ROWARD TUBOG

USJR – School of Law

Subject: Constitutional Law 2
Topic: Restrictions on Freedom of Expression
Title: ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to
be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution, respondents.

Citation: G.R. No. 79690-707 February 1, 1989

Facts:
Zaldivar was the governor of Antique and was charged before the Sandiganbayan for
violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan
who was investigating the case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate
graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a
Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain from
investigating and filing informations against Zaldivar. Gonzales however proceeded with the
investigation and he filed criminal informations against Zaldivar. Respondent Gonzalez has
also asserted that the Court was preventing him from prosecuting "rich and powerful
persons," that the Court was in effect discrimination between the rich and powerful on the one
hand and the poor and defenseless upon the other, and allowing "rich and powerful" accused
persons to go "scot-free" while presumably allowing or affirming the conviction of poor and
small offenders.

Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then ordered
Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in the newspapers were
true; that he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he is entitled to criticize the
rulings of the Court, to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error.

Issues:
Whether or not Gonzales, in this case, as a lawyer, is entitled to criticize the court.

Ruling:
No.

Gonzales is not entitled to criticize the court in this case because his criticism was not bona
fide. His statements particularly the one where he alleged that members of the Supreme
Court approached him, are of no relation to the Zaldivar case.

The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for the
exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. According to Canon 11: A lawyer
shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should
insist on similar conduct by others. It is one of the bounded duties of an attorney to observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officer (Section 20 [b], Rule
138 of the Rules of Court). His statements necessarily imply that the justices of the Supreme
Court betrayed their oath of office. Such statements very clearly debase and degrade the
Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice in the
country.

Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez seems
unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not
ROWARD TUBOG
USJR – School of Law
absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and
accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. One of these
fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the
administration of justice. There is no antinomy between free expression and the integrity of
the system of administering justice.

The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of court in facie
curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar.