Supreme Court Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > April 1990
Resolutions > [AM No. 90-4-1545-0 : April 17, 1990] COLUMN OF MR.
RAMON TULFO IN THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER ISSUES OF 13 AND 16
OCTOBER 1989 :

EN BANC

[AM No. 90-4-1545-0 : April 17, 1990]

COLUMN OF MR. RAMON TULFO IN THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER

ISSUES OF 13 AND 16 OCTOBER 1989

Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc
dated April 17, 1990
AM No. 90-4-1545-0 (Column of Mr. Ramon Tulfo in the Philippine Daily
Inquirer issues of 13 and 16 October 1989)

On 13 October 1989, respondent Ramon Tulfo (Tulfo, for short) wrote 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 16 October 1989, entitled "Sangkatutak na Bobo,"
Tulfo referring therein to the members of the Supreme Court as "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.

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 his own 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.

Citing press freedom, a Motion for Intervention was filed by the National
Press Club, Union of Journalists of the Philippines, Press Photographers of
the Philippines, and the People's Movement for Press Freedom, in connection
with the resolution of the Court requiring Tulfo to explain why he should not
be held in contempt of court. Movants alleged that such resolution 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.

We find Tulfo's "explanation" to be fatally devoid of merit.

At the outset, it should be stated that, contrary to Tulfo's pretense, the

Court's decision on the issue of checkpoints had not become final at the time
he wrote the questioned articles. In fact, the Court has yet to act on the
motion for reconsideration of said decision, filed by the petitioner therein, to
which the Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents, has filed an
opposition. Consequently, at the time Tulfo wrote and published the
questioned articles, the case had not been closed and terminated but was
sub judice.

The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, as it is essential

to their right of self-preservation.[1] Courts are universally acknowledged to
be vested, by their very creation, with power to impose silence, respect, and
decorum in their presence and submission to their lawful mandates, and as
corollary to this proposition, to preserve themselves and their officers from
the approach of insults and pollution.[2] Any improper conduct which tends,
directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
justice is punishable for indirect contempt.[3]

Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the

court; it is such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of
the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties or their
witnesses during litigation. Contempt of court is defined as disobedience to
the court by setting up an opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It
signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's orders but
is 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.[4] It may be committed both by lawyers and non-
lawyers, in and out of court.[5]

There are two (2) types of publication of newspaper comments on

proceedings in court, which have been considered in contempt proceedings,
namely: (1) those in which the object of the publication is to affect the
decision in a pending case or action, and (2) those which have for their
purpose the bringing of courts or judges or other court officers into discredit.
[6] Tulfo's articles comprise both types of publication. As already pointed
out, at the time his articles were written and published, the case on the
checkpoints was sub judice as the Court's decision therein had not became
final. As to why and how said articles have for their purpose to bring the
Supreme Court and its members into discredit, will be shown presently.
It has been settled that mere criticism or comment on the correctness; or
wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of a decision of the court in a
pending case, made in good faith, may be tolerated, for if it is well founded,
it may enlighten the court and contribute to the correction of an error, if any
has been committed.[7]

The Court, needless to state, as a human institution, does not assume a

posture of infallibility or perfection in its decisions or rulings. In fact, its
decisions are open to criticisms for as long as they are couched in respectful
language and, above all directed at the merits of the case. Where, however,
comment in the guise of a critique is intended merely to degrade and ridicule
the Court, as well as to insult its members, thereby causing or conditioning
the public to lose its respect for the Court and its members, the comment
becomes clearly an obstruction or affront to the administration of justice;
hence, it is contemptous. To cast doubt before the public eye as to the
integrity of the judicial institution by malicious imputations of disrepute and
incompetence to the Supreme Court and its members, does not fall under
the category of fair criticism. The right to criticize is not absolute or
unlimited. Above all, it must be bona fide and should not spill over the walls
of decency and propriety. Any intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross
violation of one's duty of respect to the courts.[8]

Coming to Tulfo's specific language employed in the questioned articles, a

man in his right senses would find no social; value, or intellectual
significance or even literary delight in its use. In fact, nothing constructive
can be attained by an attempt to downgrade, damage and even destroy the
authority of the Court which is a focal institution of democracy in this
country. Most prudent observers believe (whether or not Tulfo subscribes to
it) that any act which tends to destroy the authority of the Court is in itself
an attempt to destroy that democracy -

xxxxxxxxx

"What is at stake in cases of this kind is the integrity of the judicial

institutions of the country in general and of the Supreme Court in particular.
Damage to such institutions might not be quantifiable at a given moment in
time but damage there will surely be if acts like those of respondent
Gonzales are not effectively stopped and countered. The level of trust and
confidence of the general public in the courts, including the court of last
resort, is not easily measured; but few will dispute that a high level of such
trust and confidence is critical for the stability of democratic goverment.[9]

xxxxxxxxx

It is thus imperative that the Court should preserve its authority, dignity and
the respect due it from litigants, lawyers and the public, for the reason that -

"The Supreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last
bulwark to which the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief for their
grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon, and if
the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members
of this court and believe that they can not expect justice there-from, they
might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and disorder and
perhaps chaos would result."[10]

If this Court were to allow insults hurled against it and its members to go
unpunished, then it becomes remiss in its own duty to maintain its authority,
integrity, and dignity.

