Zaldivar v.

Sandiganbayan
170 SCRA 1
G.R. No. 79690-707
February 1, 1989

Facts: The case stemmed from the resolution of the Supreme Court stopping the respondent
from investigating graft cases involving Antique Gov. Enrique Zaldivar. The Court ruled that
since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, respondent’s powers as Tanodbayan have been
superseded by the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman, he however becomes the Special
Prosecutor of the State, and can only conduct an investigation and file cases only when so
authorized by the Ombudsman. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the respondent
wherein he included statements which were unrelated in the issue raised in the Court. This
include: (a) That he had been approached twice by a leading member of the court and he was
asked to 'go slow on Zaldivar and 'not to be too hard on him; (b) That he "was approached and
asked to refrain from investigating the COA report on illegal disbursements in the Supreme
Court because 'it will embarass the Court;" and (c) that in several instances, the undersigned
respondent was called over the phone by a leading member of the Court and was asked to
dismiss the cases against two Members of the Court." Statements of the respondent saying
that the SC’s order '"heightens the people's apprehension over the justice system in this
country, especially because the people have been thinking that only the small fly can get it
while big fishes go scot-free” was publicized in leading newspapers.

Now, the Court Resolved to require respondent to explain in writing why he should not be
punished for contempt of court for making such public statements reported in the media.
Respondent then sought to get some members of the Court to inhibit themselves in the
resolution of the Zaldivar case for alleged bias and prejudice against him. A little later, he in
effect asked the whole Court to inhibit itself from passing upon the Issue involved in
proceeding and to pass on responsibility for this matter to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, upon the ground that respondent cannot expect due process from this Court, that
the Court has become incapable of judging him impartially and fairly. The Court found
respondent guilty of contempt of court and indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Now, he assails said conviction, invoking his freedom of speech. Counsel for respondent urges
that it is error "for this Court to apply the "visible tendency" rule rather than the "clear and
present danger" rule in disciplinary and contempt charges."

Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of the freedom of speech/expression.

Held:
There was no violation. The Court did not purport to announce a new doctrine of "visible
tendency," it was simply paraphrasing Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court
which penalizes a variety of contumacious conduct including: "any improper conduct tending,
directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice."

Under either the "clear and present danger" test or the "balancing-of-interest test," the Court
held that the statements made by respondent Gonzalez are of such a nature and were made in
such a manner and under such circumstances, as to transcend the permissible limits of free
speech. What is here at stake is the authority of the Supreme Court to confront and prevent a
"substantive evil" consisting not only of the obstruction of a free and fair hearing of a particular
case but also the avoidance of the broader evil of the degradation of the judicial system of a
country and the destruction of the standards of professional conduct required from members
of the bar and officers of the courts, which has some implications to the society.