1 in Re Amado Macasael

2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila
ENBANC
INTHEMATTEROFTHEA.M.No.070913SC
ALLEGATIONSCONTAINED
INTHECOLUMNSOFMR.Present:
AMADOP.MACASAET
PUBLISHEDINMALAYAPUNO,C.J.,
DATEDSEPTEMBER18,19,QUISUMBING,
20AND21,2007YNARESSANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICONAZARIO,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
REYES,
LEONARDODECASTRO,and
BRION,JJ.
Promulgated:
August8,2008
xx
DECISION
REYES,R.T.,J.:
FREEDOMofthepressandjudicialindependence(kalayaan ng pamamahayag at
kalayaangpanghukuman)twoconstitutionalvalueswhichunfortunatelyclashinthiscase
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/070913SC.htm
1/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
forindirectcontemptofcourthavetobeweighedandbalancedagainsteachother.
TheAntecedents
ThecasestemmedfromcertainarticlesthatappearedintheBusinessCircuitcolumn
ofAmadoP.MacasaetintheMalaya,anewspaperofgeneralcirculationofwhichheisthe
publisher. The articles, containing statements and innuendoes about an alleged bribery
incidentintheSupremeCourt,cameoutinfour(4)issuesofthenewspaperonSeptember18,
19,20and21,2007,reproducedasfollows:
September18,2007
BriberyintheCourt
Aladyjustice(IhavenotbeentoldwhethersheisfromtheSupremeCourtorthe
CourtofAppeals)didnotreportforadaylastweek.
Hersecretaryreceivedagiftwrappedboxaboutthesizeoftwodozenmilkcans.
Believingthatthegiftmightbesomethingperishable,sheopenedthebox.Indeed,it
wasagiftestimatedatP10million.Posthaste,thesecretaryinformedthemagistrateabout
thegift.Shethoughtshewasdoingherjob.Theladyjusticefiredherinstead.
Shewouldnothaveanybodycatchheracceptingabribe.Butshepracticallydid.
Thestupidityhereisthatthebribegiverwhatelsewouldwecallhimorherdidnot
checkwhethertheladyjusticewasintheofficeornot.Betterstillheorshecouldhavethe
boxfullofmoneydeliveredtoherhome.Butthenherfamilywouldgettoknowaboutand
askwhowasthekindsoulthatwassoliberalwithmoneyaboxfulofit.
TheSupremeCourtcannotletthispass.Afullinvestigationshouldbeconducted.The
magistratewhowassentthebribeshouldbeimpeached.
Thegiftgivesprooftotheperniciousrumorthatthecourtsaredirty.Thistime,the
ladyjusticeiswithahighercourt.
Thecourtislikeabasketofapples.Thereafewwhicharerottenthatmakesthewhole
basketrotten.
Thenamesandreputationofhighlyrespectedjuristsmustbesavedfromsuspicions
theyarethieves.
Herestheclue
2/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
TheCourtemployeewhowasfiredbytheladyjuristisanieceofanotherladyjustice
whoearlierretired.Theworkerwasinheritedbytheincumbentladyjustice.
Myproblemwiththisreportisthatwhilemysourceisdefiniteabouttheemployee
opening a giftwrapped box that contained at least P10 million, he wont confide to me the
identityofthejurist.
Unlesstheemployeewhowasfiredtalksagainstherbossandsheshouldasamatter
ofdutywewillneverknowwhothisjusticereallyis.ThemembersoftheSupremeCourt,
theCourtofAppeals,theSandiganbayanareallcalledjustices.
TheheadoftheOfficeofGovernmentCorporateCounselisalsohonoredbybeing
addressedassuch.SoistheheadoftheCourtofTaxAppeals.
Since the employee was fired for opening the box which she thought contained
perishablegoodsbutturnedouttherewasanestimatedP10millioninit,sheshouldbeloyalto
herdutyoftellingthetruth.
Thatway,shewouldhaverenderedagreatservicetothejusticesystem.Withouther
talking,everyladywiththetitleofJusticeissuspect.Therearemorethanadozenofthemin
different courts but only one was caught redhanded taking a bribe. Her name should be
knownsothattheSupremeCourtcanactswiftlyonaclearcaseofbribery.
Otherwise,thiscasebecomesonewherethepotcallsthekettleblack.Oristhatthe
reasontheemployeewouldnottalk,thatherformerbosscouldspillthebeansonherpeers?
September19,2007
TheBribeGiver
Ilearnedfromsomelawyersthatthebribemoneygiventoaladyjusticecamefroma
ChineseFilipinobusinessmanwhohasbeencriminallycharged.
Itisfunnythatthedeliveryoffiveboxesofmoney(Isaidonlyoneearlier)coincided
onthedaytheladyjustice,obviouslyactingasponente,acquittedtheprospect.
Thesecretaryoftheladyjusticewhotookthebribemadefivetripstotheguardhouse
topickuptheboxes.
Incidentally,thissecretaryisanamesakeofheraunt,adeceasedassociatejusticeofthe
SupremeCourt.
IdaresaythatifhernameisCecilia,itisentirelypossiblethattheladyjusticeisa
memberoftheSupremeCourt.ThelatejusticeCeciliaMuozPalmaistheonlyladyjusticeI
know who retired and died at a ripe old age and left behind a reputation of decency and
integrity.
Wearecomingcloserandclosertothetruth.Theladyjusticeshamedhercourt.She
shouldresignorbeimpeached.
ThatistheonlywaythesoiledreputationoftheHighestCourtcouldberestored.
3/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
September20,2007
Cecilia,pleasesavethecourt
Ihaveestablishedtheladyjusticessecretarywhoopenedoneofthefivemilkboxes
containing bribe money is a niece of the late, respected and honorable Associate Justice
CeciliaMuozPalmafromBatangas.
Thesecretaryisanieceofthelatejusticeandanamesake.
Cecilia,youhaveadutytohonorthememoryofyouraunt,who,duringherstayinthe
court,wasknownforhavingballs.
More important than that, you have a duty to save the sagging reputation of the
SupremeCourt.
Cecilia,youmusttelltheCourtenbanceverythingyouknowaboutthemoneythat
wassentinfiveboxestoyourboss.
Notinretaliationforyourdismissal,butfornootherreasonthanasadutytoyour
country and, I must again say, to honor the memory of your late illustrious aunt, a legal
luminaryandstaunchdefenderoftheConstitution.
Theotherreasonyoumustspillthebeansisthatifyoudonot,otherladyjusticesare
suspects.Thatisnotfairtothem.
September21,2007
Wrongdate,samefacts
Onverification,IdiscoveredthatthesecretaryofaladyjusticeoftheSupremeCourt
whowassaidtohaveacceptedfivemilkboxesofmoney,wasfiredasearlyasMarch.Not
lastweekasImistakenlyreported.
ItturnsoutthatCeciliaMuozDelisfromBicolpickedupthelastfiveboxesseveral
timesinMarch.
Sheneveropenedthefirstfourboxeswhichshepickedupfromtheguardhouseofthe
Court.
Sheopenedthelastandsawthemoneybecausetheladyjusticewasabsentonthat
day.Forthwith,shewasfired.Cecilia,whoisfromBicol,neveropenedanyofthefirstfour
boxesdeliveredonvariousdates(Ihavenotbeentoldwhen).Shepickedupallofthemfrom
theSupremeCourtguardhouseandleftthemwiththeladyjustice.Shewouldntdareopenthe
firstfourbecausetheladyjusticewasinheroffice.Sheopenedthefifthonebecausethelady
justicedidnotreportforworkonthatday.
Ceciliathoughtthatthegiftwrappedboxcontainedsomeperishableslikefood.What
shefoundwasmoneyinstead.Shewasfired.
4/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
Wheneveragiftforladyjusticecomes,shewouldorderCeciliatopickitupfromthe
guardhouse.Sothefifthshepickedupwasoneofthoseerrands.
WhereisCecilia?
IcannotgetanyinformationonthepresentwhereaboutsofCecilia.However,ifthe
SupremeCourthasintentionstoinvestigatewhatIhavebeensaying,maybetheChiefJustice
himselfshouldfindoutwhereshecouldbesentaninvitationtoappearbeforeaninvestigation
groupintheCourt.
Better still, as I said, yesterday, Cecilia should disclose everything she knows
regardingtheboxbeforetheCourtenbanc.
FarthestthingfrommymindistoembarrasstheladyjusticewhoseidentityIdonot
knowuptonow.
ItismyconvictionthattheCourtshouldinvestigatereportsofwrongdoingbyanyof
itspeers.Justiceisservedthatway.
TheChiefJusticeandtherestofthejusticesshouldnothaveaproblemfindingout
whosheis.
ItisasimplejobofaskingaclerktogotopersonneldepartmentoftheCourtandfind
[1]
outwhoCeciliaworkedfor.
TheSeptember18,2007article,thefirstoftheseriesofarticles,caughttheattentionof
Assistant Court Administrator (ACA) Jose Midas P. Marquez, Chief of the Supreme Court
PublicInformationOffice,inthecourseofhismonitoringthedailynewsreportsandcolumns
inmajornewspapers.However,sinceitwasvagueaboutwhichcourtwasbeingreferred
to,whethertheSupremeCourt,theCourtofAppeals,theSandiganbayan,ortheCourtofTax
Appeals,
[2]
[3]
ACAMarquezoptedtomerelynoteit.
The succeeding two articles, however, gave an indication that the supposed bribery
happened in the Supreme Court. Respondent Macasaet, in his September 19, 2007 article,
wrote,amongothers,thatIdaresaythatifhernameisCecilia,itisentirelypossiblethatthe
ladyjusticeisamemberoftheSupremeCourtxxx.Wearecomingcloserandclosertothe
truth. The lady justice shamed her court. She should resign or be impeached. That is the
onlywaythesoiledreputationoftheHighestCourtcouldberestored.
Similarly,inhisSeptember20,2007article,respondentsaidthatCeciliahadadutyto
savethesaggingreputationoftheSupremeCourt.
5/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
AlsoonSeptember20,2007,ataround6:00p.m.,MaritesDaguilanVitug,Editorin
Chief of Newsbreak, faxed a letter to Supreme Court Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares
Santiagoaskingforthreethings
1.In(sic)April13,2007,youconcurredwithadecisionpennedbyJusticeRomeoCallejo,
Sr. ruling that the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division did not commit a grave abuse of
discretion by finding probable cause against Henry Go. However, five months later
(September 3, 2007), acting on Gos motion for reconsideration, you reversed yourself
andorderedthedismissalofthegraftcaseagainstGo.Pleaseexplainthecircumstances
thatledtothisreversal.
2.WehavegatheredfromthreesourcesthatyoureceivedacashgiftofP10millionafteryou
issuedthedecisionearlySeptember.Pleasecomment.
3. Were checking if this is accurate. Your secretary, who opened the giftwrapped box
thinkingthatitcontainedperishableitems,foundcashinstead.Itwasafterthisincident
[4]
thatyouremovedher.
Upon receipt of the faxed letter, Mme. Justice YnaresSantiago called for ACA
Marquez, showed him the letter of DaguilanVitug, and requested him to tell Daguilan
Vitugthatshe(Mme.JusticeYnaresSantiago)hadbeenconsistentonherpositionintheGo
case,thatsheneverreversedherself,thatsheneverreceivedacashgift,andthatnosecretary
was terminated for opening a giftwrapped box containing money. Accordingly, ACA
Marquezwentbacktohisoffice,calledupDaguilanVitugandtoldherwhatMme.Justice
YnaresSantiagotoldhim.
[5]
Thatsameevening,ataroundseven,DaguilanVitugfaxedthecorrectedversionof
theearlierletter
1.OnApril13,2007,youdissentedagainstthedecisionpennedbyJusticeRomeoCallejo,
Sr. ruling that the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division did not commit a grave abuse of
discretion by finding probable cause against Henry Go. The vote was 32 in favor of
Callejas(sic)decision.Fivemonthslater(September3,2007),actingonGosmotionfor
reconsideration (by that time, Callejo had already retired), you ordered the dismissal of
the graft case against Go.I understand the exchanges were bitter and the deliberations
long.Pleaseexplainthecontentiousissues.
2. We have gathered from three sources that you received a cash gift of P10 million in
March2007inthemidstofdeliberationsonthecase.Pleasecomment.
3. Were checking if this is accurate. Your secretary, who opened the giftwrapped box
6/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
thinkingthatitcontainedperishableitems,foundcashinstead.Itwasafterthisincident
[6]
thatyouremovedherinMarch2007.
The following day, September 21, 2007, respondent Macasaet, in his column, named
the supposed secretary who was forthwith x x x fired allegedly after opening the box of
money:ItturnsoutthatCeciliaMuozDelisfromBicolpickedupthelastfiveboxesseveral
timesinMarch.
Fromtheforegoingseriesofarticles,respondentMacasaethaspaintedaclearpicture:
aChineseFilipinobusinessmanwhowasacquittedofacrimesupposedlyleftP10millionin
five different boxes with the security guard at the Supreme Court guardhouse, which was
pickedupbyCeciliaMuozDeliswhowasforthwithfiredforopeningoneoftheboxes.
UpontherequestofMme.JusticeYnaresSantiago,theChiefJusticeinstructedACA
Marqueztohavethe18th,19th,20th, and 21st September 2007 Business Circuit columns of
[7]
respondent Macasaet included in the September 25, 2007 agenda of the Court En Banc,
which case was docketed as A.M. No. 070913SC. (Re: In the Matter of the Allegations
Contained in the Columns of Mr. A.P. Macasaet Published in Malaya dated September 18,
19,20,and21,2007).
On September 24, 2007, Daisy Cecilia Muoz Delis, accompanied by the Clerk of
CourtEnBanc,Hon.Ma.LuisaD.Villarama,wenttoseeMme.JusticeYnaresSantiagoand
gave the latter copies of her letter to respondent Macasaet and her affidavit. Delis, in her
lettertorespondentMacasaet,describedhisarticlesasbaselessreports.Inotherwords,
shewroterespondentMacasaet,thescenarioyoupaintedandcontinuetopaintisimprobable
andcouldonlyhaveemanatedfromapollutedsource,who,unfortunately,chosemetobea
part of this fictional charge. She clarified that she was a Judicial Staff Officer, and not a
secretary as the articles claimed she was that she voluntarily resigned from office and was
notfiredthatasamatterofprocedure,shewouldnothavebeentaskedtoreceiveboxes,as
suchwasadutyassignedtotheirutilitypersonnelthatitwashighlyunlikelyforsomething
asblatantas[a]briberyattempttohavebeendonerightinthedoorsoftheCourt.
[8]
Delis
endedherlettertorespondentMacasaetwithaplea
7/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
My family and I have been suffering ever since your article came out last Tuesday,
becauseIwasbeingalludedto.Thissufferinghasincreasedbecausethenameofmybeloved
auntxxxhasbeendrawnintoacontroversythatshouldnothaveinvolvedmeoranymember
ofmyfamilyinthefirstplace.
And so, I ask you, Sir, to please cease from mentioning my name or any of my
relatives,livingordeceased,inordertopromoteyourtabloidjournalism.Ifyoursourceisas
reliableasyoubelieve,Isuggestyoupracticebetterjudgmentandjournalisticresponsibility
byverifyingyourdatabeforeprintinganythingandaffectingthelivesofinnocentpeople.If
this is some kind of war you are waging against the lady justice, we do not want to be
[9]
collateraldamage.
Inheraffidavit,Delisstatedthatshehadnothingtodowith,nordidxxxhaveany
knowledge of such alleged attempted bribery,
[10]
and that she executed her affidavit to
allow Justice Consuelo YnaresSantiago to defend her honor,

