EN BANC

[AM No. 90-4-1545-0 : April 17, 1990]

COLUMN OF MR. RAMON TULFO IN THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER ISSUES OF 13 AND 16 OCTOBER 1989
Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc

dated April 17, 1990
AM No. 90-4-1545-0 (Column of Mr. Ramon Tulfo in the Philippine Daily Inquirer issues
of 13 and 16 October 1989)
On 13 October 1989, respondent Ramon Tulfo (Tulfo, for short) wrote an article
entitled "Idiotic Decision" in his column "On Target" in the Philippine Daily Inquirer,
stating therein that the Supreme Court rendered an "idiotic decision" in legalizing the
checkpoints. This was followed by another article in the same column on 16 October
1989, entitled "Sangkatutak na Bobo," Tulfo referring therein to the members of the
Supreme Court as "stupid" for having rendered such decision on checkpoints, and
calling them "sangkatutak na bobo justices of the Philippine Supreme Court."
In a resolution dated 19 October 1989, the Court required Tulfo to show cause in
writing why he should not be punished for contempt of court, for making such
derogatory statements in his column against the Supreme Court and its members.
Without denying the writing and publication of the questioned articles, Tulfo raised the
following defenses in his "Explanation:" (1) that he was just reacting emotionally to
said decision of the Court because he had been a victim of harassment, abuse and
oppression by checkpoints; (2) that the use of the adjective "idiotic" was meant and
intended in the sense of the decision being "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and
unwise;" (3) that the words "stupid justices" and "sangkatutak na bobo" in the 16
October 1989 article are not his own words but that he was merely quoting the words
of some lawyers in reaction to the decision, without any intention on his part to
degrade, ridicule, insult and bring disrepute to the Court; (4) that the case having
been decided and terminated, the comments made in said articles as to the soundness
of the Court's decision do not constitute contempt of court; (5) that said articles did
not pose any clear and present danger or serious and imminent threat to the
administration of justice.
Citing press freedom, a Motion for Intervention was filed by the National Press Club,
Union of Journalists of the Philippines, Press Photographers of the Philippines, and the
People's Movement for Press Freedom, in connection with the resolution of the Court
requiring Tulfo to explain why he should not be held in contempt of court. Movants
alleged that such resolution is an unwarranted assault and undue restriction on

freedom of speech and press. Said motion was considered by the Court in its
deliberations leading to this resolution.
We find Tulfo's "explanation" to be fatally devoid of merit.
At the outset, it should be stated that, contrary to Tulfo's pretense, the Court's
decision on the issue of checkpoints had not become final at the time he wrote the
questioned articles. In fact, the Court has yet to act on the motion for reconsideration
of said decision, filed by the petitioner therein, to which the Solicitor General,
appearing for the respondents, has filed an opposition. Consequently, at the time Tulfo
wrote and published the questioned articles, the case had not been closed and
terminated but was sub judice.
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, as it is essential to their
right of self-preservation.[1] Courts are universally acknowledged to be vested, by
their very creation, with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum in their
presence and submission to their lawful mandates, and as corollary to this proposition,
to preserve themselves and their officers from the approach of insults and pollution.
[2]

Any improper conduct which tends, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or

degrade the administration of justice is punishable for indirect contempt.[3]
Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; it is
such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into
disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties or their witnesses during litigation.
Contempt of court is defined as disobedience to the court by setting up an opposition
to its authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or
disobedience of the court's orders but is such conduct as tends to bring the authority
of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede
the due administration of justice.[4] It may be committed both by lawyers and nonlawyers, in and out of court.[5]
There are two (2) types of publication of newspaper comments on proceedings in
court, which have been considered in contempt proceedings, namely: (1) those in
which the object of the publication is to affect the decision in a pending case or action,
and (2) those which have for their purpose the bringing of courts or judges or other
court officers into discredit.[6] Tulfo's articles comprise both types of publication. As
already pointed out, at the time his articles were written and published, the case on
the checkpoints was sub judice as the Court's decision therein had not became final.
As to why and how said articles have for their purpose to bring the Supreme Court and
its members into discredit, will be shown presently.
It has been settled that mere criticism or comment on the correctness; or wrongness,

soundness or unsoundness of a decision of the court in a pending case, made in good

