This order was requested on the Supreme Court upon ABS-CBN’s conquest with its outstanding Quo Warranto case with the Office of the Solicitor’s General. On Tuesday the highest lawyer seeks to plea “very urgent motion” asking the high court to issue order prohibiting another person to act on ABS-CBN’s behalf. He also stressed that this violates the sub judice rule that prohibits anyone from publicly obtaining a continuing case to avoid pre-judgment.
This case may be partaking country’s notable landmark cases with unique issues tackled by the prominent persons of the land.
Calida also claimed that the network committed a “highly abusive practices” which is a violation of the terms set up by Congress the moment its franchise was approved in 1995. Chief Brian Keith Hosaka Supreme Court Public Information Officer said ABS-CBN Corporation and ABS-CBN Convergence, Inc. have five days remaining to submit their response on the new petition in lieu with the gag order plea.
What is really a GAG Order?
According to the act that was introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago:
“SECTION 3. Gag Orders Generally Unlawful; Exception. – Court orders, writs or injunctions which prohibit media reports and commentaries on, or publication of, proceedings held in public or on events that transpire in the courtroom shall be invalid. In cases where the report, commentary, or publication is based on information gained from other sources, a gag order may lawfully issue only upon prior showing by the party who seeks its issuance that the report, commentary, or publication will likely prevent, directly and irreparably, a fair and impartial resolution of the case. This requires a clear showing that the report, commentary, or publication will prejudice the outcome of the proceedings of the case and that no less restrictive alternatives are available.Explanatory note
This is to avoid public sentiments tarnish the court’s decision relating to its existing case. A national policy which hereby proclaimed that no court order, writ or injunction shall issue that would have the effect of enjoining the press and other media from publishing information in connection with a criminal, civil, or administrative case of widespread concern to the community. Either party may file a gag order to the supreme court if one sees irreparable cause to discern the equality of law.
What is Sub Judice Rule?
Also being pointed by the solicitor general to interfere with this fiasco. Inlined with the explanatory statement of the late senator,
“The sub judice rule is a foreign legal concept. It originated in countries whose justice systems have adopted trial by jury, such as the United States. There is no trial by jury in the Philippines. Yet, not too frequently, Philippine courts invoke the sub judice rule to prohibit the press and other media from reporting, commenting on, or publishing events surrounding a trial.
This is notwithstanding the palpable absence of a panel of jurors which need to be impaneled and sequestered from widespread publicity surrounding a court trial. Thus, through long and unfettered court practice, the sub judice rule has endeared itself as a reasonable restriction on the constitutional guarantees of free press and of the people’s right to petition and information on matters of public concern.”Explanatory note
The existing jurisprudence to ponder on is Nestle Philippines v. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542 (1987). The rule states that when a legal controversy takes place and becomes court jurisdiction (sub judice), nobody should interfere even the press and media’s interference. Any publication should not manifest any obstruction nor public clamor with the court’s case proceedings.