A. M. No. 16-03-10-SC, October 15, 2019
RE: NEWS REPORT OF MR. JOMAR CANLAS IN THE MANILA TIMES ISSUE OF 8 MARCH 2016
FACTS
On March 8, 2016, The Manila Times published an article by its senior reporter, Jomar Canlas, titled “JUSTICES OFFERED P50-million bribe To disqualify Poe-sources.” The article reported, based on unnamed “well-placed sources at the High Court,” that Supreme Court Justices were offered P50 million each to vote to disqualify Senator Grace Poe from the presidential race. It alleged two attempts were made by persons “very close” to President Benigno Aquino III and Mar Roxas. The article stated the justices refused the offers. The Court, in a March 15, 2016 Resolution, directed Canlas to explain why he should not be sanctioned for indirect contempt for statements that tend to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. In his explanation, Canlas asserted the report was a matter of public interest, written with civic duty and good motives, and that it painted the Court as incorruptible. He claimed to have attempted to get the Justices’ side and offered a sincere apology if the article caused unflattering innuendoes.
ISSUE
Whether Jomar Canlas is guilty of indirect contempt for his news report which allegedly tended to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice, in violation of Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
Yes, Jomar Canlas is guilty of indirect contempt. The Court balanced the constitutional freedom of speech and of the press against the need to protect the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. While recognizing the vital role of the media as a watchdog in a democracy, the Court emphasized that this freedom is not absolute. Applying the “clear and present danger” rule, the Court found the substantive evil sought to be prevented—the impairment of the judiciary’s integrity and the administration of justice—was extremely serious. The Court rejected Canlas’s defense of good faith and justifiable ends. It held that the article, based on unverified sources and implying that Justices could be bought, directly or indirectly tended to degrade the administration of justice. The Court stated that the press cannot make accusations without verifying their truthfulness and that false statements of fact have no constitutional value. The perfunctory apology did not negate the article’s contemptuous nature. The Court SEVERELY REPRIMANDED Jomar Canlas with a STERN WARNING that a repetition would merit a more severe sanction.