Tulfo's claim that he was "emotional" when he wrote the questioned articles
can in no way serve as an excuse for insulting and demeaning the highest
court of the land and its members. In fact, it has been held that not even
good faith is a ground for exoneration in a contempt charge.[11]

Being of age and presumably gifted with reason, Tulfo must have been fully
aware of the seriousness of his undertaking to insult the Court and its
members. For such conduct, he must assume responsibility for its
consequences, without hiding behind the cloak of "emotionalism" or the
convenient anonymity of his alleged "reaction" sources. A writer worth his
guts should know that a pre-condition to credibility is honesty, not
cowardice.
The Court does not deny Tulfo's right to be emotional about certain issues;
however, as a responsible member of the press, he should first rationalize
and tackle issues with objectivity. The fact that the issue of checkpoints had
become a "highly emotional issue" for him is not a logical reason to insult
the Court and its members, for, if Tulfo strongly felt that the Court had erred
in its decision, he was free to criticize the decision on its merits. But to
maliciously demean the Court and the intelligence of its members achieved
really nothing in pointing out the errors, if any, in the decision objected to.

Reading through the two (2) articles written by Tulfo, respectively entitled
"Idiotic decision" and "Sangkatutak na Bobo", it is plain that Tulfo intended
to ridicule and degrade the Court and its members before the public, not
merely to criticize its decision on the merits, as he would now like to make
this Court believe. The general tone and language used in Tulfo's articles
belie his belated allegation that the word "idiotic" was used in the sense of
the decision being merely "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise."

Reprehensible language may take various forms and in all cases its general
tone should be considered. Whether or not the meaning and intent of a
certain article constitute contempt is to be determined by the Court as a
matter of law upon a fair consideration of the language used. Disclaimer by
the author of intentional disrespect to the Court, just like disclaimer by a
publisher of any knowledge of the article prior to its publication is not a
defense.[12]

As Tulfo well knows, in ordinary parlance, "idiotic" is defined as "devoid of

intellect, utterly stupid, sense-less or foolish";[13] while legally, it is defined
as "a person who has been without understanding from his nativity, and
whom the law, therefore, presumes never likely to attain an"[14] or "the
lowest level of feeblemindedness in which an individual is possessed of a
maximum mental age of two years or an IQ of 25"[15] while the word
"stupid" is defined as "wanting in or slow of mental perception; lacking
ordinary activity of mind; slow-witted; dull."[16]

Had Tulfo honestly meant to express only to the public his personal opinion
that the questioned decision is "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and
unwise," then, he could have said so without resort to the use of words
which are derogatory, and thereafter claim that he did not mean the way
they were written or understood by his readers. Such turnabout only shows
how grossly irresponsible, or in bad faith or mentally dishonest Tulfo was in
writing said articles and causing the same to be published.

In fine, the intent clearly manifested by Tulfo in the questioned articles is to

give an image of a Supreme Court composed of members who are ignorant
or devoid of intelligence, thus, incapable of carrying out the proper
dispensation of justice which they are tasked to perform under the
Constitution. And, while it has been said that those who have great
proficiency at hurling insults at others usually fit such insults so well, the
Court will not pass this judgment on Tulfo but will simply hold him as having
insulted, without any rational justification, the institution of the Supreme
Court and its members.

Likewise, there is no merit in Tulfo's defense that he was merely quoting the
reactions of some lawyers to the decision when he referred to the Supreme
Court justices as "sangkatutak na bobo". While it is true that in his opening
statement in the 16 October 1989 article, Tulfo stated that many lawyers he
had talked to describe the present complement of justices as "sangkatutak
na bobo", yet, his parting shot and personal statement at the end of the
article, which says "(T)o the sangkatutak na bobo justices of the Philip-pine
Supreme Court, please take note!", runs counter to his very claim that such
assessment of the Court and its members was not his personal opinion.
Thus, he is not only an inventive expert; he is totally in bad faith. At the
very least, he cannot be exculpated from full and sole responsibility for the
publication of such derogatory statement.

Moreover, in a later (6 November 1989) article, Tulfo declared that he was

not sorry at all that he wrote the way he did in his two (2) questioned
articles, and he claimed that he was "merely expressing his honest opinion."
He stood firm with his original indictment of the Court and its members as
"sangkatutak na bobo" and "stupid justices", and never truly apologized for
making such statements. It is thus clear that all that he claimed to be sorry
for was that he cannot take back what he had said in his earlier articles, and
that he was sorry for those who have been allegedly affected by the ruling
on checkpoints, like the motorists, consumers and end-users.
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 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
only within the framework of a functioning and orderly system of justice.[17]
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,[18] 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.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.

Sarmiento, J., who is on leave concurs in the opinion.

Very truly yours,

DANIEL T. MARTINEZ
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Assistant Clerk of Court