IN 1HL MA11LR OI 1HL ALLLGA1IONS CON1AINLD

IN 1HL COLUMNS OI MR. AMADO P. MACASAL1

PUBLISHLD IN MALAYA
DA1LD SLP1LMBLR J8, J9, 20 AND 2J, 2007
A.M. No. 07-09-J3-SC, 08 August 2008, LN BANC, ,Reyes, R.1., J.)
Per.ovat attac/. ov tbe ;vaiciar, cav re.vtt iv tro ai.tivct - ,et retatea - vvae.irabte cov.eqvevce.. ir.t, tbe
critici.v ritt rerevt ;vage. frov revaivivg iv.vtatea frov tbe er.ovat ava otiticat cov.eqvevce. of va/ivg av vvovtar
aeci.iov, tbv. tacivg ;vaiciat ivaeevaevce at ri./. ecova, vv;v.t critici.v of tbe ;vaiciar, ritt eroae tbe vbtic`. trv.t ava
covfiaevce iv tbe ;vaiciar, a. av iv.titvtiov. otb ;vaiciat ivaeevaevce ava tbe vbtic`. trv.t ava covfiaevce iv tbe ;vaiciar,
a. av iv.titvtiov are ritat covovevt. iv vaivtaivivg a beattb, aevocrac,.
Amado Macasaet penned seeral articles in Malaya newspaper regarding alleged bribery incidents
in Supreme Court. lrom the series o articles, he painted a clear picture that he was pertaining to
Associate Justice \narez Santiago, that she ordered the dismissal o lenry Go`s case upon receiing cash
git o P10 million rom him and that she ired her secretary Cecilia Munoz Delis when the latter opened
the box containing the cash git without knowledge o the lady justice.
Despite attempts o Delis and Associate Justice \narez- Santiago to correct Macasaet`s claims,
publications neer ceased. 1he Court v avc required Macasaet to explain why no sanction should be
imposed on him or indirect contempt o court. 1he Inestigating Committee recommended to hold
Macasaet in indirect contempt.
ISSUL:
\hether or not reedom o the press is iolated by judicial independence
HLLD:
Macasaet is GUIL1Y.
Closely linked with the right to reedom o speech and o the press is the public right to
scrutinize and criticize goernment. 1he reedom to question the goernment has been a protected right
o long-standing tradition throughout American history. 1here is no doubt that the undamental
reedom to criticize goernment necessarily includes the right to criticize the courts, their proceedings
and decisions. Since the drating o their Constitution oer 200 years ago, American judges hae
anticipated and sometimes een encouraged public scrutiny o themseles, i not o the judiciary as a
whole.
1his open justice principle, which is as undamental to a democratic society as reedom o
speech, has been an accepted doctrine in seeral jurisdictions. It is justiied on the ground that i the
determination o justice cannot be hidden rom the public, this will proide: ,1, a saeguard against
judicial arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy, and ,2, the maintenance o the public`s conidence in the
administration o justice.
\hile most agree that the right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a ree and
democratic society, there is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so ar. Many types
o criticism leeled at the judiciary cross the line to become harmul and irresponsible attacks. 1hese
potentially deastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the independence o the judiciary.
In our constitutional scheme and democracy, our courts o justice are ested with judicial power,
which includes the duty x x x to settle actual controersies inoling rights which are legally
demandable and enorceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grae abuse o discretion
amounting to lack or excess o jurisdiction on the part o any branch or instrumentality o the
goernment.` 1he present judicial system allows the people to rely upon our courts with substantial
certainty, it encourages the resolution o disputes in courtrooms rather than on the streets.
1o accomplish these tasks, an independent judiciary is ery ital. Judicial independence is the
backbone o democracy. It is essential not only to the preseration o our justice system, but o
goernment as well. Chie Justice Shirley Abrahamson o the \isconsin Supreme Court has obsered
that judicial independence encompasses two distinct but related concepts o independence.
One concept is indiidual judicial independence, which ocuses on each particular judge and
seeks to insure his or her ability to decide cases with autonomy within the constraints o the law. A
judge has this kind o independence when he can do his job without haing to hear - or at least without
haing to take it seriously i he does hear - criticisms o his personal morality and itness or judicial
oice. 1he second concept is institutional judicial independence. It ocuses on the independence o the
judiciary as a branch o goernment and protects judges as a class.
A truly independent judiciary is possible only when both concepts o independence are
presered - wherein public conidence in the competence and integrity o the judiciary is maintained, and
the public accepts the legitimacy o judicial authority. An erosion o this conidence threatens the
maintenance o an independent 1hird Lstate.
lor sure, judicial criticism can be constructie, uncoering and addressing a problem that merits
public attention. Public awareness, debate, and criticism o the courts ensure that people are inormed
o what they are doing that hae broad implications or all citizens. Inormed discussion, comment,
debate and disagreement rom lawyers, academics, and public oicials hae been hallmarks o a great
legal tradition and hae played a ital role in shaping the law.
But there is an important line between legitimate criticism and illegitimate attack upon the courts
or their judges. Attacks upon the court or a judge not only risk the inhibition o all judges as they
conscientiously endeaor to discharge their constitutional responsibilities, they also undermine the
people`s conidence in the courts.
