Professional Documents
Culture Documents
in Re Jurado, Adm. Matter No. 90 - 5 - 2373, 12 July 1990
in Re Jurado, Adm. Matter No. 90 - 5 - 2373, 12 July 1990
EN BANC
AM NO 90-5-2373 JULY 12, 1990
IN RE: ATTY. EMILIANO P. JURADO, JR. a.k.a. EMIL JURADO
Gentlemen,
Quoted hereunder for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated
July 12, 1990.
“Adm Matter No. 90-5-2373 (In Re: Atty. Emiliano P. Jurado, Jr. a.k.a. Emil Jurado). –
The front page of the Sunday, May 27, 1990 issue of the Manila Standard, a
national daily, carried the banner headline: “Rebellion complex does not exist – SC.”
And below it in smaller type, “State back to Square One in cases vs. Enrile, et. al.”
The lead article appeared in the following page under the sub-head “High Tribunal
reaffirms Hernandez Doctrine with 14-1 vote” and the by-line of “Emil Jurado, Manila
Standard Columnist” and reported, pertinently, that according to “well-placed
sources at the Supreme Court,” in a decision penned by Associate Justice Narvasa”
** to be announced tomorrow for immediate promulgation ** the court had “**
upheld a long standing precedent known as the Hernandez Doctrine ** (and)
reaffirmed that the crime of rebellion complexed with murder and other common
offenses does not exist ** (and) “* (b)y a vote of 14 to one ** denied the
government’s motion (sic) to repeal the doctrine.” It added that said majority
included Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan and that the lone opposition vote was Justice
Leo Medialea’s.
Mr. Jurado’s regular column on page 10 of the same issue which was titled
“SC decision knocks out gov’t lawyers.” And began with the word “SCOOP” in bold,
reiterated the above-quoted highlights of his page 2 report. If those details and the
photographs accompanying the report were not indication enough, mention therein
of the names of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, ex-Assemblyman Homobono Adaza and
lawyer Rafael Recto, among others, made clear what the main subject of those
news items was: a supposed decision awaiting immediate promulgation on one or
another of the cases then pending in this Court that challenged the validity of
criminal informations charging various persons with rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murder in connection with the failed coup attempt of December,
1989.
The Monday, May 28, 1990 issue of the Manila Standard was headlined “High
Cort ruling hailed.” The lead Article by Amante E. Bigornia on page 2 reported that
the ruling had been hailed by unnamed “legal luminaries” and added further
supposed details about its adoption which the writer attributed to the paper’s
equally anonymous sources. In his column on page 9 of the same issue, Mr. Jurado
elaborated in his earlier report as follows:
While headlines and news about the matter continued to greet Manila
Standard readers on Tuesday, May 29, 1990, the tenor of these had materially
changed. The headlines now proclaimed that “Cory (referring to the President)
awaits SC ruling” and “Tribunal still deliberating rebellion complex issue.” The news
inside was no longer about a decision already reached or a ruling made. It reported
a statement of the Chief Justice, made through Assistance Clerk of Court Luz Puno,
that there was no such decision and that the matter was still under deliberation. For
the first time in three days, Mr. Jurado’s subject was silent on the subject.
The sequence of events is revealing. Having stood by their news story of two
days, Mr. Jurado and his newspaper had already began to “backtrack,” as it were,
by the third, confronted, no doubt, with the hard fact that it was not and could not
be, substantiated.
Only on July 5, 1990 did the Court promulgate its Decision in G.R. Nos. 92163
(Enrile vs. Salazar, et. al.) and 92164 (Sps. Panlilio vs. De Leon, et. al.) upholding
the Hernandez ruling2 in the rebellion cases filed against the petitioners herein. Its
contents, by showing up the many inaccuracies in Mr. Jurado’s earlier accounts,
attest to the falsity of his report of its existence on or before May 27, 1990. Thus,
insofar as concerned the question of wheter or not the Hernandez ruling remains
binding precedent, it was not a 14-0 nor a 14-1, but a 12-1 decision, two members
1
Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. vs. Lopez Enage 152 SCRA 80 (1987); Ago vs. Court of Appeals, 6 SCRA 530 (1962)
2
99 Phil. 515 (1956)
Under date of June 1, 1990, respondent filed a “Compliance” with the show-
cause Resolution which, while assuming responsibility for the publication of the
news reports of May 27, 1990 above referred to and offering his apologies to the
Court “** if ** (he had) in some way, actually hampered the administration of
justice, or obstructed the orderly workings of the Court, ** pleads in justification
freedom of the press as well as the right of the public to information on matters of
public concern, both he avers, being guaranteed by the Constitution.
