ABS CBN Corporation v Ampatuan
GR. No. 227004
April 2023
Facts:
ABS-CBN Corporation and Jorge Cariño faced a contempt petition for broadeasting an interview
with a key witness in a high-profile massacre case.
The massacre occurred on November 23, 2009, resulting in the death of at least 57 people.
Criminal cases for murder were filed against 197 persons, including Andal Ampatuan, Jr.
On June 23, 2010, ABS-CBN reporter Jorge Cariño interviewed Lakmodin "Laks" Saliao, a witness
to the planning of the massacre, which was aired on TV Patrol World.
Andal Ampatuan, Jr. filed a petition for indirect contempt against Saliao, ABS-CBN, and Cariño.
Claiming that the interview interfered with court proceedings and violated the sub judice rule.
Issues:
W/N ABS-CBN Corporation and Jeorge Carinio violates the sub judice rule and boundaries of free
speech in judicial proceedings.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ABS-CBN and Cariño.
The Court held that the interview with Saliao was a matter of public interest and fell within the
media's right to give legitimate publicity.
However, the duty to inform the public must be balanced with the court's interest in the
administration of justice as embodied in the sub judice rule.
The qualified privilege of a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding does not extend to a
media interview of a potential witness regarding their personal knowledge.
The Court emphasized the importance of judicial independence and the need to protect the
integrity of the courts.
ABS-CBN and Cariño filed a petition for review on centiorari before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted the petition and emphasized the importance of balancing the
public’s right to information and the court’s interest in the administration of justice.
The Court recognized the need to clarify the limits of speech in the judicial proceedings and
harmonize the rules on subsequent punishments of indirect contempt.
The Court also acknowledge the rise of disinformation and the need to protect the independence and
integrity of the judiciary.
