Contemptuous acts may be committed online, SC reminds media

ILOILO City – Journalists are once again reminded by no less than the Supreme Court about upholding the constitutional rights of an accused to a fair trial.

Likewise, the High Court warned members of the media they could be held liable for contempt for their posts on social media about an ongoing trial in court.

“Responsible journalism is said to be the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field. Thepressdoesnotsimplypublish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism,” the SC said.

The high tribunal issued such a reminder as it resolved to junk the petition for indirect contempt filed by convicted murderer Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr. against ABSCBN reporter Jorge Cariño.

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC En Banc granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by ABS-CBN and Cariño, who sought to reverse rulings of the Court of Appeals affirming the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) refusal to dismiss the indirect contempt petition filed by Andal.

The case is related to the Maguindanao Massacre case where at least 57 people died when Andal’s armed men stopped the convoy of Maguindanao gubernatorial candidate Esmael Mangudadatu on its way to file his certificate of candidacy in 2009.

Criminal cases for murder were subsequently filed against 197 persons, including Andal and members of his family.

Last June 23, 2010, Cariño interviewed one of the witnesses and aired the same on ABSCBN’s TV Patrol World and narrated that he was present when the Ampatuan family planned what became the Maguindanao Massacre. The witness named the Ampatuan family members who were present at the meetings.

Andal then petitioned in court to cite the witness, ABS-CBN, and Cariño for indirect contempt, arguing the witness’ interview was “calculated to interfere with court proceedings.”

In granting the petition by ABS-CBN and Cariño, the high tribunal reexamined the basis of the court’s contempt powers and defined what constitutes contemptuous speech and why such is punished.

The tribunal defined contempt of court as “disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice, and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders but such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice.”

The High Court stressed that the power to punish for contempt, vested in all courts, is inherent in the exercise of judicial power as stated under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.

“Courts exercise inherent contempt powers by restricting speech that tends to bring the court into disrespect or scandalize the court, or where there is a clear and present danger that would impede the administration of justice,” the SC said.

The tribunal said the exercise of contempt powers ensures the decisional and institutional aspects of judicial independence crucial in the administration of justice.

The Court, however, cautioned that given its “drastic and extraordinary” nature, its exercise must be restrained and judicious and “used only in flagrant cases and with utmost forbearance.”

The high tribunal also reminded the media that in the exercise of the press of their freedom to give publicity to the news, they have to ensure that they are not infringing upon the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

The High Court stressed that contemptuous speech can now be committed online, including on social media, warning the courts on the importance of posts on social media as to the court’s administration of justice./