ROWARD TUBOG

USJR – School of Law

Subject: Constitutional Law 2
Topic: Freedom of Expression, Libel
Title: Column of Mr. Ramon Tulfo in the Philippine Daily Inquirer issues of 13 and 16
October 1989
Citation: AM No. 90-4-1545-0 : April 17, 1990
Facts:

On 13 October 1989, respondent Ramon Tulfo published an article entitled "Idiotic Decision"
in his column "On Target" in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, stating therein that the Supreme
Court rendered an "idiotic decision" in legalizing the checkpoints. This was followed by
another article in the same column on 16October 1989, entitled "Sangkatutak na Bobo," Tulfo
referring therein to the members of the Supreme Courtas "stupid" for having rendered such
decision on checkpoints, and calling them "sangkatutak na bobo justices of the Philippine
Supreme Court.".

In a resolution dated 19 October 1989, the Court required Tulfo to show cause in writing why
he should not be punished for contempt of court, for making such derogatory statements in
his column against the Supreme Court and its members.3. Without denying the writing and
publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the following defenses in his "Explanation:"
1. that he was just reacting emotionally to said decision of the Court because he had
been a victim of harassment, abuse and oppression by checkpoints;
2. that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and intended in the sense of the
decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise;"
3. that the words "stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16 October 1989
article are not hisown words but that he was merely quoting the words of some
lawyers in reaction to the decision, without any intention on his part to degrade,
ridicule, insult and bring disrepute to the Court;
4. that the case having been decided and terminated, the comments made in said
articles as to the soundness of the Court's decision do not constitute contempt of
court;
5. that said articles did not pose any clear and present danger or serious and imminent
threat to the administration of justice.

A Motion for Intervention was filed by the National Press Club, Union of Journalists of the
Philippines, PressPhotographers of the Philippines, and the People's Movement for Press
Freedom on the grounds that suchresolution, that of the court demanding explanation from
Tulfo (why he should not be charged with contemptof court) is an unwarranted assault and
undue restriction on freedom of speech and press. Said motion was considered by the Court
in its deliberations leading to this resolution.

Issues:
Whether or not the court’s demanding explanation from Tulfo is undue restriction on freedom
of speech and press.

Ruling:
No.

Freedom of speech and expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute, and
freedom of expression has, on appropriate occasions, to be adjusted and accommodated to
the requirements of equally important public interests. One of these fundamental public
ROWARD TUBOG
USJR – School of Law
interests is the maintenance of the authority, integrity and orderly functioning of the courts.
For, the protection and maintenance of freedom of expression itself can be secured onlywithin
the framework of a functioning and orderly system of justice.

Freedom of expression is not license to insult the Court and its members and to impair the
authority, integrity and dignity of the Court. The inherent power of courts to punish any
publication calculated to interfere with the administration of justice is not restricted by the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, for freedom of the press is subordinate to
the authority, integrity and independence of the judiciary and the proper administration of
justice. Freedom of the press must not be confounded with license or abuse of that freedom.
Writers and publishers of newspapers have the right, but no greater than the right of others, to
bring to public notice the conduct and acts of courts, provided the publications are true and
fair in spirit; in short, there is no law to restrain or punish the freest expression of
disapprobation of what is done in or by the courts,provided that free expression is not used as
a vehicle to satisfy one's irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy
the courts and their members.

Consequently, Tulfo's as well as intervenors' claim to press freedom, is not well taken in this
instance. ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds and adjudges respondent Ramon Tulfo in
CONTEMPT OF COURT, and he is hereby GRAVELY CENSURED, with the STRONGEST
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar misconduct will be dealt with MORE
SEVERELY