PRIVILEGED

COMMUNICATIONS
 PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE

• SECTION 24. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. —

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS CANNOT TESTIFY AS TO MATTERS LEARNED IN
CONFIDENCE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:
(C) A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, SURGERY OR OBSTETRICS
CANNOT IN A CIVIL CASE, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PATIENT, BE EXAMINED
AS TO ANY ADVICE OR TREATMENT GIVEN BY HIM OR ANY INFORMATION WHICH
HE MAY HAVE ACQUIRED IN ATTENDING SUCH PATIENT IN A PROFESSIONAL
CAPACITY, WHICH INFORMATION WAS NECESSARY TO ENABLE HIM TO ACT IN
CAPACITY, AND WHICH WOULD BLACKEN THE REPUTATION OF THE PATIENT;
• THE INFORMATION WHICH CANNOT BE DISCLOSED REFERS TO:
A. ANY ADVICE GIVEN TO THE CLIENT;
B. ANY TREATMENT GIVEN TO THE CLIENT;
C. ANY INFORMATION ACQUIRED IN ATTENDING SUCH PATIENT PROVIDED THAT
THE ADVICE, TREATMENT OR INFORMATION WAS MADE OR ACQUIRED IN A
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY AND WAS NECESSARY TO ENABLE HIM TO ACT IN THAT
CAPACITY; AND
D. THE INFORMATION SOUGHT TO BE DISCLOSED WOULD TEND TO BLACKEN THE
REPUTATION OF THE PATIENT.
 LIM VS. COURT OF APPEALS

• FACTS:
ON 25 NOVEMBER 1987, PRIVATE RESPONDENT FILED WITH BRANCH 53 OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) OF PANGASINAN A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF
SUCH MARRIAGE ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER HAS BEEN ALLEGEDLY
SUFFERING FROM A MENTAL ILLNESS CALLED SCHIZOPHRENIA "BEFORE, DURING
AND AFTER THE MARRIAGE AND UNTIL THE PRESENT.”
ON 11 JANUARY 1989, PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL ANNOUNCED THAT HE
WOULD PRESENT AS HIS NEXT WITNESS THE CHIEF OF THE FEMALE SERVICES OF
THE NATIONAL MENTAL HOSPITAL, DR. LYDIA ACAMPADO, A DOCTOR OF MEDICINE
WHO SPECIALIZES IN PSYCHIATRY.
 PETITIONER’S COUNSEL OPPOSED THE MOTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE
TESTIMONY SOUGHT TO BE ELICITED FROM THE WITNESS IS PRIVILEGED SINCE
THE LATTER HAD EXAMINED THE PETITIONER IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY AND
HAD DIAGNOSED HER TO BE SUFFERING FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA.
• ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT COURT OF APPEALS "SERIOUSLY ERRED” IN NOT FINDING
THAT ALL THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE RULE ON PHYSICIAN-PATIENT
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION UNDER SECTION 24, RULE 130 OF THE REVISED
RULES OF EVIDENCE EXIST IN THE CASE AT BAR.
• RULING:
OUR CAREFUL EVALUATION OF THE SUBMITTED PLEADINGS LEADS US TO NO OTHER
COURSE OF ACTION BUT TO AGREE WITH THE RESPONDENT COURT’S OBSERVATION. IN THE
FIRST PLACE, DR. ACAMPADO WAS PRESENTED AND QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS. AS
CORRECTLY HELD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, SHE DID NOT DISCLOSE ANYTHING
OBTAINED IN THE COURSE OF HER EXAMINATION, INTERVIEW AND TREATMENT OF THE
PETITIONER; MOREOVER, THE FACTS AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN THE HYPOTHETICAL
PROBLEM DID NOT REFER TO AND HAD NO BEARING ON WHATEVER INFORMATION OR
FINDINGS THE DOCTOR OBTAINED WHILE ATTENDING TO THE PATIENT.
• THERE IS, AS WELL, NO SHOWING THAT DR. ACAMPADO’S ANSWERS TO THE
QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED TO HER RELATING TO THE HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM
WERE INFLUENCED BY THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE PETITIONER.
OTHERWISE STATED, HER EXPERT OPINION EXCLUDED WHATEVER INFORMATION
OR KNOWLEDGE SHE HAD ABOUT THE PETITIONER WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY
REASON OF THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTING BETWEEN THEM.
AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, HER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT CANNOT
THEN BE EXCLUDED. ALSO, DR. ACAMPADO NEVER DISCLOSED ANY
INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE LATTER’S
AILMENT AND THE TREATMENT RECOMMENDED THEREFORE.
 KROHN VS. COURT OF APPEALS