correctingtheerroneousinformationofMr.Macasaet.
[11]
and for the purpose of
[12]
That same morning, too, despite the prior telephone conversation between ACA
Marquez and DaguilanVitug, Newsbreak posted an online article written by Danguilan
VitugherselfandAriesRufo,whichwasregularlyupdated,entitledSupremeCourtJustice
Suspected of Accepting Payoff (update)
[13]
with the picture of Mme. Justice Ynares
Santiago
Wepiecedthestoryoftheallegedbriberyfromaccountsofvarioussourceswithinand
outside the Supreme Court who have requested not to be named because of their sensitive
disclosures.
InMarchthisyear,YnaresSantiagofiredherstaffmember,CeciliaDelis,supposedly
afterthelatteropenedagiftwrappedboxdeliveredtotheiroffice,thinkingthatitcontained
perishableitems.Delis,however,foundwadsofpesobillsinstead.Theamount,twosources
[14]
say,isestimatedatP10million.
Laterthatmorning,Mme.JusticeYnaresSantiagocalledACAMarqueztoheroffice
and gave him copies of her written statement categorically deny(ing) the accusations and
insinuations, all malicious and unfounded, published in Malaya and in Newsbreak and
underscoring that these are blatant lies clearly aimed at smearing and maligning my
characterandperson,andtheintegrityoftheJudiciarywhich(shehas)beenfaithfullyserving
8/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
for 34 years now.
[15]
Mme. Justice YnaresSantiago also gave ACA Marquez copies of
Delis letter to respondent Macasaet and her affidavit, which Delis herself had brought to
Mme.JusticeYnaresSantiagoearlierthatmorning.
[16]
In the afternoon of September 24, 2007, ACA Marquez held a press conference and
released to the media copies of Delis letter to respondent Macasaet, her affidavit, and the
writtenstatementofMme.JusticeSantiago.
[17]
OnSeptember25,2007,theCourtEnBancissuedaresolutionstating
Upon evaluation of the columns Business Circuit of Amado P. Macasaet in the

September18,19,20,and21,2007issuesoftheMalaya,itappearsthatcertainstatementsand
innuendoes therein 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 of
CivilProcedure.
WHEREFORE, Amado P. Macasaet is ORDERED to EXPLAIN why no sanction

should be imposed on him for indirect contempt of court in accordance with Section 3(d),
(Rule 71) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
[18]
YnaresSantiago,J.,nopart.
The following day, September 26, 2007, Newsbreak posted its online article entitled
SupremeCourtOrdersMalayaPublishertoExplainStorieswithabannerheadline,This
isnotmeanttochillthemedia.
On October 16, 2007, the Court En Banc noted respondent Macasaets Explanation
dated October 1, 2007,
[19]
and directed the Clerk of Court to include in the records of the
case the affidavit of Delis dated September 24, 2007. The High Court also created an
investigating committee composed of retired Supreme Court justices, namely, Justice
Carolina GrioAquino as Chairperson and Justices Vicente V. Mendoza and Romeo J.
Callejo,Sr.,asmembers,toreceivetheevidencefromallpartiesconcerned.TheCommittee
may,onitsown,callsuchpersonswhocanshedlightonthematter.Itshallbeendowedwith
all the powers necessary to discharge its duty. The Committee was likewise directed to
submit its report and recommendation within thirty (30) days from the start of its
9/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
hearing.
[20]
Retired Justices Mendoza and Callejo, however, both begged off and were
eventuallyreplacedbyretiredSupremeCourtJusticesJoseC.Vitug
[21]
andJustoP.Torres.
[22]
TheInvestigation
FromOctober30,2007toMarch10,2008,theInvestigatingCommitteeheldhearings
andgatheredaffidavitsandtestimoniesfromthepartiesconcerned.
The Committee invited respondent Macasaet, DaguilanVitug, Delis, and ACA

Marquez to a preliminary meeting, in which they were requested to submit their respective
affidavitswhichservedastheirtestimoniesondirectexamination.
[23]
Theywerethenlater
crossexaminedonvariousdates:respondentMacasaetonJanuary10,2008,DaguilanVitug
on January 17, 2008, Delis on January 24, 2008, and ACA Marquez on January 28, 2008.
The Chief of the Security Services and the Cashier of the High Court likewise testified on
January22and24,2008,respectively.
AccordingtotheCommittee
AMADOP.MACASAETtestifiedonJanuary10,2008but,asexpected,heinvoked
hisrightunderR.A.No.53,asamendedbyR.A.No.1477torefusetodisclosethesource/sof
hisstoryregardingtherumoredbriberyofaLadyJustice(lateridentifiedasJusticeConsuelo
YnaresSantiago)ofahighcourt(laterrevealedastheSupremeCourt)whoallegedlyreceived
Php10millioncontainedinagiftwrappedCarnationcartonbox(laterchangedtofive[5]
giftwrapped boxes), for deciding a criminal case in favor of a rich ChineseFilipino
businessman.(Pls.seecolumnsofSeptember18and19,2007)
The payoff was allegedly discovered when Cecilia MuozDelis (not the Lady
JusticessecretarybutajudicialstaffofficerVofthePETorPresidentialElectoralTribunal)
whoisanieceandnamesakeofretiredSupremeCourtJusticeCeciliaMuozPalma,allegedly
opened the last box (according to his column of September 21, 2007 titled Wrong date
samefacts)butthefirst(accordingtohistestimonyonJanuary10,2008,pp.71,89,92,
125,tsn).
By his own conclusion, the boxes of money were delivered on different dates
becauseIdontthinkabribegiverwilldeliverfiveboxesatthesametime(87,tsn,January
10,2008).
Macasaettestifiedthathissourceisnotarelativeofhis,noragovernmentemployee,
10/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
certainlynotanemployeeofthejudiciary,and,thathe(Macasaet)hasknownhimforsome10
to15years(1220,tsn,January10,2008).
Significantly,inhiscolumnofSeptember19,2007,Macasaetrevealedthathedidnot
haveonlyonesource,butseveralsources,i.e.,somelawyers,whotoldhimthatthebribe
money given to a lady justice came from a ChineseFilipino businessman who has been
criminallycharged.
Heemphaticallydeclaredonthewitnesschairthathetrustshissourcewithmyheart
andsoulandbelieveshiswordascomingstraightoutoftheBible(94,113,tsn,January
10,200814,tsn,January17,2008).Butbecausethissourcedidnothavedirectknowledgeof
the bribery (26, tsn, January 10, 2008), he allegedly tried to verify from other sources the
informationhehadreceived,butIcouldnotgetconfirmation(29,tsn,January10,2008).
Notwithstandingthelackofconfirmationandthepaucityofdetailsastotheidentityof
theLadyJusticeandoftheHighCourtwhereshesits,Macasaetbelievesthatthebriberyhad
actually taken place because I trust my source with my heart and soul (9394, 113, tsn,
January10,2008).
Hedecidedtogoaheadandpublishthestorybecausehethoughtthateventuallymy
effortatconsistentlyxxxexposingtheallegedbribery,onedaysoonerorlatersomebodywill
come up and admit or deny (it). And I think that (was) what really happened (29, tsn,
January10,2008).
HefoundoutthattheLadyJusticeinvolvedisJusticeConsueloYnaresSantiagoofthe
SupremeCourt,afterhereceivedaletterdatedSeptember21,2007fromCeciliaMuozDelis,
the Cecilia mentioned in his columns, denying any knowledge of the alleged bribery or
boxesofmoneyforshehadalreadyresigned(notdismissed)fromtheCourton March 15,
2007,six(6)monthsbeforetheallegedbriberysupposedlyoccurredaweekbeforeMacasaet
wroteaboutitinhiscolumnofSeptember18,2007.(AnnexA,LetterdatedSeptember21,
2007ofCeciliaDelistoMacasaet)
So, when did the bribery happen? The date was never made certain, for in his first
column of September 18, 2007, Macasaet stated that the giftwrapped box of money was
deliveredtotheofficeoftheLadyJustice,adaylastweekwhentheLadyJusticedidnot
reportforwork.ThatmusthavebeensometimeonSeptember1014,2007theweekbefore
September18,2007.
However,thenextday,September19,2007,hewroteinhiscolumnthatthedelivery
offiveboxes(notjustonebox)ofmoney,coincidedonthedaythattheLadyJustice,acting
asponente,dismissedthecriminalcaseagainstChineseFilipinobusinessmanHenryT.Goin
the Sandiganbayan. That must be September 3, 2007 because the Resolution in G.R. No.
172602HenryT.GoversusTheFifthDivision,Sandiganbayan,etal.waspromulgatedon
thatdate.This he affirmed when he testified on January10,2008 (46, 74, tsn, January 10,
2008).
However,whenhereturnedtothewitnesschaironJanuary17,2008,aftergoingback
to his informant (on his own request) to ascertain the dates when the boxes of money were
delivered to the Office of Justice Santiago, so that the Investigating Committee could
subpoenatherelevantlogbooksoftheSecurityServicesoftheCourttoverifythetruthofthe
alleged deliveries, Macasaet again changed his earlier testimonies on date/dates of the
deliveries.HeinformedtheCommitteethat,accordingtohisinformant,thedeliverieswere
made between November 2006 and March 2007 before Cecilia Delis resigned or was
11/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
dismissedfromtheCourt.
[24]
OnMarch11,2008 the Investigating Committee submitted to the Office of the Chief

