In
her lecture during the recently concluded 9th Eastern Visayas Convention of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines at the Bohol Tropics this city, Atty. Katrina
Legarda emphasized that in a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional
guarantee of a free press in the country.
For
as long as the exercise of freedom of the press does not intrude into the private
life of citizens, the High Tribunal did not hesitate to safeguard this constitutional
mandate. Although in Ayer Productions versus Capulong, 160 SCRA 860, it ruled
that even a private citizen who is a "public figure" may not escape
from media scrutiny.
But
in Lintang Bidol versus COMELEC, G.R. No. 179830, Dec. 3, 2009, the Supreme Court
did not also hesitate to exercise the contempt powers of the court when the exercise
of press freedom challenges the court's authority. In this case, the Court noted
that on June 26, 2007, Bidol came out on national newspapers and in an exclusive
interview with the Philippine Daily Inquirer and GMA 7 television, with a gleaming
.45 caliber pistol strapped to his side, and in a clear defiance of the COMELEC,
posted the challenge by saying that "those that are saying that there was
cheating in Maguindanao, file a case against me tomorrow, the next day. They should
file a case now and I will answer their accusations".
In
Roxas versus Zuzuarregue Jr. G.R. No. 152072, July 12, 2007, Atty. Roxas chose
to ventilate his criticism in a very discreet and private manner by writing a
personal letter confined to the hallowed halls of the Court instead of resorting
to public criticism through media exposure.
In
the matter of the suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, former senior state
prosecutor, instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies, Atty. Bagabuyo
caused the publication of an article regarding the Order granting bail to the
accused in the Mindanao Gold Star Daily on Aug. 18, 2003. The article was entitled
"Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to
bail out".
The
Supreme Court in this case ruled that it is not against lawyers raising grievances
against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the proper venue and procedure
for doing so, precisely because respect for the institution must always be maintained.
In Atty.
Legarda's amplifications, it is not possible to set down guidelines that would
anticipate and effectively deal with every possible situation. In some circumstances,
it is not appropriate for the lawyer to have any contact whatsoever with the media,
in others, there may be a positive duty to contact the media in order to properly
serve the client.
"The
lawyer should bear in mind when making public appearances of making public statements
that ordinarily the lawyer has no control over any editing that may follow or
determining the context in which the appearance or statement may be used",
Legarda pointed out. (To be concluded on Sunday)
*
* * * * * * *
* * * * *
