Protecting CA: ball in justices’ hands

I WAS about to be persuaded by Justice Cancio Garcia’s rejoinder (Inquirer, 3/26/11) on the derogatory allegations of Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo against the Court of Appeals (CA), until I read the placard by so-called Dacer/Corbito families on Page A-8 of the Inquirer’s March 30 issue asking: “Magkano ang pagbasura sa warrant of arrest kay Lacson?” and came across the concluding paragraph of Tulfo’s March 31 column, which made ridiculous insinuations and insulting suggestions that in the CA, bribery has practically become standard operating procedure (SOP) such that “if you get convicted by the lower court for drug pushing or trafficking in this country, don’t despair because the appellate court will let you free for the right price.”

I cannot comprehend why the CA has allowed itself to be Tulfo’s “whipping boy” as well as the unabated attacks on its integrity.

In substance, the good justice wrote that despite being contumacious, an accusation against the appellate court is to be set aside in the meantime, for being “sub judice.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in the case of Judge Eustaquio Gacott Jr. (GR No. 115908-09, March 29, 1995), held that the proper court may act upon the contempt whether the case be pending or terminated. Thus, “[w]hether a case is pending or not, there is the constant and ever growing need to protect the courts from a substantive evil, such as invective conduct or utterances which tend to impede or degrade the administration of justice or which calumniate the courts and their judges …”

To further discourage inquiry into Tulfo’s damaging statements, the justice cited In Re: Ramon Torres (55 Phil. 799) wherein it was ruled that court proceedings pertaining to suspension or disbarment of attorneys or suspension or removal of judges have to remain confidential. However, with due respect, it is most noteworthy that such a policy and tradition would apply only to proceedings on disciplinary actions against attorneys (Rule 139, Sec. 10) and to judges/justices (Rule 141, Sec. 12). In other words, it is not so provided for other proceedings like Tulfo’s comments.

Also, in the Gacott case, the high tribunal stated, among other things, that the freedom of the press is guaranteed in the Constitution; but if anyone abuses that liberty to scandalize the courts of his country, he is liable to be punished for contempt; and that right does not include the right to malign the courts, to libel and slander and utter the most flagrant and indecent calumnies about the court and its officers, nor to invade the sanctuaries of the temples. Such practices and such miscreants ought to be condemned and the courts would deserve condemnation and abolition if they did not vigorously and fearlessly punish such offender.

Finally, I can only say that the ball is now in the CA’s hands. After all, one cannot be more popish than the pope.

—CESAR M. SOLIS,
Millora & Solis Law Offices,
Rm. 306, Manere Bldg. 3,
41 V. Luna Ave., Quezon City