Insiders as sources for unofficial Supreme Court decisions (UPDATED)

Photo by Lito Ocampo

JEERS TO the Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, Interaksyon.com, and The Manila Times for reporting on yet to be released — hence, unofficial — Supreme Court (SC) decisions and for using anonymous sources in these reports without a journalistically compelling reason.

Both the Inquirer (“SC ruling win-win for Binay, Morales“) and the Star (“SC reverses Ombudsman suspension of Junjun“) published front-page stories on November 11 claiming that SC had decided to prospectively “abandon the condonation doctrine” — absolving from administrative offenses re-elected public officials committed in their previous terms — in effect making suspended Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr. the last to benefit from the doctrine. Binay had invoked the condonation doctrine in assailing Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales’s order for his preventive suspension over the alleged anomaly in the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building II. Interaksyon.com also reported on the still unannounced decision earlier, on November 10 (“Supreme Court rules to do away with ‘Aguinaldo’ condonation doctrine“).

All three reports also said that the official SC decision had not yet been officially released and that they obtained the information from “court sources” and “court insiders.” The SC announced the ruling only in the afternoon of November 11.

The decision on the condonation doctrine was apparently leaked to the three media outlets almost at the same time. While leaks are not unusual in journalism (indeed, in the right circumstance, might be justified), the media need to take care about prematurely reporting a ruling before its promulgation, because only then is it binding.

As this involves the son of a long-declared presidential candidate, the early publication could set a tone to the coverage that follows that could be advantageous to a candidate. Such haste on the part of the media allows this kind of political manipulation. There seems little value to getting this kind of a scoop.

Meanwhile, in its November 9 banner story “Supreme Court to declare: EDCA constitutional”, The Manila Times cited “unimpeachable sources” who it said had revealed that an 82-page draft decision that Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno wrote had been circulated among the 14 other justices. The draft supposedly upholds the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and the United States. In the draft decision, Sereno allegedly said that the EDCA is “not constitutionally infirm” and that President Benigno Aquino III has the authority to sign agreements related to foreign affairs and national security.

SC was expected to decide on the legality of EDCA on November 10 but moved its en banc sessions to November 16.

The SC decisions are not in force until they are promulgated by the court. The text of the draft decision can be changed and edited as it goes through the process of getting the justices to sign on. The promulgation process, which ends with the SC clerk of our stamping it and signing it, then officially released to the public by the court administrator.

Releasing a draft decision to the press, in other words, can be interpreted as an attempt to influence the public about an impending decision or even the court itself, especially if the source who leaked it puts a spin to it, as is often the case.

As in the use of anonymous sources, the press should have a compelling reason to use what they say in a report, among them, public interest, as when a story has utmost relevance to the public welfare and the only way to tell it is through an anonymous source.