[25]
withthefollowingfindingsof
JusticeitsMarch10,2008ReportandRecommendation,
factsonthesubjectcolumns
The following statements in Macasaets columns appear to the Supreme Court to be

innuendoes (that) tend, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administrationofjustice,withinthepurviewofSection3(d),Rule71ofthe1997Rulesof
CivilProcedure.
1)FromthecolumnofTuesday,September18,2007
Thegiftgivesprooftotheperniciousrumorthatthecourtsare
dirty.Thistime,theladyjusticeiswithahighercourt.
Thecourtislikeabasketofapples.There(are)afewwhichare
rotten.Thatmakesthewholebasketrotten.
Thenamesandreputationofhighlyrespectedjuristsmustbesaved
fromsuspicionthattheyarethieves.
HernameshouldbeknownsothattheSupremeCourtcanactswiftlyon
aclearcaseofbribery.Otherwise,thiscasebecomesonewherethepotcalls
thekettleblack.Or, is that the reason the employee would not talk, that her
formerbosscouldspillthebeansonherpeers?
2)FromthecolumnofWednesday,September19,2007
The lady justice shamed her court. She should resign or be

impeached. That is the only way the soiled reputation of the Highest Court
couldberestored.
3)FromthecolumnofThursday,September20,2007
Ceciliaxxxyouhaveadutytosavethesaggingreputationofthe
SupremeCourt.
InasmuchasMacasaetssnideremarksaboutthecourts,particularlythe
HighestCourt,andaboutthejusticesbeingsuspectedasthieves,appeartohave
[been] provoked by the rumored bribery in the Court, the Investigating
Committee was constrained to find out how true the accusations were and
whetherthecolumnisthadexercisedduecareanddiligenceincheckingoutthe
credibilityofhisinformantandtheveracityofthederogatoryinformationfed
[26]
tohimbeforehepublisheditinhiscolumnsintheMalaya.
Additionalobservationsandconclusionweresubmitted,likethefollowing
12/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
TheCommitteefindsthatneitherMacasaetscolumnsinMalaya,norMs.Vitugs
storyinNewsbreak,aboutthepayoffofPhp10milliontoJusticeConsueloYnaresSantiago
forrenderingaResolutionfavorabletoHenryT.GoinhispetitionagainsttheSandiganbayan
(according to Macasaet), or, a decision favoring Barque against Manotok in a big land case
(accordingtoMs.Vitug),havealegtostandon.AsJusticeVitughasobservedduringthe
lasthearingbeforetheCommittee,everythingthathasbeenheardthusfarwouldappear
tobehearsay.Ms.Vitugadmittedthereisnopapertrailtosupportthechargeofbribery
againstJusticeSantiago,foralthoughhersourceshadpointedtoCeciliaMuozDelisasthe
root source of the story, the information she received was secondhand or may be third
handbecausenoneofhersourceshadtalkedwithDelisherself(70,72tsnJan.17,2008).
Delis had refused to be interviewed by her, and had emphatically denied in her letter and
affidavitanyknowledgeoftheallegedbriberybecauseshewasnolongerworkingintheCourt
whenitsupposedlyhappened.
Macasaetssourceslikewisefedhimdoublehearsayinformationfromasourcethat
refusedtorevealtheidentityoftheLadyJusticenorahighcourtbutallegedthatthePhp10
millionbribewasdiscoveredbyhersecretarynamedCecilia,anieceandnamesakeofthelate
JusticeCeciliaMuozPalma,whowasfiredfromherjobonaccountofit.
TheCommitteeobservedthatMacasaetsstoryaboutthebriberyandofCeciliasrole
insupposedlydiscoveringit,isfullofholes,inconsistencies,andcontradictions,indicating
thathedidnotexerciseduediligence,patience,andcareincheckingtheveracityofthe
informationfedtohim,beforegivingitpublicityinhiscolumns.Norwashebotheredby
thedamagethathiscolumnswouldinflictonthereputationofamemberoftheHighest
CourtandontheCourtitself.Infact,hewashappythathewrotethecolumns(103tsn
Jan.10,2008).Evenifhe failed to get confirmationofthe bribery,onedaysooneror later,
somebodywouldcomeupandadmitordenyit.Hedidnotcarethathesmearedthewhole
Judiciarytofishherout,becauseaftersheisfishedout,thesuspicionontherestwouldbe
[27]
removed(2930tsnJan.10,2008).
(Emphasissupplied)
The Committee likewise noted the inconsistencies and assumptions of Macasaet,

betrayinglackofveracityoftheallegedbribery
1.Forinstance,hesaidthathecouldnotgetconfirmationofthebriberystorygiventohim
byhissource.Later,hesaidthathissourcestoldmetheyhadpersonalknowledgebut
wouldnotrevealthenameoftheLadyJustice(65,tsn,January10,2008).
2.HisallegationthattheLadyJustice(lateridentifiedasJusticeSantiago)didnotreportfor
worklastweek,i.e.,theweekbeforehisfirstcolumncameoutonSeptember18,2007,
wasrefutedbytheCourtsPublicInformationOfficer(PIO)Atty.MidasMarquez,who
testifiedthatnoLadyJusticewasabsentthatweek.
3.ThedatewhenthegiftwrappedboxofmoneywasallegedlyopenedbyCeciliaisalso
uncertainbecauseofMacasaetsconflictingallegationsaboutit.Macasaetsfirstcolumn
ofSeptember18,2007,statedthatithappenedlastweek,i.e.,sometimeintheweekof
September1014,2007.
Thenextday,September19,2007,he,however,wroteinhiscolumnthatthefiveboxes
13/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
(notone)ofmoneyweredeliveredontheday(September3,2007)whentheLadyJustice,
actingasponente,acquittedtheaccusedHenryT.Go.
But again, because his story about Cecilias role in the discovery of the bribery in
September2007,wascontradictedbytherecordofCeciliasresignationfromtheCourt
on March 15, 2007 (Annexes D and D1, Cecilia Delis Letter of Resignation &
Clearance), Macasaet, after consulting his source again, changed his story when he
testifiedonJanuary17,2008.Hesaidthat,accordingtohissource,theboxesofmoney
were delivered, not any one time in September 2007, but on different dates in
November2006uptoMarch2007,beforeCeciliaresignedorwasfiredfromtheoffice
ofJusticeSantiago(56,tsn,January17,2008).
That allegation is, however, refuted by the logbooks of the Security Services for the
period of November 2006 to March 2007 which contain no record of the alleged
deliveriesofboxesofmoneytotheofficeofJusticeSantiago.DaniloPablo,headofthe
CourtsSecurityServicesaffirmedthatinhisten(10)yearsofserviceintheCourt,hehas
notreceivedanyreportofboxesofmoneybeingdeliveredtoanyoftheJustices(4546,
[28]
tsn,January22,2008).
TheCommitteefurtherwonderedwhichofthefive(5)boxeswasopenedandyielded
money.Itfound
1.xxxInhiscolumnofSeptember21,2007,MacasaetallegedthatCeciliapickedupthe
fiveboxesofmoneyseveraltimesinMarch(notlastweekasImistakenlyreported),
andsheneveropenedthefirstfourboxesxxxsheopenedthelastandsawthemoney
becausetheLadyJusticewasabsentonthatday.
ButwhenhetestifiedbeforetheCommitteeonJanuary10,2008,Macasaetallegedthatit
wasthefirstonethatwasopenedaccordingtohissource(71,89,92,125,tsn,January
10,2008).
2. Contradicting his published story that five (5) boxes of money were delivered on the
daytheLadyJusticeacquittedHenryGo,Macasaettestifiedattheinvestigationthatthey
were delivered on different occasions according to my source (70, tsn, January 10,
2008).
Butnosoonerhadheattributedthatinformationtomysourcethanheadmittedthatit
was only my own conclusion x x x I assumed that the giver of the money is not so
stupidastohavethemdeliveredallinonetrip.Asamatteroffact,Ievenwonderedwhy
said boxes were not delivered in the home of the Lady Justice (72, tsn, January 10,
2008).
3.Theamountofthebribeisalsoquestionable.ForwhileinhisowncolumnofSeptember
18,2007,MacasaetstatedthatthegiftwasestimatedatPhp10million,helatertestified
on January 10, 2008 that the amount was my own calculation because I talked to
people,IsaidthiskindofboxhowmuchmoneyinOneThousandPesosbillscanithold,
hetoldmeitisten(million).Sothatwasacalculation(77,tsn,January10,2008).
Healsomerelyassumedthatthemoneywasinonethousandpesosbills(78,tsn,January
10,2008).Noonereallyknowstheirdenomination.
14/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
Hesaidhewastoldthatthesizeoftheboxwherethemoneywasplacedwasthismilk
called carnation in carton (79, tsn, January 10, 2008). But, at the final hearing on
February1,2008, he denied that said that, I never said carnation boxes I said milk
boxesthatshouldmakealotofdifference(84,tsn,February1,2008).
4.Sinceonlyonegiftwrappedboxofmoneywasopened,Macasaetadmittedthathehas
noknowledgeofwhetherthefour(4)otherboxeswerealsoopened,whenandwhere
theywereopened,andbywhomtheywereopened(90,tsn,January10,2008).Therefore,
nooneknowswhethertheyalsocontainedmoney.
Thatthefive(5)boxescontainedatotaloftenmillionpesos,isjustanotherassumption
of Macasaets. It is a calculation based on estimates obtained from friends and how
much five boxes can hold in one thousand peso bills, more or less ten million, he
explained(91,tsn,January10,2008).
The sin of assumption which is a cardinal sin in Newsbreaks Guide to Ethical

JournalisticConductwasrepeatedlycommittedbyMacasaetinwritinghisstoryaboutthe
briberyofaLadyJusticeoftheSupremeCourt.(AnnexE,page1,NewsbreakGuideto
[29]
EthicalJournalisticConduct).
Consequently,theCommitteeconcluded
In view of its tenuous underpinnings, we find the bribery story in Macasaets

columnsofSeptember1821,2007,andinMs.VitugsNewsbreakissueofSeptember25,
2007, unbelievable. Why should five boxes supposedly containing a total of Php 10
millionasbribemoneybedeliveredtotheofficeofaLadyJusticeintheSupremeCourt,
whereitwouldhavetopassexaminationbythesecurityguardsandthequizzicaleyesof
herownemployees?Whynottoherhome?Oratsomeagreedmeetingplaceoutsidethe
Courtandherhome?Orwhynotquietlydeposititinherbankaccount?Andwhywas
sheabsentfromherofficeonthedayofthepresumablyagreeddateforthepaymentof
the bribe? If the bribe was for dismissing the information against Henry Go in the
Sandiganbayan, why was it paid prematurely in November 2006March 2007 when the
caseofHenryGowasstillupintheairand,infact,wasdecidedagainsthimonApril13,
2007? The favorable resolution on his motion for reconsideration, penned by Justice
Santiago, was promulgated on September 3, 2007, almost one year after the payoff, if
therewassuchapayoff?
xxxx
The Committee considers this case not just another event that should pass unnoticed
forithasimplicationsfarbeyondtheallocatedrampartsoffreespeech.Needlesstosay,that
whileweespousetheenjoymentoffreedomofexpressionbymedia,particularly,itbehooves
ittoobservegreatcircumspectionsoasnottodestroyreputations,integrityandcharacterso
deartoeveryindividual,moresotoareveredinstitutionliketheSupremeCourt.Everyone
[30]
deservesrespectanddignity.
FindingsufficientbasistoholdrespondentMacasaetinindirectcontemptofcourt,the
15/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
Committeerecommended
TheCommitteefindsthatthestatementsofrespondentAmadoP.Macasaet about
theSupremeCourtinhisBusinessCircuitcolumnsintheSeptember1821,2007issuesof
thenewspaperMalaya,maligninganddegradingtheSupremeCourtandtendingdirectly
orindirectlytoimpede,obstruct,ordegradetheadministrationofjustice,tobeutterly
unjustified.
WHEREFORE,theCommitteebelievesthereexistvalidgroundsforthisHonorable
Court, if it is so minded, to cite Amado P. Macasaet for indirect contempt within the
[31]
purview of Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Emphasis
supplied)
OurRuling
IN view of respondents invocation of his right to press freedom as a defense, it is