Personal attacks, criticisms laden with political threats, those that misrepresent and distort the
nature and context o judicial decisions, those that are misleading or without actual or legal basis, and
those that blame the judges or the ills o society, damage the integrity o the judiciary and threaten the
doctrine o judicial independence. 1hese attacks do a grae disserice to the principle o an independent
judiciary and mislead the public as to the role o judges in a constitutional democracy, shaking the ery
oundation o our democratic goernment.
Such attacks on the judiciary can result in two distinct - yet related - undesirable consequences.
lirst, the criticism will preent judges rom remaining insulated rom the personal and political
consequences o making an unpopular decision, thus placing judicial independence at risk. Second,
unjust criticism o the judiciary will erode the public`s trust and conidence in the judiciary as an
institution. Both judicial independence and the public`s trust and conidence in the judiciary as an
institution are ital components in maintaining a healthy democracy.
Accordingly, it has been consistently held that, while reedom o speech, o expression, and o
the press are at the core o ciil liberties and hae to be protected at all costs or the sake o democracy,
these reedoms are not absolute. lor, i let unbridled, they hae the tendency to be abused and can
translate to licenses, which could lead to disorder and anarchy.
1hus, in Covate. r. Covvi..iov ov tectiov., this Court ruled that ||rom the language o the
speciic constitutional proision, it would appear that the right ,to ree expression, is not susceptible o
any limitation. No law may be passed abridging the reedom o speech and o the press. 1he realities o
lie in a complex society preclude, howeer, a literal interpretation. lreedom o expression is not
absolute. It would be too much to insist that, at all times and under all circumstances, it should remain
unettered and unrestrained. 1here are other societal alues that press or recognition.`
In agvvaa r. 1aa. De Covate., it was held that while the right o reedom o expression
occupies a preerred position in the hierarchy o ciil liberties, it is not without limitations. As the
reered lolmes once said, the limitation on one`s right to extend one`s ist is when it hits the nose o
another.
Indeed, reedom o speech cannot be absolute and unconditional. In legal, political, and
philosophical contexts, it is always regarded as liable to be oerridden by important counterailing
interests, such as state security, public order, saety o indiidual citizens, protection o reputation, and
due process o law, which encompasses not only the right to a air trial, but also the preseration o
public conidence in the proper administration o justice.
In Zatairar r. Covate, the Court said that reedom o speech and expression, like all
constitutional reedoms, is not absolute and that reedom o expression needs on occasion to be adjusted
to and accommodated with requirements o equally important public interests. One o these
undamental public interests is the maintenance o the integrity and orderly unctioning o the
administration o justice. 1here is no antinomy between ree expression and the integrity o the system
o administering justice. lor the protection and maintenance o reedom o expression itsel can be
secured only within the context o a unctioning and orderly system o dispensing justice, within the
context, in other words, o iable independent institutions or deliery o justice which are accepted by
the general community.`
O course, the power to punish or contempt is exercised on the preservative principle. 1here
must be caution and hesitancy on the part o the judge wheneer the possible exercise o his awesome
prerogatie presents itsel. 1he power to punish or contempt,` as was pointed out by Mr. Justice
Malcolm in 1ittaricevcio r. v/bav, should be exercised on the preseratie and not on the indictie
principle. Only occasionally should the court inoke its inherent power to retain that respect without
which the administration o justice must alter or ail.` But when called or, most especially when
needed to presere the ery existence and integrity o no less than the lighest Court, this principle bears
importance.
In determining the liability o the respondent in this contempt proceeding, the Court weighs the
conlicting constitutional considerations - respondent`s claim o his right to press reedom, on one hand,
and, on the other hand, ensuring judicial independence by upholding public interest in maintaining the
dignity o the judiciary and the orderly administration o justice - both indispensable to the preseration
o democracy and the maintenance o a just society.
1he Court has no problems with legitimate criticisms pointing out laws in our decisions, judicial
reasoning, or een how we run our public oices or public aairs. 1hey should een be constructie
and should pae the way or a more responsie, eectie and eicient judiciary.
Unortunately, the published articles o respondent Macasaet are not o this genre. On the
contrary, he has crossed the line, as his are baseless scurrilous attacks which demonstrate nothing but an
abuse o press reedom. 1hey leae no redeeming alue in urtherance o reedom o the press. 1hey
do nothing but damage the integrity o the ligh Court, undermine the aith and conidence o the
people in the judiciary, and threaten the doctrine o judicial independence.
Macasaet has absolutely no basis to call the Supreme Court a court o thiees` and a basket o
rotten apples.` 1hese publications directly undermine the integrity o the justices and render suspect the
Supreme Court as an institution. \ithout bases or his publications, purely resorting to speculation and
ishing expeditions` in the hope o striking - or creating - a story, with utter disregard or the
institutional integrity o the Supreme Court, he has committed acts that degrade and impede the orderly
administration o justice.
Aggraating Macasaet`s aront to the dignity o the Court is his unwillingness to show any
remorse or repentance or his contemptuous acts. In act, as he made clear in his testimony beore the
Inestigating Committee when asked what his thoughts were about his haing published the instant
articles, he replied that he was happy in the sense that |he| did a job in |his| best lights and the eort
ended up in the creation o |the inestigating panel|.`
It is precisely because o his ailure to abide by the tenets o responsible journalism that we
accept the indings o the Inestigating Committee in holding respondent Macasaet guilty o indirect
contempt o court. le must be made accountable or his complete ailure to exercise een a single
estige o responsible journalism in publishing his unounded and ill-thought diatribes against the
Judiciary and the honorable people who sere it.