THE Supreme Court had dismissed the indirect contempt petition against ABS-CBN and Jorge Cariño over an interview with a witness who alleged that he was present when the Ampatuan family planned the 2009 Maguindanao massacre.
In handing down the decision, the court en banc said the complaint filed by Datu Andal Ampatuan Jr. against ABS-CBN for alleged violation of the sub judice rule failed to state a cause of action.
It thus reversed the Court of Appeals decision that upheld the regional trial court in refusing to grant ABS-CBN’s motion to dismiss the case.
“Those accused of indirect contempt should not be compelled to proceed to trial when the charges are grossly insufficient,” it said, adding that this is consistent with the policy that the court’s contempt power must be used “judiciously, sparingly, and only when necessary in the interest of justice.”
It said Ampatuan’s petition failed to show actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth, and did not have sufficient allegation of the clear and present danger of the interview and its broadcast to the court’s administration of justice.
But the Supreme Court also said that had a cause of action been stated, ABS-CBN and Cariño would have been found guilty of indirect contempt for broadcasting a the statements of witness Lakmodin Saliao which are relevant to the pending criminal cases before he was even presented in court, as posted on abogado.com.ph
It said the ABS-CBN report represented Saliao’s statements as testimony which they claim to be his personal knowledge related to Andal’s guilt in the pending cases.
When the report aired, the cases were undergoing pre-trial, and it was not shown that ABS-CBN had the prosecution’s permission to air the interview, it said.
It said the network “usurped examination,” it said.
While Saliao’s statements is a matter of grave public concern which could be given publicity, ABS-CBN and Cariño should not have presented him as a witness on television, the Supreme Court said.
“The use of the term ‘testigo’ in Saliao’s presentation to the public removes the distinction between media interviews and witness presentations in open court. Moreover, Cariño ended the interview in a manner that bolstered the truth of Saliao’s statements, again characterizing the interview as testimony,” it said.
The public interest character of Saliao’s statements is not an excuse to disregard the sub judice rule, especially in criminal cases pending before the courts, it said.
“Responsible journalism is said to be the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism,” it said.
It reminded the media that its exercise of freedom of the press comes with the duty to ensure that they are not infringing upon the rights of the accused to a fair trial.
The decision, dated April 25, 2023 but posted on Friday, was penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
The decision also re-examined the basis of the Court’s contempt powers and defined what constitutes contemptuous speech and why such is punished.
It said contempt of court is “disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice, and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders, but such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice.”
It said it uses its contempt powers to restrict speech that could bring disrespect to the court or scandalize it, or when there is clear and present danger that would impede the administration of justice.
But is also said the exercise of this power must be restrained and judicious and “used only in flagrant cases and with utmost forbearance.”
Among those considered contemptuous speech is the violation of the sub judice rule which restricts comments about ongoing court cases, including comments on the credibility of witnesses and assessment of the evidence offered.
“The rationale of the sub judice rule is to protect against the dangers of the publication to directly influence a judge or indirectly through public opinion in resolving a particular case,” it said.
The right to free speech does not include statements aimed at influencing judges in a pending case, it said.
Nevertheless, it said the use of its contempt power should not be used to deter the freedom of the press and its right to give legitimate publicity of matters of public interest.
the role of the courts in receiving testimony in allowing Saliao to state matters of his personal knowledge relating to the murders on national television.”
“Petitioners cannot deny that Saliao’s statements are evidentiary matters relevant to the guilt of the accused in a pending case,” it said.
It said the interview would only have fallen under the qualified privilege of fair and true reporting if the statement was delivered in the judicial proceeding.
The privilege does not extend to interviewing a witness and airing this on TV before the witness was presented in trial, it said.