faith, may be tolerated, for if it is well founded, it may enlighten the court and
contribute to the correction of an error, if any has been committed.[7]
The Court, needless to state, as a human institution, does not assume a posture of
infallibility or perfection in its decisions or rulings. In fact, its decisions are open to
criticisms for as long as they are couched in respectful language and, above all
directed at the merits of the case. Where, however, comment in the guise of a critique
is intended merely to degrade and ridicule the Court, as well as to insult its members,
thereby causing or conditioning the public to lose its respect for the Court and its
members, the comment becomes clearly an obstruction or affront to the
administration of justice; hence, it is contemptous. To cast doubt before the public eye
as to the integrity of the judicial institution by malicious imputations of disrepute and
incompetence to the Supreme Court and its members, does not fall under the category
of fair criticism. The right to criticize is not absolute or unlimited. Above all, it must
be bona fide and should not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Any
intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of one's duty of respect to the
courts.[8]
Coming to Tulfo's specific language employed in the questioned articles, a man in his
right senses would find no social; value, or intellectual significance or even literary
delight in its use. In fact, nothing constructive can be attained by an attempt
to downgrade, damage and even destroy the authority of the Court which is a focal
institution of democracy in this country. Most prudent observers believe (whether or
not Tulfo subscribes to it) that any act which tends to destroy the authority of the
Court is in itself an attempt to destroy that democracy xxxxxxxxx
"What is at stake in cases of this kind is the integrity of the judicial
institutions of the country in general and of the Supreme Court in particular.
Damage to such institutions might not be quantifiable at a given moment in
time but damage there will surely be if acts like those of respondent
Gonzales are not effectively stopped and countered. The level of trust and
confidence of the general public in the courts, including the court of last
resort, is not easily measured; but few will dispute that a high level of such
trust and confidence is critical for the stability of democratic goverment.[9]

xxxxxxxxx
It is thus imperative that the Court should preserve its authority, dignity and the
respect due it from litigants, lawyers and the public, for the reason that "The Supreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last
bulwark to which the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief for their
grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon, and if
the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members
of this court and believe that they can not expect justice there-from, they
might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and disorder and
perhaps chaos would result."[10]
If this Court were to allow insults hurled against it and its members to go unpunished,
then it becomes remiss in its own duty to maintain its authority, integrity, and
dignity.
Tulfo's claim that he was "emotional" when he wrote the questioned articles can in no
way serve as an excuse for insulting and demeaning the highest court of the land and
its members. In fact, it has been held that not even good faith is a ground for
exoneration in a contempt charge.[11]
Being of age and presumably gifted with reason, Tulfo must have been fully aware of
the seriousness of his undertaking to insult the Court and its members. For such
conduct, he must assume responsibility for its consequences, without hiding behind
the cloak of "emotionalism" or the convenient anonymity of his alleged "reaction"
sources. A writer worth his guts should know that a pre-condition to credibility is
honesty, not cowardice.
The Court does not deny Tulfo's right to be emotional about certain issues; however,
as a responsible member of the press, he should first rationalize and tackle issues with
objectivity. The fact that the issue of checkpoints had become a "highly emotional
issue" for him is not a logical reason to insult the Court and its members, for, if Tulfo
strongly felt that the Court had erred in its decision, he was free to criticize the
decision on its merits. But to maliciously demean the Court and the intelligence of its
members achieved really nothing in pointing out the errors, if any, in the decision
objected to.
Reading through the two (2) articles written by Tulfo, respectively entitled "Idiotic
decision" and "Sangkatutak na Bobo", it is plain that Tulfo intended to ridicule and
degrade the Court and its members before the public, not merely to criticize its
decision on the merits, as he would now like to make this Court believe. The general
tone and language used in Tulfo's articles belie his belated allegation that the word