Neither does it merit belief that respondent’s editors had seriously applied
themselves to checking independently the capacity of information about a supposed
ruling before proposing to respondent and/or authorizing its publication. The implicit
admission in the editorial of May 30, 1990 that the reports were published as
straight news, not as comment or gossip, in order to provoke a reaction from the
Court clearly suggests that it was the Court that was expected to confirm or verify
the story, that expectation itself providing the justification for its publication; there
would otherwise be no reason for such action had respondent’s editors attempted
more than a desultory check or verification of said story. It further suggests that the
Court, ** jealous of its inner workings **, has to be prodded into announcing or
promulgating its decisions already made, however important, far-reaching or
urgent, the questions resolved and unmindful of the right of the people to be
informed thereof. The notion must be speedily rejected and laid to rest, being
wholly false and denigrative of the collective sense of duty of the members of this
Court.
5
ART III, SECS. 4 and 7, Constitution
6
ART VIII, SEC. 1, Constitution
“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 courts have corrective rights and duties and should cooperate to
uphold the principles of the Constitution and laws, from which the former receives
its prerogative and the latter its jurisdiction. The right of legitimate publicity must
be scrupulously recognized and taken care of at all times to avoid impinging upon
it. In a clear case where it is necessary, in order to dispose of judicial business
unhampered by publications which tend to impair the impartiality of verdicts, or
otherwise obstruct the administration of justice, this court will not hesitate to
exercise its undoubted power to punish for contempt **
* * *
This court must be permitted to proceed with the disposition of its business in
an orderly manner free from outside interference obstructive of its constitutional
functions. This right will be insisted upon as vital to an impartial court and, as a last
resort, as an individual exercises the right of self-defense, it will act to preserve its
existence as an unprejudiced tribunal. But such a case as this has never before
occurred in the history of the state so far as I know, and it is hoped will never occur
again.”
8
17 CJS, pp. 81-87
9
17 CJS, pp. 81-87
10
(1929) 36 Fed. (2nd) 230, 238-239
11
80 Conn. 668-69 Atl 1057, 125 Am. St. Rep. 141.
12
Scott vs. Scott (1912), Am Ann Cas., 1912-b, 504; State of Iowa vs. Dunham (1858), 6 Iowa 245; Re: Shortbridge
(1893), 99 CAL, 526; 2 1 L.R.A. 755; Ex. Parte Foster (1903), 60 L.R.A., 631
13
G.R. No. L-2581 (1948)
14
82 Phil. 595 (1949)
And, more recently, in Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan and Raul M. Gonzalez 15,
Respondent Gonzalez is entitled [4 LR 23] to the constitutional guarantee of free
speech. No one seeks to deny him that right, least of all this Court. What
respondent seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and expression, like all
constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that the freedom of expression needs
on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally
important public interests. One of these fundamental public fundamental public
interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the
administration of justice. For the protection and maintenance of the 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 the delivery of justice, which are accepted by the
general community. As Mr. Justice Frank further put it:
15
G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and 80578, February 1, 1989 Per Curiam Resolution
16
328 U.S. 331 at 354-356 (1946)
Respondent cannot even pretend that he acted in good faith. He lays claim to
having been a full-time journalist for the last forty years. With that wealth of
journalistic experience, to say nothing of his legal education, and the conceded
necessity of checking the accuracy of his sources, he was inexcusably remiss in
neglecting the most obvious and direct way of verifying whether or not there was
already a ruling or decision such as the information given him may, in his belief,
have portended a simple inquiry with the Clerk of the Court which, as the Court
stated in its show-cause Resolution, would have yielded the information that none
had yet issued or been promulgated.
To repeat, respondent cannot claim absolution even where the Court to lend
ear to his plea that his actions be judged solely as those of a newspaperman
unburdened by the duties and responsibilities peculiar to the law profession of
which he is also a member. Withal, it has not escaped the attention of the Court
that his Compliance, despite its strong, even passionate, plea for exculpation does
(SGD.)
DANIEL T. MARTINEZ
Clerk of Court