essentialtofirstexaminethenatureandevolutionofthispreferredliberty,togetherwiththe
countervailing interest of judicial independence, which includes the right to due process of
law, the right to a fair trial, and the preservation of public confidence in the courts for the
properadministrationofjustice.
NatureandHistoryofPressFreedom
Freedomofexpression,whichincludesfreedomofspeechandofthepress,isoneof
thehallmarksofademocraticsociety.Ithasbeenrecognizedassuchforcenturies.
ThehistoryofpressfreedomdatesbacktotheEnglishMagnaCarta, promulgated in
1215,whichestablishedtheprinciplethatnoteventhelawmakershouldbeabovethelaw.
Through the years, many treatises on press freedom arose in reaction to various measures
takentocurtailit.
In the 17th Century, John Milton wrote Areopagitica, a philosophical defense of the
right to free speech. It was a reaction to the Licensing Order of June 14, 1643, which
declaredthatnobook,pamphlet,paper,norpartofanysuchbook,pamphlet,orpaper,shall
from henceforth be printed, bound, stitched or put to sale by any person or persons
whatsoever,unlessthesamebefirstapprovedofandlicensedunderthehandsofsuchperson
orpersonsasboth,oreitherofthesaidHousesshallappointforthelicensingofthesame.
16/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
Miltonadvocatedthatawrittenworkshouldnotbesuppressedbeforepublication.Writersof
treacherous, slanderous, or blasphemous materials should first be tried according to law.
Only after it has been established that their writings are of a treacherous, slanderous, or
blasphemousnatureshouldtheybesubsequentlypunishedfortheirwrongfulacts.
SirWilliamBlackstone,19thCenturyEnglishjurist,inhisstillwidelycitedhistorical
and analytical treatise on English common law, aptly described the twin aspects of press
freedom:
xxxEveryfreemanhasanundoubtedrighttolaywhatsentimentshepleasesbefore
the public: to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is
improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To
subjectthepresstotherestrictivepowerofalicenser,aswasformerlydone,bothbeforeand
sincetheRevolution,istosubjectallfreedomofsentimenttotheprejudicesofoneman,and
makehimthearbitraryandinfalliblejudgeofallcontrovertedpointsinlearning,religionand
government.But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings,
which,whenpublished,shallonafairandimpartialtrialbeadjudgedofapernicioustendency,
isnecessaryforthepreservationofpeaceandgoodorder,ofgovernmentandreligion,theonly
solidfoundationsofcivilliberty.Thus,thewillofindividualsisstillleftfree:theabuseonly
ofthatfreewillistheobjectoflegalpunishment.Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon
freedom of thought or inquiry: liberty of private sentiment is still left the disseminating, or
makingpublic,ofbadsentimentsdestructivetotheendsofsociety,isthecrimewhichsociety
[32]
corrects.
(Emphasissupplied)
In the United States, press freedom was first put into organic law with the First
AmendmenttoitsConstitution,declaringthatCongressshallmakenolawxxxabridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press. This set in stone the basis for virtually all
contemporarylawsandjurisprudenceonthesubjectofpressfreedom.
Our Constitutions and jurisprudence are no different. Section 4, Article III, 1987
Constitution,whichinpartprovidesthat[n]olawshallbepassedabridgingthefreedomof
speech,ofexpression,orofthepressxxxx,isaprovisionfoundinthe1935andthe1973
[33]
Constitutions.
MediaandItsMultiplyingRolesinDemocracy
Duetotheirpreferredpositioninthehierarchyofcivilliberties,thefreedomsofspeech,
ofexpression,andofthepresshaveprogresseddramatically.Asearlyas1942,evenbefore
17/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
the advent of television, the distinguished U.S. appellate court Judge Learned Hand had
alreadyobservedthat[t]hehandthatrulesthepress,theradio,thescreen,andthefarspread
magazine,rulesthecountry.Heconcludedthatmediaspowerwasanunchangeablefactof
life:Whetherwelikeornot,wemustlearntoacceptit.Thereismuchtruthtodayinthose
statements.
One of the notable features of recent years is the accelerated development of the
media.Theyhavegrownfromstrengthtostrength,andhavesubstantiallyinfluencedpeople,
either favorably or unfavorably, towards those in government. The use of information
technology has firmed up the media networks hold on power. Traditional media for mass
communication newspapers, magazines, radio, and standard television have been joined
by satellite and cable television, electronic mail, short messaging and multimedia service,
and the internet, giving rise to new opportunities for electronic news and information
companiestoevenintensifytheirinfluenceoverthegeneralpublic.
Studiesshowthatpeoplerelyheavilyonthemediafortheirknowledgeofeventsinthe
world and for impressions that form the basis for their own judgments. The media exert a
stronginfluenceonwhatpeoplethinkandfeel.Certainly,thepowerofPhilippinemediaisof
nosmallmeasure
The power of the press to influence politics is proven. Policy issues and the
implementation of government programs requiring greater public discussion are sometimes
displacedinthegovernmentagendabymattersthathavebeengivenmoreimportanceinthe
news.Publicofficialsareobligedtoattendtomediaqueriesevenifthesearenotnecessarily
themostimportantquestionsoftheday.NowhereinSoutheastAsiaaregovernmentofficials
soaccessibletothepress.Cabinet ministers are available from the earliest hours to answer
questionsfromradioshowhostsonthenewsofthedayinvolvingtheirresponsibilities.
Furthermore, television news programs have spawned media celebrities whose

popularitywiththemasseshascatapultedtheirentryintopolitics.Mediasfocusoncelebrity
hasinfectedthepoliticalculturewithexaggeratedconcernforpersonalityandcolor,andthe
kind of impact associated with sports and entertainment. Political parties have tended to
recruit popular figures from these fields to assure they have winners in the race for seats in
[34]
Congress.
ThereachofPhilippinemediaisquiteextensive
In the Philippines radio has the biggest audience among all the mass media (85
percent),followedbytelevisionat74percent,andprint,32percent.Print,however,hasan82
18/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
percentreachinMetropolitanManila,whichhasapopulationofsome10millionandisthe
countrys business, political, and cultural center. Print may thus be surmised to be as
[35]
influentialinthecapitalastelevision,whichhasareachof96percentamongresidents.
The mass media in a free society uphold the democratic way of life. They provide
citizenswithrelevantinformationtohelpthemmakeinformeddecisionsaboutpublicissues
affectingtheirlives.Affirmingtherightofthepublictoknow,theyserveasvehiclesforthe
necessary exchange of ideas through fair and open debate. As the Fourth Estate in our
democracy, they vigorously exercise their independence and vigilantly guard against
infringements.Overtheyears,thePhilippinemediahaveearnedthereputationofbeingthe
[36]
freestandliveliestinAsia.
Members of Philippine media have assumed the role of a watchdog and have been
protectiveandassertiveofthisrole.Theydemandaccountabilityofgovernmentofficialsand
agencies. They have been adversarial when they relate with any of the three branches of
government. They uphold the citizens right to know, and make public officials, including
judges and justices, responsible for their deeds or misdeeds. Through their watchdog
function, the media motivate the public to be vigilant in exercising the citizens right to an
effective,efficientandcorruptfreegovernment.
OpenJusticeandJudicialIndependence
Closelylinkedwiththerighttofreedomofspeechandofthepressisthepublicrightto
scrutinize and criticize government. The freedom to question the government has been a
protectedrightoflongstandingtraditionthroughoutAmericanhistory.Thereisnodoubtthat
thefundamentalfreedomtocriticizegovernmentnecessarilyincludestherighttocriticizethe
courts, their proceedings and decisions. Since the drafting of their Constitution over 200
yearsago,Americanjudgeshaveanticipatedandsometimesevenencouragedpublicscrutiny
ofthemselves,ifnotofthejudiciaryasawhole.
[37]
Thisopenjusticeprinciple,whichisasfundamentaltoademocraticsocietyasfreedom
ofspeech,hasbeenanaccepteddoctrineinseveraljurisdictions.Itisjustifiedontheground
19/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
thatifthedeterminationofjusticecannotbehiddenfromthepublic,thiswillprovide:(1)a
safeguard against judicial arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy, and (2) the maintenance of the
publicsconfidenceintheadministrationofjustice.
[38]
Whilemostagreethattherighttocriticizethejudiciaryiscriticaltomaintainingafree
anddemocraticsociety,thereisalsoageneralconsensusthathealthycriticismonlygoesso
far.
[39]
Manytypesofcriticismleveledatthejudiciarycrossthelinetobecomeharmfuland
irresponsibleattacks.Thesepotentiallydevastatingattacksandunjustcriticismcanthreaten
theindependenceofthejudiciary.
Thedebateovertheindependenceofthejudiciaryisnothingnew.Morethan200years
ago, the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution engaged in heated arguments, both
before and after the Constitutional Convention, focusing on the extent and nature of the
[40]
The signers of the Declaration of
judiciarys role in the newlyformed government.
Independence, well aware of the oppressive results of the unchecked political power of the
King of England who established absolute tyranny over American colonies, recognized the
importanceofcreatingastablesystemofjusticetoprotectthepeople.
Cognizantoftheneedtocreateasystemofchecksandbalancestoensurethattherule
oflawshallrule,theresultingConstitutionprovidedforathreetieredsystemofgovernment,
sostructuredthatnobranchholdslimitlesspower.
The judicial branch is described as the least dangerous branch of government.
[41]
Butitholdsaspecialplaceinthetripartitesystem,asitisprimarilyresponsibleforprotecting
basic human liberties from government encroachment. It completes the nations system of
checksandbalances.Itservesasanarbiterofdisputesbetweenfactionsandinstrumentsof
government.
In our constitutional scheme and democracy, our courts of justice are vested with
judicialpower,whichincludesthedutyxxxtosettleactualcontroversiesinvolvingrights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
beenagraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthepartofany
20/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
branch or instrumentality of the government.
[42]
The present judicial system allows the
people to rely upon our courts with substantial certainty it encourages the resolution of
disputesincourtroomsratherthanonthestreets.
To accomplish these tasks, an independent judiciary is very vital. Judicial

independenceisthebackboneofdemocracy.Itisessentialnotonlytothepreservationofour
justice system, but of government as well. Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson of the
WisconsinSupremeCourthasobservedthatjudicialindependenceencompassestwodistinct
[43]
butrelatedconceptsofindependence.
One concept is individual judicial independence, which focuses on each particular

judge and seeks to insure his or her ability to decide cases with autonomy within the
constraintsofthelaw.Ajudgehasthiskindofindependencewhenhecandohisjobwithout
havingtohearoratleastwithouthavingtotakeitseriouslyifhedoeshearcriticismsof
his personal morality and fitness for judicial office. The second concept is institutional
judicial independence. It focuses on the independence of the judiciary as a branch of
governmentandprotectsjudgesasaclass.
Atrulyindependentjudiciaryispossibleonlywhenbothconceptsofindependenceare
preserved wherein public confidence in the competence and integrity of the judiciary is
maintained, and the public accepts the legitimacy of judicial authority. An erosion of this
confidencethreatensthemaintenanceofanindependentThirdEstate.
For sure, judicial criticism can be constructive, uncovering and addressing a problem
thatmeritspublicattention.Publicawareness,debate,andcriticismofthecourtsensurethat
people are informed of what they are doing that have broad implications for all citizens.
Informeddiscussion,comment,debateanddisagreementfromlawyers,academics,andpublic
officialshavebeenhallmarksofagreatlegaltraditionandhaveplayedavitalroleinshaping
thelaw.
Butthereisanimportantlinebetweenlegitimatecriticismandillegitimateattackupon
thecourtsortheirjudges.Attacksuponthecourtorajudgenotonlyrisktheinhibitionofall
judgesastheyconscientiouslyendeavortodischargetheirconstitutionalresponsibilitiesthey
21/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
alsounderminethepeoplesconfidenceinthecourts.
Personal attacks, criticisms laden with political threats, those that misrepresent and
distort the nature and context of judicial decisions, those that are misleading or without
factual or legal basis, and those that blame the judges for the ills of society, damage the
integrityofthejudiciaryandthreatenthedoctrineofjudicialindependence.Theseattacksdo
agravedisservicetotheprincipleofanindependentjudiciaryandmisleadthepublicastothe
roleofjudgesinaconstitutionaldemocracy,shakingtheveryfoundationofourdemocratic
government.
Such attacks on the judiciary can result in two distinct yet related undesirable
[44]
consequences.
First,thecriticismwillpreventjudgesfromremaininginsulatedfromthe
personal and political consequences of making an unpopular decision, thus placing judicial
independence at risk. Second, unjust criticism of the judiciary will erode the publics trust
andconfidenceinthejudiciaryasaninstitution.Bothjudicialindependenceandthepublics
trust and confidence in the judiciary as an institution are vital components in maintaining a
healthydemocracy.
Accordingly,ithasbeenconsistentlyheldthat,whilefreedomofspeech,ofexpression,
andofthepressareatthecoreofcivillibertiesandhavetobeprotectedatallcostsforthe
sake of democracy, these freedoms are not absolute. For, if left unbridled, they have the
tendencytobeabusedandcantranslatetolicenses,whichcouldleadtodisorderandanarchy.
[45]
this Court ruled that [f]rom the
Thus, in Gonzales v. Commission on Elections,
language of the specific constitutional provision, it would appear that the right (to free
expression)isnotsusceptibleofanylimitation.Nolawmaybepassedabridgingthefreedom
of speech and of the press. The realities of life in a complex society preclude, however, a
literalinterpretation.Freedomofexpressionisnotabsolute.Itwouldbetoomuchtoinsist
that,atalltimesandunderallcircumstances,itshouldremainunfetteredandunrestrained.
Thereareothersocietalvaluesthatpressforrecognition.
[46]
[47]
it was held that while the right of freedom of
In Lagunzad v. Vda. De Gonzales,

