GARCIA VS MANRIQUE (2012)

This case discusses the very thin line between protected speech and content. Because as a rule, you can criticize the Court as long as the words you use
would not be so damaging to the Court that it would result in the uhm siguro a distasteful view of the institution as a whole. And this is one of the cases
where the Court did not standby against the criticism made by a journalist.

So we have an article here, Garcia v. Manrique, written by Manrique. Ang title sa article "TRO ng Korte Suprema binayaran ng ₱ 20-M?". And because
of this article, it reached the Supreme COurt and in the course thereof, the court issued an order ordering this Manrique to file his comment
explaining why he should not be cited in contempt because of this article which alludes that the Supreme Court can be bribed. Now in his defense
Manrique argued that nothing was malicious or defamatory in his article since he only stated the facts.

In other words, factual ang bribery sa Supreme Court.

Is the write up here a protected speech?

Because that is that Manrique is saying. Just stating the facts. And therefore this is a form of expression, my right to free speech shall be protected,
I cannot be cited in contempt.

Is it protected?

NO. Manrique here was held in contempt and was fined with 20,000 pesos.

What did the article constitute?

The court said that it constitute indirect contempt which is defined as an improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or
degrade the administration of justice. So for example, you have that article circulating in the news unya ikaw you have a pending case in the trial
court, pagkabasa nimo ingon ka “hala the Supreme Court can be bribed”. Ma damage imong view sa institution as a whole and you would siguro
noh would have a lesser respect for the court of Justice. That is what the Supreme Court want to protect- its integrity and image. The general
rule is that fair criticism against our Courts is allowed.

The power to punish for contempt does not render the courts impenetrable to public scrutiny nor does it place to the scope beyond legitimate
criticism. Dili man pwede nga politicians lang imong i-criticize. We also have the right to criticize the Supreme Court. It is also one of the branches
of the government that should receive fair need of criticism.

Every citizen has the right to comment upon it and criticize the actuations of public officers and that includes the Supreme Court. However
there are conditions before you can create or make these criticisms without crossing the line. The criticism shall be bonafide (meaning in good
faith) and shall not spill the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand; and abuse and slander
of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. So if your criticism is unfair, intemperate then it could be a gross violation of our duty to respect
our Courts.

When is a criticism unfair?

It could be considered unfair if it is not based on any fact. Just something you picked up from somewhere. You concucted a story without a
factual basis. And that’s what happened here. Now take note that there are 2 types of publication that are punishable by contempt. One, is a
publication which intends to impede, obstruct, embarass or influence the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding.

So if there is a pending case and then you make a criticism, unfair criticisms then that could be considered as a contemptuous speech in a pending
case (if there is). The second type of punishable publication is a publication which tends to degrade the courts and to destroy public confidence
in them. Meaning there is no need in the 2nd form that there is a pending case before the court. So that is one of the differences.

So the differences in the 2 is that in first type of contemptuous publication, what is sought noh is the right to be shielded against the influence
of newspaper comments. In the second type, it shields the court for any act or conduct calculated to bring them into disfavor or to destroy
public confidence in them. So take note of those two publications.

Here what form of publication did it fall?

It fell under the 2nd type of contemptuous publication. The court said that declaring innuendos of illegality in the article is denigrating to the
dignity of the Court and the ideals of fairness and justice that it represents. It is demonstrative of disrespect not only for the Court, but also for
the judicial system as a whole, tends to promote distrust and undermines public confidence in the judiciary by creating the impression that the
Supreme Court cannot be trusted to resolve cases impartially. While the Court has exercised daw utmost restraint and tolerance against criticism,
it cannot standby if there is already trangression of the ambit of fair criticism. So here gipenalize siya because it is no longer done in good faith.
The article here or the author is not simply passing judgment on an official act of the Court. He was actually intimating that the petitioners here
were able to obtain a TRO through illicit means, with the complicity of the Supreme Court. And therefore the article is malicious.