• FACTS:

ON 23 OCTOBER 1990, EDGAR FILED A PETITION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF HIS MARRIAGE WITH MA. PAZ
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. IN HIS PETITION, HE CITED THE CONFIDENTIAL PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION
REPORT WHICH MA. PAZ MERELY DENIED IN HER ANSWER AS "EITHER UNFOUNDED OR IRRELEVANT.
AT THE HEARING ON 8 MAY 1991, EDGAR TOOK THE WITNESS STAND AND TRIED TO TESTIFY ON THE
CONTENTS OF THE CONFIDENTIAL PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION REPORT. THIS WAS OBJECTED TO ON THE
GROUND THAT IT VIOLATED THE RULE ON PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND
PATIENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, MA. PAZ FILED A MANIFESTATION EXPRESSING HER "CONTINUING OBJECTION"
TO ANY EVIDENCE, ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, "THAT WOULD THWART THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE,"
• ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE RULE ON PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT WAS VIOLATED.
• RULING:
IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE PRIVILEGE IS
CLAIMED IS NOT ONE DULY AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, SURGERY OR
OBSTETRICS. HE IS SIMPLY THE PATIENT'S HUSBAND WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY ON A
DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. PLAINLY AND CLEARLY, THIS
DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE CLAIMED PROHIBITION. NEITHER CAN HIS
TESTIMONY BE CONSIDERED A CIRCUMVENTION OF THE PROHIBITION BECAUSE
HIS TESTIMONY CANNOT HAVE THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE TESTIMONY OF
THE PHYSICIAN WHO EXAMINED THE PATIENT AND EXECUTED THE REPORT.
 STATE SECRETS

• SECTION 24. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. —

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS CANNOT TESTIFY AS TO MATTERS LEARNED IN
CONFIDENCE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:
(E) A PUBLIC OFFICER CANNOT BE EXAMINED DURING HIS TERM OF OFFICE OR
AFTERWARDS, AS TO COMMUNICATIONS MADE TO HIM IN OFFICIAL CONFIDENCE,
WHEN THE COURT FINDS THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD SUFFER BY THE
DISCLOSURE.
 U.S. VS. NIXON
• FACTS:

IN NOVEMBER 1972, RICHARD NIXON WON A SECOND TERM AS PRESIDENT,

DECISIVELY DEFEATING THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, GEORGE MCGOVERN. BUT TOWARD
THE END OF THE CAMPAIGN A GROUP OF BURGLARS BROKE INTO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON'S WATERGATE COMPLEX.
WHAT HAD BEEN A SMALL NEWS STORY SOON EXPANDED, AS REPORTERS
UNCOVERED TRACKS LEADING TO HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. THE NIXON
ADMINISTRATION DENIED ANY WRONGDOING, BUT IT SOON BECAME CLEAR THAT IT HAD
TRIED TO COVER UP THE BURGLARY AND CONNECTIONS TO IT, CONNECTIONS THAT MIGHT
EVEN INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT.
• UNDER CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC PRESSURE, NIXON APPOINTED A
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. WHEN IT WAS LEARNED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD
SECRETLY TAPED CONVERSATIONS IN THE OVAL OFFICE, THE PROSECUTOR FILED
A SUBPOENA TO SECURE TAPES HE BELIEVED RELEVANT TO THE CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION. IN MARCH 1974, A FEDERAL GRAND JURY INDICTED SEVEN
ASSOCIATES OF PRESIDENT NIXON FOR CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND
OTHER OFFENSES RELATING TO THE WATERGATE BURGLARY.
• THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF WAS NAMED AS AN UNINDICTED
COCONSPIRATOR. THE DISTRICT COURT, UPON THE MOTION OF THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR, ISSUED A SUBPOENA TO THE PRESIDENT REQUIRING HIM TO
PRODUCE CERTAIN TAPES AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PRECISELY
IDENTIFIED MEETINGS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS.
 ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT NIXON RELEASED EDITED TRANSCRIPTS OF
SOME OF THE SUBPOENAED CONVERSATIONS, HIS COUNSEL FILED A "SPECIAL
APPEARANCE" AND MOVED TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA ON THE GROUNDS OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTION, THE
PRESIDENT APPEALED AND THE CASE WAS QUICKLY BROUGHT TO THE SUPREME
COURT.
• ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT CAN INVOKE ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE
OF CONFIDENTIALITY FOR ALL PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS THAT HE COULD
CHOOSE TO WITHHOLD MATERIALS GERMANE TO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
• RULING:
CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER REAFFIRMED THE RULINGS OF MARBURY V.
MADISON AND COOPER V. AARON THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THE COURTS
HAVE THE FINAL VOICE IN DETERMINING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, AND THAT
NO PERSON, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IS ABOVE THE
LAW. ALTHOUGH THERE HAD BEEN SOME SPECULATION AS TO WHETHER NIXON
WOULD OBEY THE COURT, WITHIN EIGHT HOURS AFTER THE DECISION HAD BEEN
HANDED DOWN THE WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCED IT WOULD COMPLY.
ON AUGUST 5, 1974, TRANSCRIPTS OF SIXTY-FOUR TAPE RECORDINGS
WERE RELEASED, INCLUDING ONE THAT WAS PARTICULARLY DAMAGING IN
REGARD TO WHITE HOUSE INVOLVEMENT IN THE WATERGATE COVER-UP. THREE
DAYS LATER, HIS SUPPORT IN CONGRESS ALMOST COMPLETELY GONE, NIXON
ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD RESIGN.
 THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PRIVILEGE TO WITHHOLD EVIDENCE THAT IS
DEMONSTRABLY RELEVANT IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL WOULD CUT DEEPLY INTO THE
GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND GRAVELY IMPAIR THE BASIC
FUNCTION OF THE COURTS.
A PRESIDENT'S ACKNOWLEDGED NEED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY IN THE
COMMUNICATIONS OF HIS OFFICE IS GENERAL IN NATURE, WHEREAS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL NEED FOR PRODUCTION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING IS SPECIFIC AND CENTRAL TO THE FAIR ADJUDICATION OF A
PARTICULAR CRIMINAL CASE. WITHOUT ACCESS TO SPECIFIC FACTS, A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION MAY BE TOTALLY FRUSTRATED.
 BANCO FILIPINO VS. MONETARY BOARD