22/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
expression occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of civil liberties, it is not without
limitations.AsthereveredHolmesoncesaid,thelimitationononesrighttoextendonesfist
iswhenithitsthenoseofanother.
Indeed, freedom of speech cannot be absolute and unconditional. In legal, political,

and philosophical contexts, it is always regarded as liable to be overridden by important
countervailing interests, such as state security, public order, safety of individual citizens,
protectionofreputation,anddueprocessoflaw,whichencompassesnotonlytherighttoa
fairtrial,butalsothepreservationofpublicconfidenceintheproperadministrationofjustice.
Asearlyas1930,thisCourt,speakingthroughMr.JusticeGeorgeMalcolm,declared
that[a]simportantasisthemaintenanceofanunmuzzledpressandthefreeexerciseofthe
rightsofthecitizenisthemaintenanceoftheindependenceofthejudiciary.
[48]
In Zaldivar v. Gonzalez,
[49]
the Court said that freedom of speech and expression,
like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on
occasiontobeadjustedtoandaccommodatedwithrequirementsofequallyimportantpublic
interests. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and
orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no antinomy between free
expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice. For the protection and
maintenance of freedom of expression itself can be secured only within the context of a
functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice, within the context, in other words, of
viable independent institutions for delivery of justice which are accepted by the general
community.
AsMr.JusticeFelixFrankfurterputit:
xxxAfreepressisnottobepreferredtoanindependentjudiciary,noranindependent
judiciarytoafreepress.Neitherhasprimacyovertheotherbothareindispensabletoafree
society.
Thefreedomofthepressinitselfpresupposesanindependentjudiciarythroughwhich
that freedom may, if necessary, be vindicated. And one of the potent means for assuring
[50]
judgestheirindependenceisafreepress.
23/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
Even the major international and regional human rights instruments of civil and
political rights the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),
Rights(ACHR),
[53]
[51]
the
[52]
the American Convention on Human
[54]
andtheAfricanCharteronHumanandPeoplesRights(ACHPR)
protectbothfreedomofexpressionandtheadministrationofjustice.Freedomofexpression
isprotectedunderArticle19oftheICCPR
(1)Everyoneshallhavetherighttoholdopinionswithoutinterference.
(2)Everyoneshallhavetherighttofreedomofexpressionthisrightshallincludefreedomto
seek,receiveandimpartinformationandideasofallkinds,regardlessoffrontiers,either
orally,inwritingorinprint,intheformofart,orthroughanyothermediaofhischoice.
However,Article19oftheICCPRismadesubjecttoArticle14(1),whichguarantees
therightofindividualstobeequalbeforethecourtsandtribunalsandbeentitledtoafairx
xxhearingbyacompetent,independentandimpartialtribunal,where[t]hepressandthe
publicmaybeexcludedfromallorpartofatrialforreasonsofmorals,publicorder(order
public)ornationalsecurityinademocraticsociety,orwhentheinterestoftheprivatelivesof
thePartiessorequires,ortotheextentstrictlynecessaryintheopinionofthecourtinspecial
circumstanceswherepublicitywouldprejudicetheinterestsofjusticexxx.
Article10(2)oftheECHRgoesfurtherbyexplicitlymentioningthemaintenanceofthe
authorityandimpartialityofthejudiciary
Theexerciseofthesefreedoms,sinceitcarrieswithitdutiesandresponsibilities,may
besubjecttosuchformalities,conditions,restrictionsorpenaltiesasareprescribedbylawand
necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or
publicsafety,forthepreventionofdisorderorcrime,fortheprotectionofhealthmorals,for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing disclosure of information
received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
(Emphasissupplied)
Judgeshaveanaffirmativedutytodefendandupholdtheintegrityandindependenceof
thejudiciary.Thecourtsneedtobeabletosanctionthosewhoobstructtheirprocesses.The
judiciaryitselfmustcontinuetobeavoicethatexplainsandpreservesitsownindependence.
The respect accorded to judges is an adjunct of the socialcontract necessity for impartial
24/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
judgesinthecreationofacivilsociety.InthewordsofthegreatpoliticalphilosopherJohn
Locke
Thegreatandchiefend,therefore,formensunitingintocommonwealths,andputting
themselvesundergovernment,isthepreservationoftheirproperty,towhichinthestateof
nature there are many things wanting x x x there wants an established, settled, known
law x x x there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all
differences according to the established law x x x there often wants power to back and
[55]
supportthesentencewhenright,andtogiveitdueexecution.
(Emphasissupplied)
ASurveyofPhilippineJurisprudence
The very first case decided by the Supreme Court, In the matter of the proceedings
[56]
againstMarcelinoAguasforcontemptoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofPampanga,
wasa
contemptproceeding.Before,asitisnow,thisCourthadtousethispowertoimpressupon
contemnorsthelegaltheoryandconstitutionalpremisesofjudiciallegitimacycomplementing
popularsovereigntyandpublicinterest.WritingfortheCourt,Mr.JusticeJamesSmithstated
thatcontemptproceedingsagainstacontemnorwereagainstsomeonewhohaddoneanactor
[57]
wasabouttodosuchactwhichwasdisrespectfultothecourtoroffensivetoitsdignity.
Through the years, the Court has punished contemnors for a variety of offenses that
haveattemptedtodegradeitsdignityandimpededtheadministrationofjustice.
In 1916, Amzi B. Kelly was fined P1,000 and sentenced to six months in prison for
contemptofcourtafterhepublishedalettertotheeditorofTheIndependent criticizing the
Courtforitsdecisiontoholdhimincontemptforhavingpublishedabookstatingthatvarious
governmentofficials,includingthemembersoftheSupremeCourt,wereguiltyofpolitically
assassinatingGeneralMarianoNoriel,whowasexecutedforthekillingofapoliticalrivalin
1915.
[58]
In 1949, Atty. Vicente Sotto was fined P1,000.00 for publishing a statement in the
ManilaTimesobjectingtooneoftheHighCourtsdecisions,citingthatsuchdecisionbythe
majority was but another evidence of the incompetency or narrowmindedness of the
majorityofitsmembersandcalledfortheresignationoftheCourtsentiremembershipin
25/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
the wake of so many mindedness of the majority deliberately committed during these last
years.
[59]
[60]
In1987,EvaMaravillaIlustre,
inalmostidenticallettersdatedOctober20, 1986
sent to four (4) Justices of the Supreme Court (all members of the First Division), stated
amongothers
Itisimportanttocallyourattentiontothedismissalof(casecited)byanuntenable
minuteresolutionxxxwhichweconsiderasanunjustresolutiondeliberatelyandknowingly
promulgatedbytheFirstDivisionoftheSupremeCourtofwhichyouareamember.
Weconsiderthethreeminuteresolutionsxxxrailroadedwithsuchhurry/promptitude
unequalled in the entire history of the SC under circumstances that have gone beyond the
limitsoflegalandjudicialethics.
Thereisnothingfinalinthisworld.Weassureyouthatthiscaseisfarfromfinished
byalongshot.Foratthepropertime,weshallsoactandbringthiscasebeforeanotherforum
wherethemembersoftheCourtcannolongerdenyactionwithminuteresolutionsthatarenot
onlyunjustbutareknowinglyanddeliberatelypromulgatedxxx.
Pleaseunderstandthatwearepursuingfurtherremediesinourquestforjusticeunder
thelaw.WeintendtoholdresponsiblemembersoftheFirstDivisionwhoparticipatedinthe
promulgationofthesethreeminuteresolutionsinquestionxxx.
Inourquestforjustice,wewishtoavoidhavinginjusticetoanyone,particularlythe
members of the First Division, providing that they had no hand in the promulgation of the
resolutioninquestion.xxxIf,however,wedonothearfromyouafteraweek,thenwewill
consideryoursilencethatyousupportedthedismissalofourpetition.Wewillthenbeguided
[61]
accordingly.
ThelettertooneoftheJusticesfurtherstated
Weleavethenextmovetoyoubyinformingusyourparticipationxxx.Pleasedonot
takethismatterlightly.xxxThemomentwetakeactionintheplanswearecompleting,we
willthencallapressconferencewithTVandradiocoverage.Arrangementsinthisregardare
beingdone.Thepeopleshouldoroughttoknowwhywewerethwartedinourquestforplain
[62]
justice.
TheseletterswerereferredbytheFirstDivisionenconsultatotheCourtenbanc.
Truetoherthreats,afterhavinglosthercasebeforetheSupremeCourt,Ilustrefiledon
26/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
December 16, 1986 an affidavitcomplaint before the Tanodbayan, charging, among others,
some Justices of both the Supreme Court and the CA with knowingly and deliberately
renderingunjustresolutions.
OnJanuary29,1987,theSupremeCourtenbancrequiredIlustretoshowcausewhy
sheshouldnotbeheldincontemptforherforegoingstatements,conduct,acts,andcharges
against the Supreme Court and/or official actions of the justices concerned which, unless
satisfactorilyexplained,transcendedthepermissibleboundsofproprietyandunderminedand
degradedtheadministrationofjustice.
Inheranswer,Ilustrecontended,inter alia, that she had no intention to affront the

honor and dignity of the Court that the letters to the individual justices were private in
character that the Court was estopped, having failed to immediately take disciplinary
proceedings against her and that the citation for contempt was a vindictive reprisal against
her.
TheSupremeCourtfoundherexplanationunsatisfactory.Theclaimoflackofevil
intentionwasdisbelievedinthefaceofattendantcircumstances.Relianceontheprivacyof
communicationwaslikewiseheldasmisplaced.LettersaddressedtoindividualJusticesin
connectionwiththeperformanceoftheirjudicialfunctionsbecomepartofthejudicialrecords
andareamatterofpublicconcernfortheentireCourt.(Underscoringsupplied)
TheCourtlikewisestatedthatitwasonlyintheexerciseofforbearancethatitrefrained
from immediately issuing a showcause order, expecting that she and her lawyer would
realize the unjustness and unfairness of their accusations. Neither was there any vindictive
reprisal involved. The Courts authority and duty under the premises is unmistakable. It
must act to preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an irate lawyer,
mouthedbyhisclient,andtosafeguardthemoralsandethicsofthelegalprofession.
Inresum,theCourtfoundthatIlustrehadtranscendedthepermissibleboundsoffair
comment and criticism to the detriment of the orderly administration of justice: (a) in her
lettersaddressedtotheindividualJustices,quotedintheshowcauseResolution,particularly
the underlined portions thereof (b) in the language of the charges she filed before the
TanodbayanquotedinthesameResolution(c)inherstatement,conduct,acts,andcharges
27/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
against the Supreme Court and/or official actions of the Justices concerned and her
descriptionofimpropermotivesand(d)inherunjustifiedoutburstthatshecouldnolonger
expectjusticefromtheCourt.
Thefactthatsaidletterwasnottechnicallyconsideredpleadingsnorthefactthatthey
were submitted after the main petition had been finally resolved does not detract from the
gravityofthecontemptcommitted.Theconstitutionalrightoffreedomofspeechorrightto
[63]
privacycannotbeusedasashieldforcontemptuousactsagainsttheCourt.
IlustrewasfinedP1,000.00forcontempt,evidentlyconsideredasindirect, taking
intoaccountthepenaltyimposedandthefactthattheproceedingstakenwerenotsummaryin
nature.
[64]
the Court had an occasion to examine the
In Perkins v. Director of Prisons,
fundamental foundations of the power to punish for contempt: The power to punish for
contempt is inherent in all courts its existence is essential to the preservation of order in
judicialproceedingsandtotheenforcementofjudgments,orders,andmandatesofthecourts,
and,consequently,tothedueadministrationofjustice.
[65]
The Court there held that the exercise of this power is as old as the English history
itself,andhasalwaysbeenregardedasanecessaryincidentandattributeofcourts.Being a
commonlawpower,inherentinallcourts,themomentthecourtsoftheUnited States were
calledintoexistencetheybecamevestedwithit.Itisapowercomingtousfromthecommon
law,and,sofarasweknow,hasbeenuniversallyadmittedandrecognized.
[66]
After World War II, this Court reiterated it had an inherent power to punish for
contempt, to control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of the
Courtincludinglawyersandallotherpersonsconnectedinanymannerwithacasebeforethe
Court.
[67]
This power to punish for contempt is necessary for its own protection against
improperinterferencewiththedueadministrationofjusticexxx.Itisnotdependentupon
thecomplaintofanyofthepartieslitigant.
[68]
Thesetwinprinciplesweretobesuccinctly
[69]
citedinthelatercaseofZaldivarv.Gonzales.
28/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
Of course, the power to punish for contempt is exercised on the preservative

principle. There must be caution and hesitancy on the part of the judge whenever the
possible exercise of his awesome prerogative presents itself. The power to punish for
[70]
contempt, as was pointed out by Mr. Justice Malcolm in Villavicencio v. Lukban,
should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle. Only
occasionallyshouldthecourtinvokeitsinherentpowertoretainthatrespectwithoutwhich
theadministrationofjusticemustfalterorfail.Butwhencalledfor,mostespeciallywhen
needed to preserve the very existence and integrity of no less than the Highest Court, this
principlebearsimportance.
[71]
[72]
theCourt,citingInRe:VicenteSotto,
had
Inthe1995casePeoplev.Godoy,
theopportunitytodefinetherelationsofthecourtsandofthepress.Quotingthestatements
[73]
madebyJudgeHolmesinU.S.v.Sullen,
theCourtsaid:
The administration of justice and the freedom of the press, though separate and
distinct, are equally sacred, and neither should be violated by the other. The press and the
courtshavecorrelativerightsanddutiesandshouldcooperatetoupholdtheprinciplesofthe
Constitution and laws, from which the former receives its prerogative and the latter its
jurisdiction. x x x In a clear case where it is necessary in order to dispose of judicial
businessunhamperedbypublicationswhichreasonablytend toimpairtheimpartiality
ofverdicts,orotherwiseobstructtheadministrationofjustice,theCourtwillnothesitate
to exercise undoubted power to punish for contempt. This Court must be permitted to
proceedwiththedispositionofitsbusinessinanorderlymannerfreefromoutsideinterference
obstructive of its constitutional functions. This right will be insisted upon as vital to an
impartialcourt,and,asalastresort,asanindividualexercisestherightofselfdefense,itwill
[74]
acttopreserveitsexistenceasanunprejudicedtribunal.
(Emphasissupplied)
Thus,whiletheCourtinGodoyagreedthatourConstitutionandourlawsrecognizethe
First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press, these two constitutional
guarantiesmustnotbeconfusedwithanabuseofsuchliberties.QuotingGodoyfurther
Obstructing,bymeansofthespokenorwrittenword,theadministrationofjusticeby
thecourtshasbeendescribedasanabuseofthelibertyofthespeechorthepresssuchaswill
[75]
subjecttheabusertopunishmentforcontemptofcourt.
29/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
[76]
theCourtenbancina
Finally,inthemorerecent2007caseRoxasv.Zuzuarregui,
unanimouspercuriamresolutionimposedaP30,000fineonAtty.RomeoRoxasformaking
unfairandunfoundedaccusationsagainstamemberofthisCourt,andmockingtheCourtfor
allegedly being part of the wrongdoing and being a dispenser of injustice. We found the
letterofAtty.Roxasfullofcontemptuousremarksthattendedtodegradethedignityofthe
Court and erode public confidence that should be accorded to it. We also said that his
invocation of free speech and privacy of communication will not, however, free him from
liability. As already stated, his letter contained defamatory statements that impaired public
confidenceintheintegrityofthejudiciary.Themakingofcontemptuousstatementsdirected
against the Court is not an exercise of free speech rather, it is an abuse of such right.
Unwarrantedattacksonthedignityofthecourtscannotbedisguisedasfreespeech,forthe
exerciseofsaidrightcannotbeusedtoimpairtheindependenceandefficiencyofcourtsor
publicrespectthereforeandconfidencetherein.Freeexpressionmustnotbeusedasavehicle
tosatisfyonesirrationalobsessiontodemean,ridicule,degradeandevendestroythisCourt
anditsmagistrates.Accordingly,Atty.Roxaswasfoundguiltyofindirectcontemptofcourt
andfinedP30,000.00,withawarningthatarepetitionofasimilaractwouldwarrantamore
severepenalty.
Application of Existing Jurisprudence to the Case at

