The administration of justice is essential to the maintenance of peace and order in our society. In an unjust society or where the administration of justice is questionable people can take upon themselves the imposition of their own version of justice. Chaos will reign and life in that society becomes miserable if not a hell on earth. Its not just the proper functioning of our justice system that is important but also the belief of the people that it does. In one decision of the Supreme Court, it says that it is not only important for the court to be impartial but it has to appear impartial as well. It is then very essential that court maintains the image or reputation that it does what it is meant to do. There are rules to follow not by the judges and lawyers who are “officers of the court” but even those outside the courtroom. “The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice. A violation of the sub judice rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.” (G.R. No. 174105, Romeo vs. Estrada)
Marantan vs Diokno
One of the most controversial cases during its day was the murder or killing of 13 persons in the “Atimonan incident” which involved police personnel in what was considered a rob out rather than a shoot out. This is not about that case but Marantan alleged that the family of the victims in this case with their lawyer were using or riding on the “unpopularity” of the Atimonan incident. As if saying that said incident is being connected to the present case in order to pressure the judge to grant their petition. What happened was that Atty Diokno and his client organized a press conference while there is a pending petition in court to annul the resolution of the Ombudsman downgrading the charge from murder to homicide. Marantan alleged that Diokno and his client made comments in the press conference about the conduct of the Court which violated the sub judice rule and are therefore guilty of indirect contempt. The Supreme Court however, did not find the statements made during the press conference contemptuous. The statements were merely reiterations of their contention that the case should be upgraded to murder which the court has yet to decide. The same is true with respect to the claim of Marantan that the statements make them appear guilty even though the case is still pending. “For a comment to be considered as contempt of court “it must really appear” that such does impede, interfere with and embarrass the administration of justice. What is, thus, sought to be protected is the all-important duty of the court to administer justice in the decision of a pending case. The specific rationale for the sub judice rule is that courts, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.” The Court added: “Freedom of public comment should, in borderline instances, weigh heavily against a possible tendency to influence pending cases.13 The power to punish for contempt, being drastic and extraordinary in its nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice.”
