A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC Re: In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr.

Amado A.P. Macasaet Published inMalaya Dated September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007.


Promulgated: August 8, 2008


The Facts

Macasaet writes a daily column, Business Circuit, in Malaya, a newspaper of general
circulation. In the 18-21 September 2007 issues ofMalaya, Macasaet ran a story, based on
information obtained from confidential sources, of an alleged bribery in the Court committed as
follows: on separate occasions in the second week of September 2007,
[2]
five
[3]
boxes containing cash
worth P10 million were delivered to the Court and received by a certain Cecilia, a staff of an
unnamed lady Justice, who opened one of the boxes and saw its contents. Forthwith, the Justice
terminated Cecilias employment. The payoff was made allegedly in connection with a decision
rendered by the Justice acquitting a Filipino-Chinese businessman.

Subsequently, Newsbreak, an online magazine, posted on its website
[5]
a news report that the
Court is investigating a bribery incident based on facts substantially similar
[6]
to what Macasaet wrote.

On 24 September 2007, Justice Santiago issued a statement denying the accusations and
insinuations published in Malaya and Newsbreak. Justice Santiago also asked the Court to
investigate the matter.

In a Resolution dated 25 September 2007, the Court en banc required Macasaet to explain
why no sanction should be impose[d] on him for indirect contempt of court under Section 3(d), Rule
71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Macasaet, Vitug and Rufo uniformly testified that they obtained the information on the alleged
bribery from their respective confidential sources. Delis denied having received or opened any box
containing cash intended for Justice Santiago. While admitting that she was a staff of Justice
Santiago, Delis denied having been fired from service and claimed that she resigned effective 15
March 2007. Danilo Pablo of the Courts Security Division testified that while visitors to the Court are
listed in the logbook at the Courts gate, the security personnel, as a matter of policy, do not open
gifts or boxes intended for members of the Court.


The Report found that (1) Macasaets publications were false,
baseless,
[14]
unbelievable,
[15]
and malicious
[16]
and (2) Macasaet was negligent in failing to
ascertain the veracity of his story.
[17]
The Committee concluded that Macasaets publications
generated public distrust in the administration of justice and thus, contumacious. The majority finds
the Reports findings and conclusion well-taken and accordingly imposes a punitive fine on Macasaet.


ISSUE:

WON the majoritys conclusion that the report suffices to hold Macasaet guilty of contempt of
court.

RULING:


A proceeding for criminal contempt, as here, is adversarial.
[25]
At the heart of such adversarial
process is the parties right to test the veracity of the testimonies of adverse witnesses through cross-
examination. With the procedure the Committee adopted, Macasaet was reduced to a passive
participant, unable to subject the testimonies of adverse witnesses to rigorous probing under cross-
examination. As matters stand, Macasaet will be subjected to punitive sanctions based on evidence
he had no opportunity to scrutinize.


Thus, in this jurisdiction, we have long ago applied the clear and present danger test in
contempt cases.
[34]
We must scrutinize Macasaet's publications through the lens of the clear and
present danger test guided by these queries: (1) is the evil consequence of Macasaets publications
extremely serious? and (2) is the degree of its imminence extremely high? The facts of this case do
not meet either criterion.


The clear and present danger test is the most exacting and protective test in favor of free
press. Before a journalist can be punished in acriminal contempt case, as in this case, there must
be proof beyond reasonable doubt that his publication tends to obstruct the administration of justice,
and such obstruction must be extremely serious, likely resulting in an unfair decision, and the
degree of imminence of the obstruction actually happening extremely high.

Macasaet and Newsbreak based their reports on the alleged bribery from information obtained
from their respective confidential sources. In short, it was a professional call on the part of Macasaet
and Newsbreak to run the story. This Court should be the last to attribute negative motives for this
judgment call.
[50]
Admittedly, Macasaet has failed to substantiate his story spread over four issues
of Malaya, divulging bits and pieces of vague information. This, however, does not serve to lessen the
protection afforded to the publications which carried them under the constitutional guarantees of free
speech and of free press. Journalists, agents of the people
[51]
who play a vital role in our polity by
bringing to the public fora issues of common concern such as corruption, must be accorded the same
breathing space for erroneous statements necessary for free expression to thrive in a democratic
society.
[52]



