while the Plunder Law case was still pending. The Resolution quoted newspaper articles and identified the challenged statements. [2]
- Two specific Philippine Daily Inquirer reports were cited: one dated Tuesday, November 6, 2001, and another dated Monday, November 19, 2001, each reporting statements attributed to De Vera about the Court and the Plunder Law case.
Newspaper Reports and Quoted Statements
- November 6, 2001 article (Philippine Daily Inquirer):
- Reported De Vera as asking the Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it would vote in favor of a petition by Estrada’s lawyers to declare the Plunder Law unconstitutional for supposed vagueness.
- Quoted language: De Vera and his group were “greatly disturbed” by rumors from Supreme Court insiders.
- The article reported rumors that Supreme Court justices were tied “6-6” on the Plunder Law’s constitutionality, with two other justices undecided.
- The article quoted concern from “Plunder Watch” about coercion, bribery, or influence, alleging a P500 million slush fund and predicting a pro-Estrada decision.
- November 19, 2001 article (Philippine Daily Inquirer):
- Quoted De Vera as saying that “people are getting dangerously passionate...emotionally charged” while the Court’s resolution on the petition was pending.
- Reported that De Vera warned a decision rendering the Plunder Law unconstitutional “would trigger mass actions, probably more massive than those that led to People Power II.”
- Quoted De Vera as saying “People wouldn’t just swallow any Supreme Court decision that is basically wrong. Sovereignty must prevail.”
Procedural Direction by the Court
- The Court resolved to direct Atty. Leonard De Vera to explain, within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice, why he should not be punished for contempt of court based on the quoted newspaper statements. [2]
- The En Banc resolution explicitly identified the quoted newspaper articles and statements for De Vera’s explanation.
Respondent’s Answer — Admissions and Defenses
- Respondent admitted the report in the November 6, 2001 Inquirer that he “suggested that the Court must take steps to dispel once and for all these ugly rumors and reports” that “the Court would vote in favor of or against the validity of the Plunder Law” to protect the Court’s credibility. [3]
- He explained that the integrity of the Court and the names of Justices were being unfairly dragged and maliciously rumored to be in favor or against one side, and that remaining silent would lend credence to anonymous reports. [4]
- He admitted appealing to the Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it would vote to declare the Plunder Law unconstitutional because he and his group were “greatly disturbed” by such rumors. [5]
- With respect to the November 19, 2001 report, respondent claimed the statement that the people were “getting dangerously passionate...emotionally charged” was “factually accurate.” [6]
- He argued that he was exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech when he said a decision declaring the Plunder Law unconstitutional “would trigger mass actions, probably more massive than those that led to People Power II.” [6]
- He justified the statement “the people wouldn’t just swallow any Supreme Court decision that is basically wrong” as an expression of opinion and as “historically correct,”