Bloggers’ interview of Bantag not contemptuous nor unlawful
Was the interview an improper conduct that directly or indirectly impeded, obstructed, or degraded the administration of justice?
Text size
Was the interview an improper conduct that directly or indirectly impeded, obstructed, or degraded the administration of justice?
In a press briefing on 2 October, the head of the department tasked to render justice to everyone, may they be the suspected offenders or the offended, has again issued a reckless and inappropriate statement in connection with the interview of former Bureau of Corrections Director General Gerald Bantag by three bloggers.
The government official has earned an unsavory and embarrassing reputation of being an investigator, prosecutor, and judge rolled into one for publicly adjudging guilt to criminal suspects even without the benefit of trial before a competent court, let alone a preliminary investigation.
Apparently, such public discourse was, as he is wont, to call attention to himself and be consistent with his history of transgressing the rights of citizens suspected of committing a crime or charged with its commission in violation of the Constitution.
In that press conference, he pompously declared that the three bloggers, whom he did not identify, who interviewed Gerald Bantag, would be charged with contempt of court.
Bantag is facing charges of murder for the death of a radio commentator, Percival Mabasa, known as Percy Lapid, before the Las Piñas City Regional Trial Court, which had issued a warrant for his arrest.
Bantag is also charged with the murder of Cristito Villamor Palana, a detainee at the New Bikibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City. Palana allegedly was the middleman in the killing of Mabasa. The Muntinlupa court also issued an arrest order for Bantag.
The said DoJ boss, in the press briefing, said: "Binabastos nila ang korte. They have shown disrespect to the courts. May court order na for his arrest (There is already a court order for the arrest of Bantag). Ngayon po ay aming pinaghahandaan ng complaint ang mga bloggers na nag interview na nag interview sa kaniya for contempt of court (we are now preparing the complaint for contempt against these bloggers who interviewed Bantag)."
What contemptuous act, directly or indirectly against the court that issued the arrest order, did the bloggers commit to be charged with contempt of court?
Did they misbehave in the presence of or so near the court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before it? What was in the interview that could be deemed disrespectful towards the court? Was the interview offensive toward other personalities?
The provision of Section 1 of the Rules of Court is clear as to who may be guilty of direct contempt of court, and the act done by the bloggers in interviewing Bantag cannot, by any stretch, be considered contemptuous, to wit :
"SECTION 1. Direct contempt is punished summarily. — A person guilty of misbehaviors in the presence or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court and offensive personalities toward others xxxx may be summarily adjudged in contempt of court by such court xxxx."
The interview was circuited online and watched and touched upon by no less than the official heading the DoJ and could be reasonably assumed to have reached the ears of the court. There is presently no summary citation of direct contempt of court against the bloggers who conducted the interview, understandably so, because the interview does not fall under Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as quoted above.
What about indirect contempt of court? Did the bloggers, in interviewing Bantag, commit acts punishable by indirect contempt of court? The answer is in the negative.
The bloggers are not officers of the court and, therefore, cannot be said to be misbehaving in the performance of official duties.
Neither did the bloggers disobey or resist the warrant of arrest issued against Bantag. Nor is there a showing that the bloggers abused or interfered with the court order or process.
Was the interview an improper conduct that directly or indirectly impeded, obstructed, or degraded the administration of justice? Certainly not!
A simple reading of the provision of Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court will undoubtedly show that the bloggers have not committed any act that could be grounds for a charge of indirect contempt.
The man at the helm of the justice department and his prosecutors should thoroughly study the law on contempt before they embark on a venture that will display their ignorance and waste taxpayers' money on useless undertakings.
