The Supreme Court ruled that while freedom of the press is constitutionally protected, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the need to maintain the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. The Court found Jomar Canlas, a journalist, guilty of indirect contempt of court for publishing an article about alleged bribery attempts on Supreme Court Justices without sufficient verification, which tended to degrade the administration of justice. This case underscores the responsibility of journalists to ensure the accuracy of their reports, especially when dealing with sensitive matters that could undermine public trust in the judiciary.

The Manila Times’ Bribery Report: Did Journalistic Freedom Obstruct Justice?

This case arose from a news report written by Jomar Canlas and published in The Manila Times on March 8, 2016. The article alleged that Supreme Court Justices were offered P50 million each to disqualify Senator Grace Poe from running for president. The article cited unnamed sources and claimed that individuals close to then-President Benigno Aquino III and Liberal Party standard bearer Manuel “Mar” Roxas II were behind the bribery attempts.

Justices of the Supreme Court (SC) were offered P50 million each to disqualify Senator Grace Poe from running as a presidential candidate in the May elections, well-placed sources at the High Court said on Monday.

In response to the publication, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution on March 15, 2016, directing Canlas to explain why he should not be sanctioned for indirect contempt of court. The Court cited Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, which covers statements that tend to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. Canlas argued that his article was a matter of public interest and a legitimate subject for journalistic inquiry, motivated by a sense of civic duty and responsibility to expose an attempt to sway the Justices’ decision.

The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was how to balance the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and the press against the need to maintain judicial independence and integrity. The 1987 Constitution protects freedom of speech and of the press. Section 4, Article III states:

SECTION 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

However, this freedom is not absolute. The Supreme Court has consistently held that freedom of expression must be balanced against other important public interests, such as the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. In Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, the Court stated that:

x x x. [F]reedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interest. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice.

The Court has used two primary tests to balance these competing interests: the “clear and present danger” rule and the “dangerous tendency” rule. The “clear and present danger” rule requires that the evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before the utterance can be punished. The “dangerous tendency” rule, on the other hand, applies when there is difficulty in determining where freedom of expression ends and the right of courts to protect their independence begins. It punishes words that create a dangerous tendency that the state has a right to prevent, even if no immediate acts of force or violence are advocated.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that Canlas’s article, while purporting to expose corruption, crossed the line by publishing grave accusations without sufficient verification. The Court emphasized that the article imputed bribery charges against specific individuals and gave a false impression against the Justices who did not vote in favor of Poe. The Court also noted that the article’s sensationalized tone and emphasis on the negative aspects overshadowed the disclaimer that the Justices refused the bribe. The Court reiterated that false reports about public officials are not shielded by the right to free speech, especially when they involve the dissemination of patent lies. As the Court noted, in In Re Emil P. Jurado:

[F]alse reports about a public official or other person are not shielded from sanction by the cardinal right to free speech enshrined in the Constitution. Even the most liberal view of free speech has never countenanced the publication of falsehoods, specially the persistent and unmitigated dissemination of patent lies.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized the importance of verifying the truthfulness of reports, particularly when dealing with accusations that could undermine public trust in the judiciary. While the press has a duty to expose government agencies and officials and hold them accountable, this duty must be exercised responsibly and with due regard for the reputation and integrity of the individuals and institutions involved. The Court held that Canlas’s perfunctory apology did not detract from the fact that his article, directly or indirectly, tended to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Jomar Canlas guilty of indirect contempt of court and severely reprimanded him, with a stern warning against future repetitions of similar acts. This decision serves as a reminder that while freedom of the press is a cornerstone of a democratic society, it comes with the responsibility to ensure the accuracy and fairness of reporting, especially when dealing with sensitive matters that could impact the integrity of the judiciary. The Court’s decision underscores the need for journalists to exercise caution and diligence in verifying their sources and presenting information in a balanced and objective manner.

The Court’s ruling highlights the delicate balance between protecting freedom of the press and safeguarding the integrity of the judicial system. The media plays a crucial role in holding public officials accountable, but this role must be exercised responsibly, with a commitment to accuracy and fairness. The decision reinforces the principle that the press cannot simply throw accusations without verifying their truthfulness and must be mindful of the potential impact of their reporting on public trust and confidence in the judiciary. Thus, the need for responsible journalism is paramount in preserving the integrity of our institutions and upholding the rule of law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the journalist’s publication of a bribery report, without sufficient verification, constituted indirect contempt of court, thereby infringing on judicial independence.
What is indirect contempt of court?	Indirect contempt involves actions done outside the court’s presence that tend to degrade the administration of justice, such as publishing unverified accusations against judges.
What is the “clear and present danger” rule?	This rule states that freedom of speech can only be restricted if the expression poses an immediate and serious threat to a protected interest, such as the administration of justice.
What is the “dangerous tendency” rule?	This rule allows for the restriction of speech if it has a natural tendency to bring about a substantive evil, even if the danger is not immediate.
Did the Court find the journalist’s actions to be protected by freedom of the press?	No, the Court found that the journalist’s actions were not protected because the report contained unverified accusations and had a tendency to degrade the administration of justice.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Court found Jomar Canlas guilty of indirect contempt of court and severely reprimanded him, with a stern warning against future similar actions.
Why did the Court not impose a monetary fine?	The Court opted for a severe reprimand to emphasize the importance of a person’s reputation and the reputations of the Justices of the Court.
What is the practical implication of this case for journalists?	Journalists must exercise caution and diligence in verifying the truthfulness of their reports, especially when dealing with sensitive matters that could impact the integrity of the judiciary.

In conclusion, this case serves as an important reminder of the responsibilities that accompany the freedom of the press. While the media plays a vital role in holding public officials accountable, it must do so responsibly and with a commitment to accuracy and fairness. The Court’s decision underscores the need for journalists to exercise caution and diligence in verifying their sources and presenting information in a balanced and objective manner, particularly when dealing with sensitive matters that could impact public trust in the judiciary.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: NEWS REPORT OF MR. JOMAR CANLAS IN THE MANILA TIMES ISSUE OF 8 MARCH 2016, A.M. No. 16-03-10-SC, October 15, 2019