No.
First of all, there is really no such thing as a “sub judice rule” in the Philippines. We are only borrowing that loosely-interpreted practice from countries like the US which use the jury system of trial. To them it IS a rule. For us it’s “monkey see, monkey do.”
Otherwise, if you read the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedures (our “Rules of Court”) you won’t find any “sub judice rule.”
In a jury system of trial, the court appoints a panel of jurors (common law “judges”) who sit as a specially-deputized commission working under the direct supervision of a regular judge. The two parties—plaintiff (the one complaining) and defendant (the one who got sued)—present their evidence and arguments before this jury, observing all the rules of trial under the watchful eye of the judge.
This jury is called a “jury of peers” because they represent, roughly, the same demographic as the defendant—or as close to it as possible. If the defendant is a minority black woman who is an unmarried single mother working as a receptionist in a bar, for example, you don’t want someone in the jury who is a white female executive who goes to church every Sunday. If you’re the defense lawyer, you would be prudent to assume that she would be a “holier than thou” juror who is likely to have a dim view of the defendant.
To make sure that the jury is composed of people approximating the circumstances of the defendant, they go through a jury selection process where both counsels may either approve a jury nominee or object against one—called a “peremptory challenge.”
The jury nominees are usually drawn from the list of registered voters in that place, ensuring that they would reflect the cultural standard of the local society.
Because of the stringent selection process, you always end up mostly with a jury of people with no legal training. That’s okay, they don’t need to know the law so much. All they have to do is determine for themselves, using their own personal standards, if they’d rather believe the plaintiff or the defendant.
This means in a criminal case, all they have to pronounce is whether they find the accused guilty or not guilty. In a civil case, it’s either they find “for the defendant” or “against the defendant.” That’s it. Just black or white.
It is up to the judge to do the rest. If an accused is found guilty, the judge determines the sentence—the length of time in jail. In some civil cases, as where a “grand jury” in involved, the jury may also decide to award damages, often in the tens or even hundreds of millions. In this case, the judge can either sustain or “temper” the award of damages—meaning he can agree with the jury, or lessen the amount. He cannot increase it.
A lot of hanky panky can happen with a jury, especially with one poised to award a huge amount of damages. So often a jury is “sequestered”—confined in a hotel and prohibited from watching the news or reading the papers or otherwise communicating with people outside. This is to keep their objectivity pure and uninfluenced by mob opinion.
But you can only insulate a jury so much. Some “marites” is going to get to them somehow. So the more practical rule is to prohibit the PARTIES themselves from discussing the merits of their case with anyone outside of the court. No talk, no transmission. The public cannot start yakking their heads off if the lawyers don’t share information.
What they’re trying to avoid is some really persuasive person being able to influence the NON-LAWYER jurors one way or the other. They’re not worried that the judge might be swayed. No, the judge IS a lawyer. He knows better.
When the judge adjourns the hearing (called a “continuance”) before he bangs the gavel he says, “This hearing is adjourned, counsels are advised ‘ex parte comm’ is in place.”
This is how the judge announces that the sub judice rule must be observed. Ex parte communication prohibition means neither party can discuss anything about the case without the presence of the other party.
So, in fact, EVEN with the sub judice rule in place, the parties can STILL talk about the case outside of the court so long as they are both present at the same time to refute each other. What is abhorred is one party grandstanding unopposed, while the matter is still being heard in court—or while it is “sub judice” meaning “under judicial consideration.”
Here in the Philippines, it is WRONGLY assumed that the “sub judice” rule is meant to prevent the judge from being influenced. How stupid is that? It is the job of the judge TO BE INFLUENCED so he can render his decision. He cannot sit on the fence the whole time. He needs to formulate his opinion and the only way he can do that is to allow himself to be influenced by the parties advancing the MERITS of their own arguments.
The judge can listen to the parties in open court, in chamber or even anywhere—including OUTSIDE the court. I have traded arguments with a pañero in front of a judge in the middle of a farm during an ocular inspection. What matters is that while I am talking, my opponent can refute what I am saying and vice versa.
On the other hand, if a corrupt judge meets with ONLY ONE of the parties in a secluded place to discuss the merits of the case giving that ONE PARTY ONLY the unchallenged advantage, then it’s happening at the behest of that judge and no “sub judice rule” is going to make any difference, believe me.
Sometimes, in the absence of a true sub judice rule a Philippine judge may issue a “gag order” to make the parties shut up. That comes under the omnibus (all-inclusive) power of a judge to issue ANY ORDER to aid in the dispensation of justice, or for a more orderly conduct of proceedings. It doesn’t always have to be in the rule books. Many Baguio judges prohibit the use of cellphones in court—God bless them!—and impose fines as high as P1,000 for some really recalcitrant violators (in all Makati courts). That’s NOT in the rules but it’s perfectly valid.
But is the “gag order” intended to prohibit public discussion, especially of a matter affecting public interest?
Of course not. Like I said, a “gag order” affects only the parties (particularly their loudmouthed lawyers). But maybe I should quality a little bit here.
In a criminal case, everybody in the whole country ARE PARTIES—including you, even if you don’t know it. That’s because the plaintiff in a criminal case is “People of the Philippines.” Each one of us is a particle in that aggrupation called "People of the Philippines" so the court has jurisdiction over all of us.
But in a civil case, there are only two parties (in general, there are multiparty cases, of course) but NOT everyone in the whole country is affected.
A court can only order those people over whom it has jurisdiction. In a criminal case, you have to be more careful. Any court can issue an order affecting anyone—by subpoena it can require the presence of anyone, or the production of any record and other relevant evidence.
But in civil cases, no court can muzzle the whole country—meaning people over whom the court has NOT acquired jurisdiction. And no court has, tried, so far.
For example, if you are not part of any of the civil cases involving BENECO—neither as plaintiff or defendant, petitioner or respondent—can you talk about the BENECO cases? Absolutely. Can the court find you in contempt? Absolutely NOT.
This is the essence of being in a FREE COUNTRY.
Then why are some lawyers so quick to say, “You cannot talk about that. That is sub judice!” Is it possible that lawyer does NOT understand the concept of sub judice? Absolutely.
To put a finer point to it, if I were a judge and I did NOT issue a gag order, and then I heard one of the lawyers saying “you cannot talk about that, that is sub judice” I will summon that lawyer to explain. “Counsel, why did you IMPLY that I could be influenced by loose talk?” and if she cannot explain, I would cite HER in contempt for maligning the integrity of the court.*
No comments:
Post a Comment