• FACTS:
THE MONETARY BOARD ISSUED A RESOLUTION FINDING BANCO FILIPINO INSOLVENT AND
PLACING IT UNDER RECEIVERSHIP. ANOTHER RESOLUTION WAS ISSUED PLACING THE BANK
UNDER LIQUIDATION AND DESIGNATED A LIQUIDATOR.
BANCO FILIPINO FILED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE
RESOLUTIONS ISSUED BY THE MONETARY BOARD AUTHORIZING THE RECEIVERSHIP AND
LIQUIDATION OF BANCO FILIPINO .A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS ISSUED ENJOINING
THE RESPONDENTS FROM EXECUTING FURTHER ACTS OF LIQUIDATION OF THE BANK. HOWEVER,
ACTS AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO NORMAL OPERATIONS OF A BANK ARE NOT
ENJOINED.
• ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE
ASSETS AND LIQUIDATION OF THE BANKING INSTITUTION WHEN IT IS CONFIRMED
BY THE MONETARY BOARD OF ITS INSOLVENCY OR CANNOT RESUME BUSINESS.
• RULING:
IF THE MONETARY BOARD SHALL LATER DETERMINE AND CONFIRM THAT
BANKING INSTITUTION IS INSOLVENT OR CANNOT RESUME BUSINESS SAFELY TO
DEPOSITORS, CREDITORS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC, IT SHALL, WHEN PUBLIC
INTEREST REQUIRES, ORDER ITS LIQUIDATION AND APPOINT A LIQUIDATOR WHO
SHALL TAKE OVER AND CONTINUE THE FUNCTIONS OF RECEIVER PREVIOUSLY
APPOINTED BY THE MONETARY BOARD.
 NERI VS. SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND
INVESTIGATIONS
• FACTS:
PETITIONER ROMULO NERI, THEN DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NEDA), WAS INVITED BY THE RESPONDENT SENATE COMMITTEES TO
ATTEND THEIR JOINT INVESTIGATION ON THE ALLEGED ANOMALIES IN THE NATIONAL
BROADBAND NETWORK (NBN) PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT WAS CONTRACTED BY THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT WITH THE CHINESE
FIRM ZHONG XING TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT (ZTE), WHICH INVOLVED THE AMOUNT OF
US$329,481,290. WHEN HE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEES, HE DISCLOSED THAT
THEN COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN ABALOS, BROKERING FOR ZTE, OFFERED
HIM P200 MILLION IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS APPROVAL OF THE NBN PROJECT.
• HE FURTHER NARRATED THAT HE INFORMED PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
ARROYO ABOUT THE BRIBERY ATTEMPT AND THAT SHE INSTRUCTED HIM NOT TO
ACCEPT THE BRIBE. HOWEVER, WHEN PROBED FURTHER ON WHAT THEY
DISCUSSED ABOUT THE NBN PROJECT, PETITIONER REFUSED TO ANSWER,
INVOKING “EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.” IN PARTICULAR, HE REFUSED TO ANSWER
THE QUESTIONS ON 1.) WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT FOLLOWED UP THE
NBN PROJECT, 2.) WHETHER OR NOT SHE DIRECTED HIM TO PRIORITIZE IT, AND 3.)
WHETHER OR NOT SHE DIRECTED HIM TO APPROVE IT.
• ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE THREE QUESTIONS THAT PETITIONER NERI REFUSED
TO ANSWER WERE COVERED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, MAKING THE ARREST
ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT SENATE COMMITTEES VOID.
• RULING:
THE DIVIDED SUPREME COURT (VOTING 9-6) WAS CONVINCED THAT THE
THREE QUESTIONS ARE COVERED BY PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS
PRIVILEGE, AND THAT THIS PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN VALIDLY CLAIMED BY THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, ENOUGH TO SHIELD PETITIONER NERI FROM ANY
ARREST ORDER THE SENATE MAY ISSUE AGAINST HIM FOR NOT ANSWERING SUCH
QUESTIONS.
 PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE

• SECTION 25. PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE. — NO PERSON MAY BE

COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIS PARENTS, OTHER DIRECT ASCENDANTS,
CHILDREN OR OTHER DIRECT DESCENDANTS.
• PARENTAL PRIVILEGE RULE
- A PARENT CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIS CHILD OR
OTHER DIRECT DESCENDANTS.

FILIAL PRIVILEGE RULE

- A CHILD MAY NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIS PARENTS OR
OTHER DIRECT ASCENDANTS.
• ART. 215 OF THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
NO DESCENDANT SHALL BE COMPELLED, IN A CRIMINAL CASE, TO
TESTIFY AGAINST HIS PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH
TESTIMONY IS INDISPENSABLE IN A CRIME AGAINST THE DESCENDANT OR BY ONE
PARENT AGAINST THE OTHER.
 PEOPLE VS. PUBLICO

• FACTS:
TWO CRIMINAL CASES WAS FILED AGAINST VICENTE PUBLICO. ONE WAS
FILED BY HIS TWELVE-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER, CHARGING HIM WITH ATTEMPTED
RAPE. AND THE OTHER ONE WAS FILED BY HIS ELDER DAUGHTER, CHARGING HIM
WITH RAPE.
THEIR BROTHER TESTIFIED AGAINST THEIR FATHER SINCE, HE
ACCOMPANIED “AAA” (THE TWELVE-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER) RIGHT AFTER THE
INCIDENT TO REPORT TO THE POLICE AT BARANGAY VALENCIA.
• THE SOLE WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE WAS ACCUSED-APPELLANT HIMSELF.
HE DENIED THE ACCUSATIONS OF HIS DAUGHTERS AGAINST HIM AND
PRESENTED ALIBIS AS MAIN DEFENSES.
VICENTE WAS THEN FOUND GUILTY OF SIMPLE RAPE AND ATTEMPTED RAPE.
HENCE, THIS PETITION.
• ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND
CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF BBB AND AAA.
• RULING:
WE HAVE HELD THAT A RAPE VICTIM'S TESTIMONY IS ENTITLED TO GREATER WEIGHT WHEN
SHE ACCUSES A CLOSE RELATIVE OF HAVING RAPED HER, TO WIT:

INDEED, A YOUNG GIRL WOULD NOT ORDINARILY FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ANYBODY, MUCH LESS
HER OWN FATHER, IF IT WERE NOT TRUE. THUS, THE VICTIM'S REVELATION THAT SHE HAD BEEN
RAPED, COUPLED WITH HER VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND WILLINGNESS
TO UNDERGO PUBLIC TRIAL WHERE SHE COULD BE COMPELLED TO GIVE OUT DETAILS ON AN ASSAULT
TO HER DIGNITY CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS MERE CONCOCTION. LUST IS NO RESPECTER OF TIME OR
PLACE. IT GOES AGAINST HUMAN EXPERIENCE THAT A GIRL WOULD FABRICATE A STORY WHICH
WOULD DRAG HERSELF AS WELL AS HER FAMILY TO A LIFETIME OF DISHONOR, UNLESS THAT IS THE
TRUTH, FOR HER NATURAL INSTINCT IS TO PROTECT HER HONOR. MORE SO, WHERE HER CHARGES
COULD MEAN THE DEATH OF HER OWN FATHER, AS IN THIS CASE. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT WAS CORRECTLY FOUND GUILTY OF RAPING HIS DAUGHTER.
 NEWSMAN’S PRIVILEGE