Bar
Indeterminingtheliabilityoftherespondentinthiscontemptproceeding,weweighthe
conflictingconstitutionalconsiderationsrespondentsclaimofhisrighttopressfreedom,on
onehandand,ontheotherhand,ensuringjudicialindependencebyupholdingpublicinterest
in maintaining the dignity of the judiciary and the orderly administration of justice both
indispensabletothepreservationofdemocracyandthemaintenanceofajustsociety.
Theapparentlyconflictingconstitutionalconsiderationssummedupbyadistinguished
formerJudgeoftheSupremeCourtofIndia,JusticeH.R.Khanna,bearsahandinresolving
theissue
ThereareoneortwomatterstowhichIwouldliketomakepointedreferenceinthe
contextofthefreedomofthepress.Oneofthemrelatestothedangeroftrialbythepress.
Certainaspectsofacasearesomuchhighlightedbythepressthatthepublicitygivesriseto
strongpublicemotions.Theinevitableeffectofthatistoprejudicethecaseofonepartyorthe
30/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
otherforafairtrial.Wemustconsiderthequestionastowhatextentarerestraintsnecessary
andhavetobeexercisedbythepresswithaviewtopreservingthepurityofjudicialprocess.
Atthesametime,wehavetoguardagainstanotherdanger.Apersoncannotxxxbystarting
some kind of judicial proceedings in respect of matter of vital public importance stifle all
publicdiscussionsofthatmatter onpainofcontemptof court.A line to balancethewhole
thing has to be drawn at some point. It also seems necessary in exercising the power of
contemptofcourtxxxvisvisthepressthatnohypersensitivityisshownanddueaccount
is taken of the proper functioning of a free press in a democratic society. This is vital for
ensuring the health of democracy. At the same time, the press must also keep in view its
responsibility and see that nothing is done as may bring the courts x x x into disrepute and
makepeoplelosefaithintheseinstitution(s).Oneothermatterwhichmustnotbelostsightof
[77]
isthatwhilecommentisfree,factsaresacred.
We have no problems with legitimate criticisms pointing out flaws in our decisions,
judicialreasoning,orevenhowwerunourpublicofficesorpublicaffairs.Theyshouldeven
be constructive and should pave the way for a more responsive, effective and efficient
judiciary.
Unfortunately,thepublishedarticlesofrespondentMacasaetarenotofthisgenre.On
thecontrary,hehascrossedtheline,ashisarebaselessscurrilousattackswhichdemonstrate
nothing but an abuse of press freedom. They leave no redeeming value in furtherance of
freedomofthepress.TheydonothingbutdamagetheintegrityoftheHighCourt,undermine
the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary, and threaten the doctrine of judicial
independence.
A veteran journalist of many years and a president of a group of respectable media

practitioners, respondent Macasaet has brilliantly sewn an incredible tale, adorned it with
some facts to make it lifelike, but impregnated it as well with insinuations and innuendoes,
which,whendigestedentirelybyanunsuspectingsoul,maymakehimthrowupwithseethe.
Thus, he published his highly speculative articles that bribery occurred in the High Court,
based on specious information, without any regard for the injury such would cause to the
reputation of the judiciary and the effective administration of justice. Nor did he give any
thought to the undue, irreparable damage such false accusations and thinly veiled allusions
wouldhaveonamemberoftheCourt.
TheInvestigatingCommitteecouldnothaveputitanybetterwhenitfoundrespondent
feigninghishighestrespectforthisCourt
31/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
MacasaetsdiatribesagainsttheCourtgeneratepublicdistrustintheadministrationof
JusticebytheSupremeCourt,insteadofpromotingrespectforitsintegrityandhonor.They
derogatehisavowalofhighestrespectforthisCourt(10,tsn,Jan.10,2008)hisdeclaration
thathehasalwaysupheldthemajestyofthelawasinterpretedbytheCourt(96,tsn,Jan.10,
2008)thathisopinionoftheCourthasactuallybeenelevatedtenmilesupbecauseofits
decisionsinthecasesinvolvingProclamationNo.1017,theCPR,EO464,andthePeoples
Initiative (97, tsn, Jan.10,2008) that he has done everything to preserve the integrity and
majestyoftheCourtanditsjurists(8485,tsn,Feb.1,2008)thathewantstheintegrityof
theCourtpreservedbecausethisisthelastbastionofdemocracy(32,tsn,Jan.10,2008).
Thesetongueincheekprotestationsdonotrepairorerasethedamageandinjurythat
hiscontemptuousremarksabouttheCourtandtheJusticeshavewroughtupontheinstitutional
integrity, dignity, and honor of the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, nowhere in his
columnsdowefindasinglewordofrespectfortheCourtortheintegrityandhonorofthe
Court.Onthecontrary,whatwefindareallegationsofperniciousrumorthatthecourtsare
dirty, suspicions that the jurists are thieves, that the Highest Court has a soiled
reputation,andthattheSupremeCourthasasaggingreputation.
Headmittedthattherumoraboutthecourtsbeingdirtyreferredspecifically(to)the
Supreme Court (100, tsn, Feb. 1, 2008) and was based on personal conclusion which
(was),inturn,basedonconfidentialinformationfedtome.ItisinthatrespectthatIthought
thatIhave(a)dutytoprotectandkeeptheHonorofthisCourt(98,tsn,Feb.1,2008).
He unburdened his heretofore hidden anger, if not disgust, with the Court when he
clarifiedthattheworddirty x x x is not necessarily related to money (101, tsn, Feb. 1,
2008).Itismybeliefthatlackoffamiliaritywiththelawisxxxkindofdirtyreferringto
then Associate Justice Artemio Panganibans support for, and Chief Justice Hilario Davide,
Jr.s act of swearing into office then VicePresident Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as Acting
PresidentofthePhilippinesevenwhilethenPresidentJosephEstradawasstillinMalacaang,
[78]
whichMacasaetbelievedtobequiteabitofdirt(102106,tsn,Feb.1,2008).
ToreiteratethewordsoftheCommittee,thiscaseisnotjustanothereventthatshould
passunnoticedforithasimplicationsfarbeyondtheallocatedrampartsoffreespeech.
[79]
To allow respondent to use press freedom as an excuse to capriciously disparage the

reputationoftheCourtandthatofinnocentprivateindividualswouldbetomakeamockery
ofthisliberty.
RespondenthasabsolutelynobasistocalltheSupremeCourtacourtofthievesanda
basketofrottenapples.Thesepublicationsdirectlyunderminetheintegrityofthejustices
andrendersuspecttheSupremeCourtasaninstitution.Without bases for his publications,
purelyresortingtospeculationandfishingexpeditionsinthehopeofstrikingorcreating
a story, with utter disregard for the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, he has
32/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
committedactsthatdegradeandimpedetheorderlyadministrationofjustice.
We cannot close our eyes to the comprehensive Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Committee. It enumerated the inconsistencies and assumptions of respondent
whichlackedveracityandshowedtherecklessdisregardofwhethertheallegedbriberywas
[80]
falseornot.
Indeed, the confidential information allegedly received by respondent by which he

swearswithhisheartandsoul
[81]
wasfoundbytheInvestigatingCommitteeunbelievable.
Itwasastorythatreekedofurbanlegend,asitgeneratedmorequestionsthananswers.
[82]
Respondent Macasaets wanton disregard for the truth was exhibited by his apathetic
mannerofverifyingtheveracityoftheinformationhehadgatheredforhisSeptember18,19,
20,and21,2007articlesconcerningtheallegedbriberyofaLadyJustice.Hisbasesforthe
amount of money, the number of boxes, the date of delivery of the boxes, among other
important details, were, by his own admission founded on personal assumptions. This
nonchalantattitudeextendedtohisverytestimonybeforetheinvestigatingcommittee
JusticeAquino: You did not endeavor to verify the information given by

yoursourcebeforepublishingthestoryaboutthebribery?
Mr.Macasaet:Itried,Icouldnotgetconfirmation,Ithoughtthateventually
my effort at consistently trying or exposing the alleged
briberyone daysooneror later somebodywillcomeupand
admitordeny.
xxxx
JusticeVitug:Doyouconfirmthefactofauthorshipofthecolumnsof
September18,19,20,and21,2007?
Mr.Macasaet:OnastackofBible,Iconfirmit.
JusticeVitug:Doesthatmeanthatyoualsoconfirmtheaccuracyofthose
informationthatweresaid?
Mr.Macasaet:IamnotconfirmingtheaccuracyoftheinformationandI
think that is precisely the reason for this hearing, I must
repeatthatthepurposeistofish[theLadyJustice]outsothat
therestoftheLadyJusticesinalltheCourtssuspicioncanbe
removedfromthem.Ifailedinthesensethatonedenied,she
[83]
feltalludedtoandsaidsheisnotinvolved.
33/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
RespondentthusadmitstohavingwrittenhisarticlesasmeanstofishouttheLady
Justice involved in an alleged bribery fed to him by his source, with reckless disregard of
whether or not such bribery indeed took place. It defies reason why any responsible
journalistwouldgoontopublishanymaterialinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationwithout
havingascertainedeventhefiveWsandoneHofthestory.
[84]
That he could not, through his extensive network of informants, confirm the
approximatedatewhentheallegedbriberytookplace,theidentitiesofthepersonsinvolved,
oranyotherimportantdetail,beforehebeganhisseriesofarticlesonlyleadstotherational
conclusionthathedidnotcarewhetherornotthestoryhepublishedwastrue.Hisaim,ashe
admits,wastogoonafishingexpeditiontoseeifsomeonewouldconfirmordenyhisnow
clearly baseless accusations. This practice of fishing for information by publishing
unverifiedinformationinamannerthatleadsthereadingpublictobelievesuchistruecannot
betolerated.
Aggravating respondents affront to the dignity of the Court is his unwillingness to

showanyremorseorrepentanceforhiscontemptuousacts.Infact,ashemadeclearinhis
testimonybeforetheInvestigatingCommitteewhenaskedwhathisthoughtswereabouthis
havingpublishedtheinstantarticles,herepliedthathewashappyinthesensethat[he]dida
jobin[his]bestlightsandtheeffortendedupinthecreationof[theinvestigatingpanel].
[85]
However,suchassertionsofhavingactedinthebestinterestoftheJudiciaryarebelied
bythefactthathecouldhavecausedthecreationofaninvestigatingpaneltolookintosuch
allegations in a more rational and prudent manner. In the words of the Investigating
Committee
IfhehadnomalicetowardtheCourt,if,asheprofesses,thepurposeofhiscolumns
wastosavetheintegrityandhonoroftheCourt,Macasaetshould,andcould,havereported
the rumored bribery directly to the Chief Justice and asked for its investigation.He should
haverefrainedfromcallingtheCourtnames,beforegivingitachancetoactonhisreportand
onhissuggestiontoinvestigatethematter.SinceheknewthenameoftheCourtemployee
whoallegedlydiscoveredthebribemoney,theCourtcouldhavebegunitsinvestigationwith
her to ascertain the identity of the nameless Lady Justice and the veracity of the rumored
bribery. His disparaging remarks about the Court and jurists in conjunction with his
34/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
[86]
unverifiedreportontheallegedbriberyweretotallyuncalledforandunjustified.
Itispreciselybecauseofhisfailuretoabidebythetenetsofresponsiblejournalismthat
weacceptthefindingsoftheInvestigatingCommitteeinholdingrespondentMacasaetguilty
of indirect contempt of court. He must be made accountable for his complete failure to
exerciseevenasinglevestigeofresponsiblejournalisminpublishinghisunfoundedandill
thoughtdiatribesagainsttheJudiciaryandthehonorablepeoplewhoserveit.
Respondent also asserts that the subject matter of his articles is within the exclusive
jurisdictionofCongress.HecitesSection2,ArticleXIofthe1987Constitutionwhichpartly
states that x x x members of the Supreme Court x x x may be removed from office, on
impeachmentfor,andconvictionofxxxbriberyxxxandSection3(1),ArticleXI,which
provides that [t]he House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all
caseofimpeachment.
We cannot agree. What Macasaet conveniently forgets is that no impeachment

