Sub judice vs. free speech: Webb case.

Both sides in Webb case ‘equally at fault’ - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

Both sides in Webb case ‘equally at fault’
By Nikko Dizon
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:04:00 12/19/2010

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court may crack the whip on those who would violate the sub judice rule and put the institution in “disrepute,” Associate Justice Arturo Brion has warned in his supplemental opinion to the tribunal’s acquittal of Hubert Webb et al. in connection with the 1991 Vizconde massacre.

Brion, who voted against the acquittal along with three other justices including Chief Justice Renato Corona, defended the high court from the media campaign of the contending parties in the case prior to the release of its decision on December 14.

He noted how one high court justice was “even publicly maligned in the print and broadcast media through unsupported speculations about his intervention in the case.”

“That was how bad and how low comments about the case had been,” he wrote.

Brion said the high court did not apply the sub judice rule in the Vizconde massacre case because the contending parties—Lauro Vizconde and the Webb family—were in “pari delicto” or “in equal fault” for taking their respective causes to the media.

“Thus, the egregious action of one has been cancelled by a similar action by the other. It is in this sense that this supplemental opinion is independent of the merits of the case. Their common action, however, cannot have their prejudicial effects on both; whatever the results may be, doubts will linger about the real merits of the case due to the inordinate media campaign that transpired,” Brion wrote.

Brion explained the sub judice rule as restricting “comments and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial proceedings.”

“The restriction applies not only to participants in the pending case, i.e., to members of the bar and bench, and to litigants and witnesses, but also to the public in general, which necessarily includes the media,” he said.

Brion said he was fully aware that the Vizconde massacre was “one of the most sensational criminal cases in Philippine history in terms of the mode of commission of the crime and the personalities involved.”

Independent of merits

He said he wrote his supplemental opinion “independent of the merits of the case ... to point out the growing disregard and nonobservance of the sub judice rule, to the detriment of the rights of the accused, the integrity of the courts, and, ultimately, the administration of justice.”

Wrote Brion in the last paragraph of his opinion: “Lest we be misunderstood, our application of the sub judice rule to this case cannot serve as a precedent for similar future violations. Precisely, this ... is a signal to all that this Court has not forgotten, and is in fact keenly aware of, the limits of what can be publicly ventilated on the merits of a case while sub judice, and on the comments on the conduct of the courts with respect to the case. This Court will not stand by idly and helplessly as its integrity as an institution and its processes are shamelessly brought to disrepute.”

Asked to comment on Brion’s opinion, human rights lawyer Theodore Te told the Inquirer in a text message that it appeared to be “a warning.”

“He’s sending a warning that violation of sub judice will be met with contempt,” said Te, a member of the Free Legal Assistance Group.

But Te said he disagreed with the sub judice rule because it “stifles free expression.”

“It’s also premised on the jury system, which we don’t have. Even with discussion and comment on pending cases, judges are not expected to be independent enough to not be influenced by what is popular or notorious, unlike jury members who are ordinary persons,” he said.

Brion noted that while many had criticized the rule as a curtailment of free speech, it was “not imposed on all forms of speech.”

He said that in criminal proceedings, there were two kinds of “publicized speech” made while a case was under judgement that could be “contemptuous”—“first, comments on the merits of the case, and second, intemperate and unreasonable comments on the conduct of the courts with respect to the case.”

“Comment on the conduct of the courts with respect to the case becomes subject to a contempt proceeding when it is intemperate, is contumacious, and unduly impairs the dignity of the court,” he said, adding:

“Without the sub judice rule and the contempt power, the courts will be powerless to protect their integrity and independence that are essential in the orderly and effective dispensation and administration of justice.”

Free to criticize

Brion said the courts, being the third branch of government, remained accountable to the people.

“The people’s freedom to criticize the government includes the right to criticize the courts, their proceedings and decisions ... And to enhance the open court principle and allow the people to make fair and reasoned criticism of the courts, the sub judice rule excludes from its coverage fair and accurate reports (without comment) of what have actually taken place in open court,” he said.

Te observed that the media reports that created a stir before the promulgation of the case focused on Lauro Vizconde’s claim that a Supreme Court justice was trying to influence his colleagues to acquit Webb et al., and the Webb family’s reaction.