Community journalist found guilty of indirect contempt

CMFR/Philippines – A local publisher-editor was found guilty Jan. 18, 2013 of an  indirect contempt charge initiated by the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes.

The accuser, Executive judge Lelu Contreras, herself found Island Sandigan publisher-editor Carmelo “Mel” Rima  guilty and fined him P30,000 (approximately USD739).

Rima had spent three nights at the local police camp on the orders of Judge  Contreras while waiting for the 17 January 2013 hearing and  18 January 2013 promulgation of the indirect contempt charge. The promulgation was delayed a day after the hearing on Rima’s request.

The indirect contempt charge stemmed from a 7 to 13 January editorial article which criticized those involved in the controversial naturalization of the incumbent governor.  (read here: http://www.cmfr-phil.org/2013/01/17/journalist-accused-of-indirect-contempt-jailed-prior-to-hearing/)

In an interview with Rima’s colleague Ramil Soliveres, who attended the hearing, CMFR learned that  Rima had to defend himself in court last 17 January 2013 after a lawyer from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) withdrew, saying that Rima might not want his services as the journalist also criticized PAO in the same article.

Soliveres told CMFR that Rima asked for additional time to find a lawyer, but that the judge denied his request. Judge Contreras allegedly told Rima that he could defend himself.

When a private lawyer arrived, the judge tried to assign him as Rima’s ex-officio lawyer. Unfortunately, Soliveres said the private attorney had to withdraw as he was allegedly related to Governor Joseph Cua, about whose naturalization the article discussed.

Earlier that day, Rima had posted a P20,000 (USD493) bond. Judge Contreras, however, did not sign a release order, saying that the hearing would be  in the afternoon anyway.

Before the promulgation, Rima had submitted a letter of apology  to the court last 18 January 2013. Soliveres believed that Rima’s decision to apologize was primarily due to his health condition. “He knows he cannot survive in jail,” Soliveres said.

Below is the judge’s reply.

“I cannot post a comment since I’m not logged in. I just want to thank you for the news item that you wrote about the indirect contempt case against Carmelo Rima. Let me disclose to you that, after I received the letter of Rima that was delivered to my place at 6:30 early morning of Jan. 18, two (2) hours before the promulgation of judgment, I had to modify the decision which I had already drafted. His admission to his wrongdoings has mitigated his liability and, considering his apology and physical condition, I only imposed a fine instead of the original penalty of imprisonment AND fine.

I disagree with the reasons allegedly given by some practising lawyers when they refused to represent Rima. My decisions are based on evidence and not on the parties and/or counsels. I do not even remember the names of the counsels whenever I render my decision.

When a person is ordered to show cause why he/she should not be cited in contempt, either he/she explains in writing or verbally. In the case of Rima, I set the case for hearing for him to explain in open court and under oath. The proceeding is summary in nature. Rima was represented by a PAO lawyer. However, after they conferred with each other, the PAO lawyer manifested that Rima wanted to secure the services of a lawyer. But, when I asked him if he understood the Order that I have issued, he answered in the affirmative. Then, I asked him if he could explain by himself without need of a lawyer, again he answered in the affirmative. So, he proceeded to give his
explanation of the statements subject of the case. It was only when I asked him for the address of the author of the column where said statements appeared that Rima answered that he needed a lawyer. Fortunately, a practising lawyer entered the courtroom, so I designated him as counsel de oficio, only that he begged off as there exists a conflict of interest since he is the brother-in-law of the governor whose naturalization is the subject of the article. I did not insist in getting the address of said columnist and I asked Rima if he still wanted to add to the explanation which he gave earlier BEFORE he manifested his wish to get a lawyer. He answered that he had nothing more to add, so he was asked to step down the witness stand.

I hope you would post this comment to clear up matters relative to the proceedings. Thank you!

Judge Lelu P. Contreras