complainthasbeenfiledagainstMme.JusticeYnaresSantiago.Thus,hiscitedconstitutional
provisionsdonotcomeintoplay.
Respondentclaimsthatthereisaviolationofhisrighttodueprocess.Fromthetime
his articles were published, no formal charge has been filed against him as required under
Section3,Rule71ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
Respondentfailstosee,however,thatunderSection4ofthesameRule,proceedings
forindirectcontemptmaybeinitiatedmotupropriobythecourtagainstwhichthecontempt
wascommitted,byanorderoranyotherformalchargerequiringrespondenttoshowwhyhe
shouldnotbepunishedforcontempt.OurResolutiondatedSeptember25,2007satisfiesthe
Rule.Hecannotvalidlyclaimthatsuchresolutionisvague.Hecannotfeignignoranceofthe
contentsofhisSeptember18,19,20,and21,2007articlesintheMalaya.
Rule71ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedurepertinentlyprovides:
SEC.3.Indirectcontempttobepunishedafterchargeandhearing.Afterachargein
writinghasbeenfiled,andanopportunitygiventotherespondenttocommentthereonwithin
suchperiodasmaybefixedbythecourtandtobeheardbyhimselforcounsel,apersonguilty
35/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
ofanyofthefollowingactsmaybepunishedforindirectcontempt.
xxxx
(d)Anyimproperconducttending,directlyorindirectly,toimpede,
obstruct,ordegradetheadministrationofjustice
xxxx
SEC.7.Punishmentforindirectcontempt.Iftherespondentisadjudgedguiltyof
indirectcontemptcommittedagainstaRegionalTrialCourtoracourtofequivalentorhigher
rank,hemaybepunishedbyafinenotexceedingthirtythousandpesosorimprisonmentnot
exceedingsix(6)months,orboth.xxx(Underscoringsupplied)
WearenotunawareofthevigorousdissentofthenAssociateJustice,nowourChief
[87]
inwhichhesolucidlyarguedfortherightto
Justice,ReynatoS.Puno,inanearliercase,
journalistic shield, behind which the Dissenting Opinion of an esteemed colleague, Mr.
JusticeCarpio,andrespondentMacasaet,takefullrefuge.Whileweholdhisthesisinhigh
regard,thecaseatbardoesnotfallwithinhiseruditedefenseofpressfreedom.Thecritical
issues then were the right of newsmen to refuse subpoenas, summons, or invitations to
appear in administrative investigations, and not to reveal their confidential sources of
informationunderR.A.No.53,asamended.Noneofthesearetheissuesathand.Bethatas
it may, elementary decisionmaking teaches that we cite the majority opinion as precedent,
[88]
notlonelydissentingopinions.
In his Dissenting Opinion, Mr. Justice Carpio assails the Committee proceedings as
fatallydefectiveforpatentdenialofdueprocess
[89]
becausewhenthewitnessesthe
Committeesummonedtestified,theCommitteemonopolizedtherighttopropoundquestions
tothewitnesses,denyingtoMacasaetsuchright.
[90]
He continues to say that [w]ith the
proceduretheCommitteeadopted,Macasaetwasreducedtoapassiveparticipant,unableto
subjectthetestimoniesofadversewitnessestorigorousprobingundercrossexamination.As
mattersstand,Macasaetwillbesubjectedtopunitivesanctionsbasedonevidencehehadno
opportunitytoscrutinize.
[91]
Wedisagreeontriplegrounds.
36/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
First, the proceedings of the Committee are presumed to be regular. Thus, the onus
probanditoproveotherwiserestsonMacasaet,notontheCommittee.Sufficeittosaythat
the Dissenting Opinion which cites People v. Godoy as to the criminal character of a
[92]
failstostatewhatGodoylikewiseinstructs
contemptproceeding,
Strictly speaking however, they are not criminal proceedings or prosecutions, even
thoughthecontemptuousactinvolvedisalsoacrime.Theproceedinghasbeencharacterized
assuigeneris,partakingofsomeoftheelementsofbothacivilandcriminalproceeding,but
reallyconstitutingneither.Ingeneral,criminalcontemptproceedingsshouldbeconductedin
accordance with the principles and rules applicable to criminal cases, in so far as such
procedureisconsistentwiththesummarynatureofcontemptproceedings.Soithasbeenheld
that the strict rules that govern criminal prosecutions apply to a prosecution for criminal
contempt, that the accused is to be afforded many of the protections provided in regular
criminal cases, and that proceedings under statutes governing them are to be strictly
construed.However,criminalproceedingsarenotrequiredtotakeanyparticularformsolong
[93]
asthesubstantialrightsoftheaccusedarepreserved.
Second,assumingarguendothatMacasaetwasnotabletocrossexaminehiswitnesses,
thisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthathisrighttodueprocessoflawwasviolated.
The right of an accused to crossexamine the witnesses against him, although an

[94]
adjunct of the Constitutional right to meet the witnesses face to face,
can be waived
when not timely asserted. In the case of Macasaet, never did he assert his right to cross
examinethewitnessesagainsthimdespitetheopportunitytodoso.Duringtheentirecourse
of the proceedings in the Committee, respondent was vigorously represented by counsel de
parte.Respondentorhiscounselcouldhavemovedtocrossexaminetheadversewitnesses.
Respondenthadeveryopportunitytodoso.Lamentably,hefailedtoexercisethesaidright.
Interestingly, during the last hearing date, counsel for respondent requested that
respondent be allowed to say something, which the Committee granted. Respondent then
proceededwithalengthydiscourse,allof45pages,oneverythingandanything,excepthis
[95]
right to crossexamination.
Verily, it cannot be validly claimed now that his right to
crossexaminewasviolated.
Third, the Court is bereft of any power to invoke the right to crossexamine the
witnessesagainstrespondent,forandinhisbehalf.Otherwise,theCourtwillbeactingashis
37/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
counsel,whichisabsurd.
JustaWordMore
Afreepressisregardedasakeypillarofdemocracy.Reportersmustbefreetoreport,
expose, and hold government officials and agencies including an independent judiciary
accountable. Press attention surrounding the judiciary ensures public accountability. Such
publicity acts as a check on judicial competence and integrity, exposes inefficiencies and
irregularities,keepsvigilovervariouspublicinterestcases,andputspressureonresponsible
judicial officials. This freedom has been used and has benefited the cause of justice. The
press has become an important actor a judicial watchdog in the ongoing judicial
transformation. When properly validated, its acts are protected speech from an accepted
function.
Freedom, however, has not guaranteed quality journalism. The press has been
vulnerabletoahostoflegitimatecriticismssuchasincompetence,commercialism,andeven
corruption.Bydisproportionatelyinformingthepublicaboutspecificcourtprocesses,orby
spreading unsubstantiated allegations about corruption and other forms of judicial
misconduct,thepressdramaticallyunderminesthepublicsfaithinthecourtsandthreatens
theveryfoundationofourdemocraticgovernment.
Oftentimes,journalistswritingaboutthejudiciaryandcourtcaseslackbasicknowledge
ofthelawandjudicialprocedures,onthebasisofwhichtheydrawfaultyconclusionswhich
they pass on to their readers as gospel truths. Trial by publicity also influences the
independenceofjudgesasthepublicisfedwithpartialinformationandvocalopinions,and
judgesarepressuredtodecideinaccordancewiththepublicopinion.Faithinthejudiciaryis
undermined when judges rule against the expectations of the public which has been
brainwashedbydramaticreportsandgraphiccomments.Insomecases,uncheckedrumorsor
allegations of irregularities are immediately published because journalists lack professional
competence to verify the information, or are simply eager to break the news and attract a
widerreadership.
Theroleofthepressinrelationtothejudiciaryneedstoberegulated.Thiscanbedone
throughvoluntarycodesofconductonthepartofthepressandthroughjudicialpolicies,such
astheruleonsubjudiceandcontemptofcourtrulings.Theabsenceofclearvoluntarycodes
38/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
developed by the press, as its selfregulator, strengthens the need for the Court to use its
power in the meantime to cite critics for contempt. This is necessary in cases where such
criticism is obviously malicious or in violation of the sub judice rule, or where there is an
evident attempt to influence the outcome of a case. Judges have the duty to defend and
uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. They should sanction those who
obstructorimpedethejudicialprocesses.Theeffectiveadministrationofjusticemayonlybe
realizedwiththestrongfaithandconfidenceofthepublicinthecompetenceandintegrityof
thejudiciary,freefrompoliticalandpopularpressure.
Criticismateverylevelofgovernmentiscertainlywelcome.Afterall,itisanessential
partofthechecksandbalancesinourrepublicansystemofgovernment.However,criticisms
should not impede or obstruct an integral component of our republican institutions from
dischargingitsconstitutionallymandatedduties.
AstheCourtsaidinInRe:Almacen:
[96]
Courtsandjudgesarenotsacrosanct.Theyshouldandexpectcriticalevaluationof
theirperformance.Forliketheexecutiveandthelegislativebranches,thejudiciaryisrooted
inthesoilofdemocraticsociety,nourishedbytheperiodicappraisalofthecitizenwhomitis
expectedtoserve.
xxxx
Butitisthecardinalconditionofallsuchcriticismthatitshallbebonafide,andshall
notspilloverthewallsofdecencyandpropriety.Awidechasmexistsbetweenfaircriticism,
on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other.x x
[97]
x
All told, illegitimate and uninformed criticisms against the courts and judges, those
whichcrossthelineandattempttosubvertthejudicialprocess,mustbeavoided.Theydoa
great disservice to the Constitution. They seriously mislead the public as to the proper
functioning of the judiciary. While all citizens have a right to scrutinize and criticize the
judiciary,theyhaveanethicalandsocietalobligationnottocrossthattooimportantline.
SenatorErnestoMaceda,theseasonedpoliticianwhohasgracedboththeexecutiveand
the legislative departments in various capacities, in a Privilege Speech, once appealed for
voluntaryselfrestraintwithrespecttothisCourt
39/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
Thereareproperproceduresfordealingwithinstancesofofficialmisdemeanorwithout
settinganentireinstitutiononfire.Arsonisnotthebestmeansforpestcontrol.
IncaseofpossibilityofcorruptionintheSupremeCourt,onepossiblemeansisthe
initiation of impeachment proceedings against specifically identified justices. A move for
impeachment, of course, requires much sobriety and solid evidence. Whatever charges are
broughtforwardmustbesubstantiated.Those who dare prosecute must come into the open
andappendtheirnamestotheaccusationstheymake,withcourageandconviction.Thisisthe
mannercivilsocietyconservesitscivilityxxx.
The ends of justice are not served by heckling nor by crude insinuation or by
irresponsiblereporting.Thehouseofdemocracyisneverstrengthenedbythosewhochoose
tothrowrocksunderthecoverofdarknessandanonymity.Theinstitutionsofourlibertyare
never enriched by the irresponsible accusations of the uninformed. The bedrocks of our
[98]
Republicarenotreinforcedbythosewhoevaderesponsibilityundertheveiloffreedom.
Duringinterpellation,hewentontosay
xxxAndinthecontextofwhatIhavejustsaid,Ithinkthatallnewspapers,allmedia
arewelcometodotheirworse,criticizethemembersoftheExecutiveDepartment,Members
oftheSenate,andanyotheragencyoftheGovernment.ButIamjustsuggestingthatwhenit
comestothejudiciary,andspecificallytotheSupremeCourt,thatadifferentpolicy,oneof
more caution, should be adopted precisely because x x x people may lose faith in the
Executive or the President they may lose faith in Congress, the Congressmen and the
Senators, but as long as they have their faith unshaken and complete in the last bulwark of
[99]
democracyxxxwhichistheSupremeCourt,thenourdemocracywillsurvive.
Each of us has important responsibilities in a constitutional democracy. We, judges,

will continue to discharge our judicial functions with fairness. We urge all and sundry to
abidebytheirs.Weneedtorespecteachother.As the golden rule goes let us not do to
otherswhatwedonotwantotherstodotous.Igalangnatinangisatisa.Huwag nating
gawinsaibaangayawnatinggawinnilasaatin.
Given the gravity of respondent Macasaets improper conduct, coupled with the
recalcitrant manner in which he responded when confronted with the reality of his
wrongdoing,apenaltyoffineintheamountofP20,000.00wouldberightandreasonable.
Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Court declares respondent Amado P. Macasaet GUILTY of

