Exploring the Legal Terrain of Criticizing the Supreme Court Vance Ivor A.

Escaro

Word Count: 1,481

From the latest gossip to the news affecting the nation and the world, everybody has their commentaries on issues and controversies that affect them, or at the very least, gives them interest. In this present day and age, especially here in the Philippines, anyone and everyone can give their two-cents-worth of criticisms for almost every subject; from the mundane to the academic; this may be due to the inextinguishable right of freedom of expression and the massive boom of social media in the recent years. With this immense power freely enjoyed by the people comes great responsibility. The power of criticism is a dangerous prerogative if not used carefully. Along with all rights, the freedom to express ones own opinion should not trample upon the acquired rights of others. As the New Civil Code has said; Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith1. This principle is much truer in critiquing one of the highest institutions in our land; the Supreme Court. Although holding neither purse nor sword, the judiciary is an indispensable department of every democratic government2. No less than the Constitution itself grants the Supreme Court of its powers3. 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 cannot expect justice therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result.4 Therefore, in criticizing the Supreme Court, one has the responsibility to give fair and balanced statements that is rightly due to this venerated institution. One must in the exercise of his rights to criticize, must acquire knowledge and develop skills in proper and responsible criticism done in good taste. Not only that irresponsible and unintelligent criticism can harm this respected body and the State itself, but the person who criticized unintelligently may be viewed in the light as uneducated and lacks propriety. When the President Criticizes the Supreme Court One case where a President criticized the Supreme Court publicly was when President Obama during his State of the Union address, criticized a highly controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating certain limitations on corporate spending in political campaigns. It raised important questions about the proper manner in which a president should express objections to the Courts decisions. Many Americans viewed it as insensitive to the doctrines of judicial independence and separation of powers, particularly since the Justices were present at the State of the Union address.5
1 2

CIVIL CODE, art. 19 I. Cruz, Philippine Political Law 243 (2002) 3 CONST. Art. VIII 4 In Re Sotto, 82 Phil. 602

But according to Professor William G. Ross of Cumberland School of Law of Samford University, although a president should naturally be careful to avoid demonstrating disrespect for the Supreme Court, the remarks President Obama recently made about a Court's decision during the State of the Union address did not in any way derogate judicial independence or encourage any defiance of the Courts decision.6 Although a president naturally should be careful to avoid demonstrating any disrespect for the Court, particularly when the justices are present, Obamas remarks in his State of the Union address were limited to only one case and did not in any way derogate judicial independence or encourage any defiance of the Courts decision. Indeed, such measured criticism of the Court can actually enhance public respect for the judiciary.7 Bringing the issue back to home, just recently, President Aquino publicly criticized Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona in front of other justices and lawmakers during the first National Criminal Justice Summit. Aquino lambasted Corona, an appointee of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for apparently losing his impartiality regarding several decisions he made including those concerning Arroyo.8 In a political system like ours where governmental power is exercised by three co-equal and autonomous branches, disagreements are to be expected. That is how the system works. Each branch of government functions as a check on the others. But the manner in which this check is to be carried out varies from one branch to the other.9 In many instances, we may hear a president criticize Congress for not acting fast enough on priority measures like the budget. But, it is not often that we hear a president publicly criticize Supreme Court justices.10 In defense of the President, Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda said while a president criticizing the Supreme Court is uncommon, it is not something new. The President as a citizen also has his right to express his disagreement with the decision of the Supreme Court.11 At the House of Representatives, an opposition leader questioned Aquinos move to openly attack Corona and the Supreme Court. Deputy Minority Leader Milagros Magsaysay said Aquino should recognize the independence of the judiciary from the executive branch, while an administration ally, Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo, however, came to Aquinos defense, saying the president is entitled to his own opinion about a branch of government that has been considered infallible for years, that those criticisms thrown by the President is a healthy sign of democracy. He further

Ross. W.G., Constructive Criticism: Presidential Opposition to Supreme Court Rulings <http://jurist.org/forumy/2010/02/constructive-criticism-presidential.php>, Feb. 2, 2010 6 Ibid 7 Ibid
8

Beltran J./Lopez V., Aquino Hits Supreme Court During Justice Summit <http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2011/12/05/aquino-hits-supreme-court-during-justicesummit-194157>, December 5, 2011
9

R. David, When the President Criticizes the Supreme Court <http://opinion.inquirer.net/18705/when-thepresident-criticizes-the-supreme-court>, December 7, 2011, 10 Ibid 11 Calonzo C., Bernas likens PNoy to Fidel Castro for Criticizing Corona, <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/240694/news/nation/bernas-likens-pnoy-tofidel-castro-for-criticizing-corona>, December 6, 2011

added that Corona and the Supreme Court should not be onion-skinned whenever they are criticized.12 Freedom of Expression versus The Supreme Court On 13 October 1989, respondent Ramon Tulfo 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."13 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.14 Citing press freedom, a Motion for Intervention was filed by press groups, 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.15 In its resolution, the Court held: 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.16 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.17 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 that any act which tends to destroy the authority of the Court is in itself an attempt to destroy that democracy.18

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Ibid In Re: Tulfo, AM No. 90-4-1545-0, April 17, 1990 Ibid Ibid Ibid, citing in In re: Sotto, 82 Phil. 595 Ibid, citing Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 316 In Re: Tulfo, supra

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.19

19

Ibid, citing Zaldivar vs Gonzales, supra