A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC September 13, 2001
RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF
THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. ESTRADA
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE HERNANDO PEREZ, KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTER NG
PILIPINAS, CESAR SARINO, RENATO CAYETANO, and ATTY. RICARDO ROMULO, petitioners,
vs.
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA and INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES,oppositors.
RESOLUTION
MENDOZA, J .:
This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision denying petitioners' request for permission to
televise and broadcast live the trial of former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan. The
motion was filed by the Secretary of Justice, as one of the petitioners, who argues that there is really
no conflict between the right of the people to public information and the freedom of the press, on the
one hand, and, on the other, the right of the accused to a fair trial; that if there is a clash between
these rights, it must be resolved in favor of the right of the people and the press because the people,
as the repository of sovereignty, are entitled to information; and that live media coverage is a
safeguard against attempts by any party to use the courts as instruments for the pursuit of selfish
interests.
On the other hand, former President Joseph E. Estrada reiterates his objection to the live TV and
radio coverage of his trial on the ground that its allowance will violate the sub judice rule and that,
based on his experience with the impeachment trial, live media coverage will only pave the way for
so-called "expert commentary" which can trigger massive demonstrations aimed at pressuring the
Sandiganbayan to render a decision one way or the other. Mr. Estrada contends that the right of the
people to information may be served through other means less distracting, degrading, and prejudicial
than live TV and radio coverage.1wphi1.nt
ISSUE: WON the Court can validly conduct trial in live radio tv coverage
RULING
The Court has considered the arguments of the parties on this important issue and, after due
deliberation, finds no reason to alter or in any way modify its decision prohibiting live or real time
broadcast by radio or television of the trial of the former president. By a vote of nine (9) to six (6) of its
members,
1
the Court denies the motion for reconsideration of the Secretary of Justice.
In lieu of live TV and radio coverage of the trial, the Court, by the vote of eight (8) Justices,
2
has
resolved to order the audio-visual recording of the trial.
Considering the significance of the trial before the Sandiganbayan of former President Estrada and
the importance of preserving the records thereof, the Court believes that there should be an audio-
visual recording of the proceedings. The recordings will not be for live or real time broadcast but for
documentary purposes. Only later will they be available for public showing, after the Sandiganbayan
shall have promulgated its decision in every case to which the recording pertains. The master film
shall be deposited in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for
historical preservation and exhibition pursuant to law.
4

Above all, there is the need to keep audio-visual records of the hearings for documentary purposes.
The recordings will be useful in preserving the essence of the proceedings in a way that the cold print
cannot quite do because it cannot capture the sights and sounds of events. They will be primarily for
the use of appellate courts in the event a review of the proceedings, rulings, or decisions of the
Sandiganbayan is sought or becomes necessary. The accuracy of the transcripts of stenographic
notes taken during the trial can be checked by reference to the tapes.
At the same time, concerns about the regularity and fairness of the trial -- which, it may be assumed,
is the concern of those opposed to, as much as of those in favor of, televised trials - will be addressed
since the tapes will not be released for public showing until after the decision of the cases by the
Sandiganbayan. By delaying the release of the tapes, much of the problem posed by real time TV
and radio broadcast will be avoided.
Thus, many important purposes for preserving the record of the trial can be served by audio-visual
recordings without impairing the right of the accused to a fair trial.

G.R. No. 170603 January 29, 2007
EDISON SO, Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
Facts:
Antecedents
On February 28, 2002, petitioner Edison So filed before the RTC a Petition for Naturalization
3
under Commonwealth
Act (C.A.) No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended. He alleged the following in his
petition:
He was born on February 17, 1982, in Manila; he is a Chinese citizen who has lived in No. 528 Lavezares St.,
Binondo, Manila, he has all the qualifications provided under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under
Section 4 of C.A. No. 473, as amended; Attached to the petition were the Joint Affidavit
4
of Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr.
and Mark B. Salcedo; and petitioners Certificate of Live Birth,
5
Alien Certificate of Registration,
6
and Immigrant
Certificate of Residence.
7

On March 22, 2002, the RTC issued an Order
8
setting the petition for hearing. Petitioner thus caused the publication
of the order. No one opposed the petition. The RTC granted the petition on June 4, 2003.
Respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the decision to
the CA . Respondent contended that based on the evidence on record, appellee failed to prove that he possesses
all the qualifications under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under Section 4 of C.A. No. 473. It insisted
that his two (2) character witnesses did not know him well enough to vouch for his fitness to become a Filipino
citizen; they merely made general statements without giving specific details about his character and moral
conduct.
28
The witnesses did not even reside in the same place as petitioner.
29
Respondent likewise argued that
petitioner himself failed to prove that he is qualified to become a Filipino citizen because he did not give any
explanation or specific answers to the questions propounded by his lawyer. He merely answered "yes" or "no" or
gave general statements in answer to his counsels questions. Thus, petitioner was unable to prove that he had all
the qualifications and none of the disqualifications required by law to be a naturalized Filipino citizen.
30

ISSUE:
WON PETITIONER IS QUALIFIED TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.
27

RULING:
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothing him or
her with the privileges of a citizen.
44
Under current and existing laws, there are three ways by which an alien may
become a citizen by naturalization: (a) administrative naturalization pursuant to R.A. No. 9139; (b) judicial
naturalization pursuant to C.A. No. 473, as amended; and (c) legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted
by Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien.
45

In naturalization proceedings, it is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good moral character but
also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must be credible persons.
56
Within the purview of the
naturalization law, a "credible person" is not only an individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime;
who is not a police character and has no police record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose affidavit or
testimony is not incredible. What must be credible is not the declaration made but the person making it. This implies
that such person must have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright; that he is
reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the
applicants worthiness.
57

The records likewise do not show that the character witnesses of petitioner are persons of good standing in the
community; that they are honest and upright, or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. The most that was
established was the educational attainment of the witnesses; however, this cannot be equated with their credibility.
In fine, petitioner focused on presenting evidence tending to build his own good moral character and neglected to
establish the credibility and good moral character of his witnesses.
58

Thus, petitioner failed to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of naturalization law. For this
reason, we affirm the decision of the CA denying the petition for naturalization without prejudice.
It must be stressed that admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges that the Republic of the Philippines
can confer upon an alien. It is a privilege that should not be conferred except upon persons fully qualified for it, and
upon strict compliance with the law.
60

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.