40/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
indirectcontemptofcourtandsentenceshimtopayafineofP20,000.00,inaccordancewith
Sections3(d)and7,Rule71ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
SOORDERED.
RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
(Nopart)
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBINGCONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice
ANTONIOT.CARPIOMA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
RENATOC.CORONACONCHITACARPIOMORALES
ADOLFOS.AZCUNADANTEO.TINGA
41/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIOPRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURATERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
Nopart.
[1]
Rollo,pp.26.
[2]
Id.at138affidavitofACAJoseMidasP.Marquez,par.4,p.1.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Id.at146faxedletterofMaritesDaguilanVitugtoMme.JusticeConsueloYnaresSantiagodatedSeptember20,2007.
[5]
Id.at139140affidavitofACAMarquez,pars.79,pp.23.
[6]
Id.at147correctedfaxedletterofMaritesDanguilanVitugtoMme.JusticeConsueloYnaresSantiagodatedSeptember20,
2007.
[7]
Id.at141affidavitofACAJoseMidasP.Marquez,par.14,p.4.
[8]
Id.at910letterofMs.DaisyCeciliaMuozDelistoMr.AmadoP.Macasaet,datedSeptember21,2007,pp.12.
[9]
Id.at1011id.at23.
[10]
Id.at7affidavitofMs.DaisyCeciliaMuozDelisdatedSeptember24,2007,par.8b,p.1.
[11]
Id.id.,par.9,at1.
[12]
Id.id.,par.10,at10.
[13]
Id.at101103id.at13.
[14]
Id.at101id.at1.
[15]
Id.at149.
[16]
Id.at141Marquez,par.15,p.4.
[17]
Id.at141Marquez,par.14.
[18]
Id. at 13 Min. Res. A.M. No. 070913SC (Re: In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. A.P.
42/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
MacasaetPublishedinMalayaDatedSeptember18,19,20,and21,2007),datedSeptember25,2007.
[19]
Id.at1443.Inhisswornexplanation,Macasaet,assistedbycounsel,arguedonthefollowingpoints:
1.HisstatementswerepreciselyacallforaninvestigationtopreservetheintegrityoftheSupremeCourtandthe
administrationofjusticepursuanttotheCourtscrusadeincurbingperceivedcorruptioninthejudiciary
2.Inlightofrevelationsnotsourcedfromhim,thesubjectofthestatementsisalreadydemonstrablyunderthe
exclusivejurisdictionofCongress
3.Theproceedingsforindirectcontemptstiflesfreedomofthepress
4.Therewasnorecklessdisregardbythepublicationofthesubjectstatementsandheexertedbonafideeffortsto
ascertainthetruthofsuchstatementsand
5.Underthecircumstances,continuationoftheproceedingsconstitutesanunconditionaldenialofhisrighttodue
processoflawandequalprotection.
OnNovember6,2007,MacasaetsubmittedhisaffidavitpracticallyreiteratinghisswornexplanationdatedOctober1,2007.
(Id.at160174.)
[20]
Id.at133.
[21]
NoknownrelationtoMs.MaritesDaguilanVitug.
[22]
Rollo,pp.223229.RetiredSupremeCourtAssociateJusticeVicenteV.MendozaresignedfromtheCommitteeuponfinding
outthattheallegationsofbriberyinvolvedanexecutiveofPIATCO,apartytoaninternationalarbitrationcaseinwhichheisan
expertwitnessforthePhilippineGovernment,andhedidnotwishtoburdenthelegalpanelofthePhilippineGovernmentinthe
arbitrationcaseswiththetaskofexplainingorjustifyinghisparticipationintheInvestigatingCommittee.RetiredJusticeRomeo
J.Callejo,Sr.,ontheotherhand,requestedtoberelieved,ashewastheponenteofGov.SandiganbayanpromulgatedonApril
13,2007, while retired Justice Arturo Buena had likewise requested to be inhibited from the investigating committee. These
requestswereapprovedbytheCourtEnBancinaResolutiondatedNovember13,2007.(Id.at232.)
[23]
TSN,October30,2007,p.18.
[24]
TSN,January17,2008,p.6.
[25]
Rollo,pp.326347ReportandRecommendation(Re:IntheMatteroftheAllegationsContainedintheColumnsofMr.A.P.
MacasaetPublishedinMalayaDatedSeptember18,19,20,and21,2007),pp.122.
[26]
Id.at333id.at8.
[27]
Id.at340341id.at1516.
[28]
Id.at341342id.at1617.
[29]
Id.at342343id.at1718.
[30]
Id.at343346id.at1821.
[31]
Id.at346347id.at2122.
[32]
Blackstone,W.,Commentaries,145(1876).
[33]
RecordoftheConstitutionalCommission:ProceedingsandDebates(1987),p.758.
[34]
DeJesus,M.Q.,Overview,PressFreedominthePhilippines(2004).
[35]
Teodoro,L.V.,SurveyofMedia,PressFreedominthePhilippines(2004).
[36]
GuidebookforJournalistsCoveringtheCourts:StrengtheningJudiciaryMediaRelations,AsianInstituteofJournalismand
Communication(2004),p.13.
[37]
Jacobson,M.K.,AssaultontheJudiciary:JudicialResponsetoCriticismPostSchiavo,61U.MiamiL.Rev.931(2007).
[38]
AttorneyGeneralv.LevellerMagazine,Ltd.,AC440(1979)Scottv.Scott,AC417(1913).
[39]
Coker,H.C.,RespondingtoJudicialCriticism,73Fla.B.J.10(1999).
[40]
Blatz,K.,TheStateoftheJudiciary,62Bench&B.Minn26,27(2005).
[41]
TheFederalistNo.78.
[42]
CONSTITUTION(1987),Art.VIII,Sec.1.
43/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
[43]
SeeAbrahamson,S.S.,RemarksoftheHon.ShirleyS.AbrahamsonbeforetheAmericanBarAssociationCommissiononthe
Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence, Washington, D.C., December13,1996, 12 St. Johns J. Legal Comment. 71
(1996).
[44]
Kelson,S.,JudicialIndependenceandtheBlameGame:TheEasiestTargetIsaSittingOne,15UtahB.J.1516(2002).
[45]
G.R.No.L27833,April18,1969,27SCRA835.
[46]
Gonzalesv.CommissiononElections,id.at858.
[47]
G.R.No.L32066,August6,1979,92SCRA476.
[48]
InRe:Lozano,54Phil.801(1929).
[49]
G.R.Nos.79690707&L80578,October7,1988,166SCRA316.
[50]
Zaldivarv.Gonzalez,id.at354,citingtheconcurringopinionofMr.JusticeFrankfurterinPennekampv.Florida,328US
331,354356(1946).
[51]
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by the UN General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI),
December16,1966,enteredintoforceonJanuary3,1976.
[52]
E.T.S.No.5,adoptedNovember4,1950,enteredintoforceonSeptember3,1953.
[53]
AdoptedatSanJose,CostaRica,November22,1969,enteredintoforceonJuly18,1978.
[54]
AdoptedatNairobi,Kenya,June26,1981,enteredintoforceonOctober21,1986.
[55]
Locke,J.,SecondTreatiseofGovernment(1689),124126,reprintedinLocke,J.,PoliticalWritings325(1985ed.).
[56]
1Phil.1(1901).
[57]
InthematteroftheproceedingsagainstMarcelinoAguasforcontemptoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofPampanga,id.at2.
[58]
InRe:AmziB.Kelly,35Phil.944(1916).
[59]
InRe:VicenteSotto,82Phil.595(1949).
[60]
IntheMatterofProceedingsforDisciplinaryActionAgainstAtty.WenceslaoLauretaandofContemptProceedingsAgainst
EvaMaravillaIllustreinG.R.No.68635,entitledEvaMaravillaIllustrevs.Hon.IntermediateAppellateCourt,etal., G.R.
No.68635,March12,1987,148SCRA382.
[61]
Id.at390391.
[62]
Id.at392393.
[63]
Id.at421.
[64]
58Phil.271(1933).
[65]
Perkinsv.DirectorofPrisons,id.at274,citingExparteTerry,128US225,32LEd.,405InreKelly,35Phil.944Statev.
MageePublishingCompany,38ALR142,144.
[66]
Id.at274275,citing4LewisBl.Com.,Sec.286,p.1675Oswald,Contempt,Canadianed.,pp.13,6RCL489Statev.
Morrill,16Ark.390Stateexrel.Roddv.Verage,177Wis.295,23ALR491,187NW830andPeopleexrel.Brundagev.
Peters,305Ill.22326ALR16,137NE118.
[67]
InRe:VicenteSotto,supranote59.
[68]
Haliliv.CourtofIndustrialRelations,G.R.No.L24864,April30,1985,136SCRA112.
[69]
Supranote49.
[70]
39Phil.778(1919).
[71]
312Phil.977(1995).
[72]
Supranote59.
[73]
36F.2d220.
44/45
2/25/2015
A.M.No.070913SC
[74]
Peoplev.Godoy,supranote71,at1003.
[75]
Id.at1004.
[76]
G.R.Nos.152072&152104,July12,2007,527SCRA446.
[77]
Khanna,H.R.,FreedomofExpressionwithParticularReferencetoFreedomoftheMedia,2SCC(Jour)1(1982).
[78]
Rollo,pp.344345ReportandRecommendation(Re:IntheMatteroftheAllegationsContainedintheColumnsofMr.A.P.
MacasaetPublishedinMalayaDatedSeptember18,19,20,and21,2007),pp.1920.
[79]
Id.at346id.at22.
[80]
Seenotes26and27.
[81]
TSN,January10,2008,pp.9293,113.
[82]
Seenote28.
[83]
TSN,January10,2008,pp.2840.
[84]
ThefiveWsandoneH:Who,What,When,Where,Why,andHowaregenerallyknownasthebasicinformationthatall
newsstoriesshouldcontain.
[85]
Rollo,p.103TSN,January10,2008.
[86]
Id.at346.
[87]
InRe:EmilP.Jurado,A.M.No.932037SC,April6,1995,243SCRA299.
[88]
ThenAssociateJustice,nowChiefJusticePunowasjoinedbyJusticePadillainhisDissentingOpinionintheJuradocase
wheretheCourtvoted103,withtwojusticestakingnopart.
[89]
DissentingOpinion,p.8.
[90]
Id.
[91]
Id.at9.
[92]
Id.at7.
[93]
Supranote71,at1001.
[94]
CONSTITUTION(1987),Art.III,Sec.14(2).
[95]
TSN,February1,2008,pp.84129.
[96]
G.R.No.27654,February18,1970,31SCRA562.
[97]
InRe:Almacen,id.at578580.
[98]
Maceda,E.M.,InDefenseoftheSupremeCourt,PrivilegeSpeechdeliveredontheSenateFloor,February2,1993.
[99]
Id.
45/45

1 in Re Amado Macasael

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1 in Re Amado Macasael

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2/25/2015

allow Justice Consuelo YnaresSantiago to defend her honor,

and for the purpose of

for 34 years now.

Upon evaluation of the columns Business Circuit of Amado P. Macasaet in the

WHEREFORE, Amado P. Macasaet is ORDERED to EXPLAIN why no sanction

The Committee invited respondent Macasaet, DaguilanVitug, Delis, and ACA

OnMarch11,2008 the Investigating Committee submitted to the Office of the Chief

The following statements in Macasaets columns appear to the Supreme Court to be

The lady justice shamed her court. She should resign or be

The Committee likewise noted the inconsistencies and assumptions of Macasaet,

The sin of assumption which is a cardinal sin in Newsbreaks Guide to Ethical

In view of its tenuous underpinnings, we find the bribery story in Macasaets

IN view of respondents invocation of his right to press freedom as a defense, it is

Furthermore, television news programs have spawned media celebrities whose

judiciarys role in the newlyformed government.

The judicial branch is described as the least dangerous branch of government.

branch or instrumentality of the government.

To accomplish these tasks, an independent judiciary is very vital. Judicial

One concept is individual judicial independence, which focuses on each particular

Thus, in Gonzales v. Commission on Elections,

In Lagunzad v. Vda. De Gonzales,

Indeed, freedom of speech cannot be absolute and unconditional. In legal, political,

Inheranswer,Ilustrecontended,inter alia, that she had no intention to affront the

In Perkins v. Director of Prisons,

Of course, the power to punish for contempt is exercised on the preservative

contempt, as was pointed out by Mr. Justice Malcolm in Villavicencio v. Lukban,

Application of Existing Jurisprudence to the Case at

A veteran journalist of many years and a president of a group of respectable media

To allow respondent to use press freedom as an excuse to capriciously disparage the

Indeed, the confidential information allegedly received by respondent by which he

JusticeAquino: You did not endeavor to verify the information given by

Aggravating respondents affront to the dignity of the Court is his unwillingness to

We cannot agree. What Macasaet conveniently forgets is that no impeachment

The right of an accused to crossexamine the witnesses against him, although an

Each of us has important responsibilities in a constitutional democracy. We, judges,

WHEREFORE, the Court declares respondent Amado P. Macasaet GUILTY of

Potrebbero piacerti anche