"idiotic" was used in the sense of the decision being merely "illogical, irrational,
unwarranted and unwise."
Reprehensible language may take various forms and in all cases its general tone
should be considered. Whether or not the meaning and intent of a certain article
constitute contempt is to be determined by the Court as a matter of law upon a fair
consideration of the language used. Disclaimer by the author of intentional disrespect
to the Court, just like disclaimer by a publisher of any knowledge of the article prior to
its publication is not a defense.[12]
As Tulfo well knows, in ordinary parlance, "idiotic" is defined as "devoid of intellect,
utterly stupid, sense-less or foolish";[13] while legally, it is defined as "a person who
has been without understanding from his nativity, and whom the law, therefore,
presumes never likely to attain an"[14] or "the lowest level of feeblemindedness in
which an individual is possessed of a maximum mental age of two years or an IQ of
25"[15] while the word "stupid" is defined as "wanting in or slow of mental perception;
lacking ordinary activity of mind; slow-witted; dull."[16]
Had Tulfo honestly meant to express only to the public his personal opinion that the
questioned decision is "illogical, irrational, unwarranted and unwise," then, he could
have said so without resort to the use of words which are derogatory, and thereafter
claim that he did not mean the way they were written or understood by his readers.
Such turnabout only shows how grossly irresponsible, or in bad faith or mentally
dishonest Tulfo was in writing said articles and causing the same to be published.
In fine, the intent clearly manifested by Tulfo in the questioned articles is to give an
image of a Supreme Court composed of members who are ignorant or devoid of
intelligence, thus, incapable of carrying out the proper dispensation of justice which
they are tasked to perform under the Constitution. And, while it has been said that
those who have great proficiency at hurling insults at others usually fit such insults so
well, the Court will not pass this judgment on Tulfo but will simply hold him as having
insulted, without any rational justification, the institution of the Supreme Court and its
members.
Likewise, there is no merit in Tulfo's defense that he was merely quoting the reactions
of some lawyers to the decision when he referred to the Supreme Court justices as
"sangkatutak na bobo". While it is true that in his opening statement in the 16 October
1989 article, Tulfo stated that many lawyers he had talked to describe the present
complement of justices as "sangkatutak na bobo", yet, his parting shot and personal
statement at the end of the article, which says "(T)o the sangkatutak na bobo justices
of the Philip-pine Supreme Court, please take note!", runs counter to his very claim
that such assessment of the Court and its members was not his personal opinion.

Thus, he is not only an inventive expert; he is totally in bad faith. At the very least, he
cannot be exculpated from full and sole responsibility for the publication of such
derogatory statement.
Moreover, in a later (6 November 1989) article, Tulfo declared that he was not sorry at
all that he wrote the way he did in his two (2) questioned articles, and he claimed that
he was "merely expressing his honest opinion." He stood firm with his original
indictment of the Court and its members as "sangkatutak na bobo" and "stupid
justices", and never truly apologized for making such statements. It is thus clear that
all that he claimed to be sorry for was that he cannot take back what he had said in
his earlier articles, and that he was sorry for those who have been allegedly affected
by the ruling on checkpoints, like the motorists, consumers and end-users.
Freedom of speech and expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute,
and freedom of expression has, on appropriate occasions, to be adjusted and
accommodated to the requirements of equally important public interests. One of these
fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the authority, integrity and orderly
functioning of the courts. For, the protection and maintenance of freedom of
expression itself can be secured only within the framework of a functioning and orderly
system of justice.[17] Freedom of expression is not license to insult the Court and its
members and to impair the authority, integrity and dignity of the Court.
The inherent power of courts to punish any publication calculated to interfere with the
administration of justice is not restricted by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
the press, for freedom of the press is subordinate to the authority, integrity and
independence of the judiciary and the proper administration of justice. Freedom of the
press must not be confounded with license or abuse of that freedom. Writers and
publishers of newspapers have the right, but no greater than the right of others, to
bring to public notice the conduct and acts of courts, provided the publications are true
and fair in spirit; in short, there is no law to restrain or punish the freest expression of
disapprobation of what is done in or by the courts,[18]provided that free expression is
not used as a vehicle to satisfy one's irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade
and even destroy the courts and their members. Consequently, Tulfo's as well as
intervenors' claim to press freedom, is not well taken in this instance.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds and adjudges respondent Ramon Tulfo in CONTEMPT
OF COURT, and he is hereby GRAVELY CENSURED, with the STRONGEST WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar misconduct will be dealt with MORE SEVERELY.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.
Sarmiento, J., who is on leave concurs in the opinion.

Very truly yours,

DANIEL T. MARTINEZ
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Assistant Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1]

Slade v. Perkins v. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271; In re: Kelly, 35 Phil.

944; In re: Sotto, 82 Phil. 595; Commission of Immigration v. Cloribel, G.R.
NO. L-24139, August 31, 1967, 20 SCRA 1241
[2]

In re: Kelly, 35 Phil. 944

[3]

Sec. 3, par. (d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court

[4]

Rivera v. Florendo, G.R. NO. L-57586, 8 October 1986, 144 SCRA 643

[5]

Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, 7 October 1988, 166

SCRA 316
[6]

12 Am Jur 412, 31

[7]

In re: Sotto, 82 Phil. 595

[8]

Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, supra.

[9]

Ibid.

[10]

In re: Sotto, supra.

[11]

Borromeo v. CA, G.R. No. L-39253, November 24, 1978, 87

[12]

12 Am Jur. Contempt, 34

[13]

The Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 5, 1961 Edition

[14]

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Volume 1, Third Edition

[15]

The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, 1969

Edition
[16]

The Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. X, 1969 Edition

[17]

Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, supra.

[18]

12 Am Jur, Contempt, 32