In Re: Atty. Emiliano P. Jurado Jr. aka Emil Jurado A.M. No. 90-5-2373 July 12, 1990 Specific Constitutional Provision cited: Libel Facts:
Senator JPE at al. were charged by the State with Rebellion complexed with murder, in contravention of the Hernandez doctrine which states that Rebellion absorbs murder. While the SC was deliberating their decision regarding the case, the Manila Standard published an article on May 27, 1990 by Atty. Emil Jurado stating that “Rebellion complex does not exist SC” and that “State back to square one in cases v. Enrile et al.” His article claimed that the SC had reaffirmed the Hernandez doctrine by a 14- 1 vote according to “sources in the SC”. He had a follow up article in his opinion column labeled “Scoop!” and the next day, on May 28, 1990, he published another article that stated that the SC was expected to promulgate a decision within the day or the next day. He divulged information, such as the revised vote of 14-0 (claiming that Assoc. Justice Leo Medialdea had inhibited himself) and that the decision would be penned by Assoc. Justice Narvasa. Headlines and news continued until Tuesday, May 29, 1990, however, the articles changed abruptly when the new articles showed that t he SC was “still deliberating” on the issue. On that same day, the SC issued a resolution branding as false the news reports of May 27, 1990 and claimed that no decision had been signed as of the date, and required Atty. Jurado to respond within 5 days why he should not be dealt with administratively. Atty. Jurado claimed freedom of the press and justified the article on the people’s right to know about decisions. *June 5, 1990 - the SC promulgated its decision in the case upholding the Hernandez ruling (no complex crime of Rebellion) with a vote of 12-1, with 2 justices on leave and the Chief Justice dissenting. Issues: 1. Whether or not the report and comments in question are protected by freedom of the press and right of the people to know information on matters of a public concern. Held: 1. NO
Publication regarding judicial action in a pending case, which tends to impede, embarrass or obstruct the court and constitutes a clear and present danger to the administration of justice is not protected by the guarantee of press freedom and is punishable as contempt. Neither inherent tendency nor reasonable tendency to interfere with the orderly administration of justice in an action then before a court for consideration is enough to justify a restriction of free expression. The impediment must be immediate and it must constitute a clear and present danger to the administration of justice, which danger must be serious and substantial. As held in US. v. Sullens, freedom of the press and administration of justice are a re both equally sacred and neither should be violated by the other. The court held in that case that in order to dispose of judicial business unhampered by publications which reasonably tend to impair the impartiality of the verdicts, or other wise obstruct the administration of justice, the court will not hesitate to exercise the power to punish for contempt. In In re Lozano and Quevedo, a case wherein there was false reporting of a closed-
door investigation of a judge of first instance, it was held that it is an interference with the work of the courts to publish any matters with their policy requires should be kept private. The SC held that Atty. Jurado could not hide behind the shield of freedom of the press and of information. His article published comments on a non-existent decision and obstructed the proper functioning of the SC. The premature revelation placed the court in an unfavorable light as an inept and incompetent guardian of its own confidential proceedings. Respondent did not act in good faith. Being a source of legal news for his readers, the court ruled that they could not punish him as a newspaperman without punishing him as a member of the bar. His actions mitigated the penalty since the articles did not attribute official or personal impropriety to any member of the SC. Respondent was fined 1000 pesos.
