A.M. No. P-137 - De Dios vs. Alejo

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-137)

Factual Background

On 8 March 2016, Jomar Canlas published an article reporting that Justices of the Supreme Court were allegedly offered P50 million each to vote to disqualify Senator Grace Poe from the presidential race. The article attributed the information to unnamed "well-placed sources" and described two purported attempts to buy votes, allegedly involving a former Malacañang official turned private lawyer and a law firm, a member of the ruling Liberal Party, and a lawmaker and his partner, a former businessman. The report quoted an unnamed magistrate who said the tribunal "will not bow to any pressure to decide on the case in exchange for cash." The article placed the alleged offer in the context of an imminent en banc session on the Poe disqualification case and compared the episode to alleged offers during the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

Initiation of Contempt Proceeding

In a Resolution dated 15 March 2016, the Court found that "certain statements and innuendoes in Mr. Jomar Canlas' news report tend, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice, within the purview of Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure," and directed Canlas to explain, within five days of receipt, why he should not be sanctioned for indirect contempt. Canlas sought and obtained extensions and filed his explanation on 22 April 2016.

Canlas' Explanation and Defense

In his explanation, Canlas asserted that the disqualification cases against Grace Poe had nationwide public interest and that exposing any attempt to bribe Justices was a legitimate journalistic function and a civic duty. He stated that he attempted to secure comment from the Justices but was unsuccessful, and that he quoted an unnamed Justice who declared that the Court would not yield to pressure. Canlas maintained that the article portrayed the Court as incorruptible and that, if the piece had unintentionally caused unflattering innuendoes, he offered a sincere apology. He invoked Section 4, Article III, 1987 Constitution and relied on authorities recognizing the mass media's watchdog role, including the Court's prior discussion in In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. Macasaet Published in Malaya dated September 18, 19, 20 and 21, 2007.

Legal Standards on Freedom of the Press and Judicial Integrity

The Court reiterated that freedom of speech and of the press is not absolute and must be balanced against the equally fundamental public interest in preserving the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. The Court reviewed the two doctrinal tests historically used to reconcile these interests: the clear and present danger rule and the dangerous tendency rule, as discussed in Cabansag v. Fernandez and related authorities. The Court recalled that under the clear and present danger test, good faith or absence of intent to harm the courts may be a defense, but that the substantive evil to be prevented must be serious and the degree of imminence extremely high. The Court also cited Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan for the proposition that freedom of expression must sometimes be accommodated with requirements of public interest in a functioning and orderly justice system.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The Court found Canlas' explanation insufficient. First, the quoted unnamed Justice did not corroborate the allegation of bribery; the statement merely asserted that the Court would not yield to pressure. Second, the Court concluded that Canlas failed to verify the grave accusations reported and did not sufficiently explain his verification efforts. Third, the Court characterized the article as sensationalized and misleading. The Court observed that the report imputed bribery to identifiable categories of persons—namely, a female lawyer formerly of Malacañang, a member of the Liberal Party, and a businessman close to President Aquino and Mar Roxas—without adequate verification, and that it created a false impression against those Justices who did not vote in favor of Poe. The comparison to the Corona impeachment and the article's overall emphasis on wrongdoing, the Court held, overshadowed the brief disclaimer that the Justices refused the bribe. Given

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-137)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Jomar Canlas was the senior reporter who authored the March 8, 2016 article in The Manila Times that prompted this administrative matter.
The Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings and, in a March 15, 2016 Resolution, directed Canlas to explain why he should not be sanctioned for Indirect Contempt under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
Canlas filed extensions and submitted an explanation on April 22, 2016 asserting public interest, good faith, and journalistic duty as defenses.
The matter was resolved by the Court en banc, with Justice Carpio issuing the ponencia and a majority of justices concurring, while one justice was on leave.

Key Factual Allegations

The March 8, 2016 article alleged that justices of the Supreme Court were offered P50 million each to disqualify Senator Grace Poe from running for President.
The article reported two alleged attempts to bribe justices, attributed to unnamed "well-placed sources" and linked to persons close to then-President Benigno Aquino III and Manuel "Mar" Roxas II.
The article identified and imputed wrongdoing to a female lawyer, a law firm, a member of the Liberal Party, and a former businessman without naming them.
The article quoted an unnamed justice as saying the tribunal "will not bow to any pressure to decide on the case in exchange for cash."

Journalistic Claim and Defense

Canlas asserted that the alleged bribery was a matter of public interest warranting publication and that he acted from civic duty and professional responsibility.
Canlas claimed attempts were made to secure the justices' responses and that the article ultimately showed the Court as incorruptible because the offers were refused.
Canlas tendered a perfunctory apology and invoked good faith and the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and freedom of the press under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

Legal Framework

The Court applied Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution regarding freedom of speech and of the press.
The Court invoked Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as the contempt provision proscribing publications that tend to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.
The Court relied on prior jurisprudence including In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. Macasaet, Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, Cabansag v. Fernandez, and In Re Emil P. Jurado to balance press freedom and judicial independence.
The Court recognized and discussed the "clear and present danger" and "dangerous tendency" tests as doctrinal tools to evaluate restrictions on speech affecting the administration of justice.

Issues Presented

Whether the publication by Jomar Canlas constituted indirect contempt under Section 3(d), Rule 71.
Whe