• REPUBLIC ACT NO. 53

• AN ACT TO EXEMPT THE PUBLISHER, EDITOR OR REPORTER OF ANY PUBLICATION FROM
REVEALING THE SOURCE OF PUBLISHED NEWS OR INFORMATION OBTAINED IN
CONFIDENCE
• SECTION 1. THE PUBLISHER, EDITOR OR DULY ACCREDITED REPORTER OF ANY NEWSPAPER,
MAGAZINE OR PERIODICAL OF GENERAL CIRCULATION CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO REVEAL
THE SOURCE OF ANY NEWS-REPORT OR INFORMATION APPEARING IN SAID PUBLICATION
WHICH WAS RELATED IN CONFIDENCE TO SUCH PUBLISHER, EDITOR OR REPORTER, UNLESS
THE COURT OR A HOUSE OR COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS FINDS THAT SUCH REVELATION IS
DEMANDED BY THE INTEREST OF THE STATE.
• REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1477
• AN ACT AMENDING SECTION ONE OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED FIFTY-THREE, ENTITLED "AN
ACT TO EXEMPT THE PUBLISHER, EDITOR, COLUMNIST OR REPORTER OF ANY PUBLICATION
FROM REVEALING THE SOURCE OF PUBLISHED NEWS OR INFORMATION OBTAINED IN
CONFIDENCE"
• SECTION 1. SECTION ONE OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED FIFTY-THREE IS AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:
• "SEC. 1. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS LIABILITY UNDER THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAWS, THE
PUBLISHER, EDITOR, COLUMNIST OR DULY ACCREDITED REPORTER OF ANY NEWSPAPER, MAGAZINE
OR PERIODICAL OF GENERAL CIRCULATION CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO REVEAL THE SOURCE OF
ANY NEWS-REPORT OR INFORMATION APPEARING IN SAID PUBLICATION WHICH WAS RELATED IN
CONFIDENCE TO SUCH PUBLISHER, EDITOR OR REPORTER UNLESS THE COURT OR A HOUSE OR
COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS FINDS THAT SUCH REVELATION IS DEMANDED BY THE SECURITY OF THE
STATE."
 MATTER OF FARBER (A.B.)

• FACTS:
APPELLANTS, THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY AND MYRON FARBER, A
REPORTER EMPLOYED BY THE NEWSPAPER, WERE CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT OF
COURT FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY SUBPOENAS DUCES
TECUM BY APPELLEE STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN A CRIMINAL CASE. THEY
CONTENDED THEY HAD A PRIVILEGE TO REMAIN SILENT WITH RESPECT TO
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT EMANATED FROM THE "FREE SPEECH" AND
"FREE PRESS" CLAUSES OF THE U.S. CONST. AMEND. I.
• ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE MATERIALS SUBPOENAED ARE PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION.
• RULING:
NO. APPELLANTS CLAIM A PRIVILEGE TO REFRAIN FROM REVEALING
INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM ESSENTIALLY FOR THE
REASON THAT WERE THEY TO DIVULGE THIS MATERIAL, CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES
OF SUCH INFORMATION WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC. WERE THIS TO OCCUR, THEY
ARGUE, NEWSGATHERING AND THE DISSEMINATION OF NEWS WOULD BE
SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED, BECAUSE MUCH INFORMATION WOULD NEVER BE
FORTHCOMING TO THE NEWS MEDIA UNLESS THE PERSONS WHO WERE THE
SOURCES OF SUCH INFORMATION COULD BE ENTIRELY CERTAIN THAT THEIR
IDENTITIES WOULD REMAIN SECRET.
 PRIEST-PENITENT PRIVILEGE
• SECTION 24. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. —
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS CANNOT TESTIFY AS TO MATTERS LEARNED IN
CONFIDENCE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:
(D) A MINISTER OR PRIEST CANNOT, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PERSON
MAKING THE CONFESSION, BE EXAMINED AS TO ANY CONFESSION MADE TO OR
ANY ADVICE GIVEN BY HIM IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CHARACTER IN THE COURSE OF
DISCIPLINE ENJOINED BY THE CHURCH TO WHICH THE MINISTER OR PRIEST
BELONGS;
• THE PERSON MAKING THE CONFESSION HOLDS THE PRIVILEGE, AND THE PRIEST
OR MINISTER HEARING THE CONFESSION IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY IS
PROHIBITED FROM MAKING A DISCLOSURE OF THE CONFESSION WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE PERSON CONFESSING.
THANK YOU!