(First of 2 parts)
Freedom of speech is indisputably not absolute.
Permissible restrictions of the lawyer’s freedom of speech is imperative in the orderly administration of justice, and to ensure that their statements do not contribute to generating adverse public opinion towards the courts or the litigants.
“As guardians, protectors, and final arbiters of the rule of law, people rely on us (judiciary) ‘with substantial certainty [and] encourages the resolution of disputes in courtrooms rather than on the streets.’”
This promotes the “public’s confidence in judicial independence both in its decisions and in the institution as a whole” (ABS-CBN Corporation, et. al. v. Ampatuan, G.R. 227004, April 25, 2023).
To protect the courts, they “exercise inherent contempt powers by restricting speech that tends to bring the court into disrespect or scandalize[s] the court, or where there is clear and present danger that would impede the administration of justice. This kind of utterance… affects judicial independence… [and erodes] public confidence in the competence and integrity of the courts” (loc. cit.).
“Strict scrutiny is employed in the permissibility of restriction of speech that is based on content. Under this test, restrictions on the legitimate exercise of citizens’ rights are minimal and only to the extent necessary to achieve the State’s compelling interest” (loc. cit.).
“The courts restrain contemptuous speech by way of punishment for indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 3(d) of the Rules of Court.
“These types of speech, which are considered improper conduct, include (1) violation of the sub judice rule; (2) degrading comments or criticisms that put the courts in disrepute; and (3) publications violating the confidentiality of administrative proceedings” (loc. cit.).
“The right to criticize the courts should be done with respect, such that criticisms and comments must be ‘bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.’ The nature and manner of the criticism are relevant in determining whether this right has been abused” (loc. cit.).
Hence, “[t]he power to punish for contempt will generally not lie against a trustful, sincere, and respectful statement of an opinion.
“However, publication of lies against the courts is contemptuous speech [and] [t]he imposition of subsequent punishment against calculated falsehoods is a permissible restriction on the freedom of speech” (loc. cit.).
“Comments or criticisms of lawyers against the courts may be subject to greater limitation and scrutiny, owing to the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.”
“Lawyers do not shed their obligations to this Court (Supreme Court) regardless of the role they choose to fulfill” (loc. cit.).
“They are duty bound to comply with the ethical standards of the profession inside and outside judicial proceedings.
“Hence, a lawyer, who is also a member of the press, cannot claim to exercise press freedom at the expense of their obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability” (loc. cit.).
“Litigants and their counsels are in closest proximity to the courts as parties in judicial proceedings.
“Their speech is subject to the greatest restriction because they voluntarily agree to abide by the Rules of Court and the decorum required in judicial proceedings” (loc. cit.).
“In choosing to resolve their disputes before the courts, they agree to its resolution through fair and impartial proceedings without resorting to undue advantage other than arguing the merits of the case.”
“ [T]he court has restricted public speech that violates the sub judice rule, the confidentiality of administrative proceedings, and illegitimate criticisms of litigants and their counsels…” (loc. cit.).
The public speech of litigants and their counsel pertaining to the case should be assessed based on a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that will affect the administration of justice.
“This will be a matter for the court to assess based on the content of the speech, how it was delivered, and the platform used” (loc. cit.).
“This Court (Supreme Court) is very much aware that defendants must protect and defend their reputation when sued publicly and will give this the utmost consideration when they claim their freedom of speech.”
However, “lawyer-litigants who choose to use their skill to recklessly file cases to further their fame and notoriety… will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and their commitments under the Lawyers’ Oath” (loc. cit.).
