THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC) 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
) 
. ., 
.. 
!i- 27 ;> r, :'jG 
c 
First Regular Session 
1 
i .  
151 
SENATE 
S.B. No. 
- 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
In the case ofNestle Philippines vs. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542 (1987), the Supreme 
Court pronounced the sub judice rule anew. The rule means that when a legal matter or 
controversy has come under the jurisdiction of a court (sub judice), nobody, inch 
press and other media should interfere by publication or public clamor with 
proper handling of the proceeding. 
The sub judice rule is a foreign legal concept. It originated in countries whose 
justice system have adopted trial by jury, such as the United States. 
There is no trial by jury in the Philippines. Yet, not too frequently, Philippine 
courts invoke the sub judice rule to prohibit the press and other media from reporting, 
commenting on, or publishing events surrounding a trial. This is notwithstanding the 
palpable absence of a panel of jurors which need to be impaneled and sequestered from 
widespread publicity surrounding a court trial. Thus, through long and unfettered court 
practice, the sub judice rule has endeared itself as a reasonable restriction on the 
constitutional guarantees of free press and of the people's right to petition and 
information on matters of public concern. 
In the United States, the sub judice rule also used to be seen as a reasonable 
restriction on the freedom of the press. Today, however, most U.S. Supreme Court 
decisions regard it as an unconstitutional impairhent of the latter. In Sheppard v. 
I ,  


Maxwell, 384 US, 362-363, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that: “there is nothing that 
proscribes the press from reporting events that transpire in the courtroom.” This is just 
like saying that once a public hearing had been held, what transpired there could not be 
subject to prior restraint. 
That trend in America is decidedly a welcome improvement on the sub judice 
rule. It affirms and supports that idea that a people’s liberty depends on the freedom of 
the press which cannot be limited without being lost. Now, if Philippine courts have 
transplanted 
- -  
the sub-jndice mle into local jurisprudence, perhaps then, it is also high time 
that they improve on it. The constitutional guarantees of free speech, free press, and right 
to information occupy lofty positions in the Filipino people’s hierarchy of values. Any 
attempt at “freezing” them, which gag orders or other form of prior restraint do, must be 
shown to be necessitated by an interest more substantial than the guarantees themselves. 
Absent such a showing, the sub judice rules must be acknowledged by 
as an impermissible incursion on the salutary constitutional precept 
public affairs in a free society cannot depend on the preliminary grace 
In view of the foregoing, elimination of the sub judice rule is earnestly sought in 
this Bill. 


THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC) 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
1 
"04 ,Jill. 27 p (1 ;Ffi 
First Regular Session 
1 
! c.- 
S E N  A Tj?? 1 
i!!it:FlVED 
BV:.. 
-* 
S.B. No. 
widespread concern to the community. 
SECTION 3. Gag Orders Generally UnlawJi*l; Exception. - 
Court orders,' 
~ 
~~ 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago , 
THE JUDICIAL RIGHT TO KNOW ACT 
Gits 
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in 
Congress assembled: 
SECTION 1. Title. -This 
Act shall be known as the Judicial Right to Know Act. 


previous report, commentary, or publication will not render the order, writ, or inj ction 
r” 
inefficacious. 
I 
SECTION 4. Repealing Clause. - All laws, rules and regulations inconsistent 
with this Act repealed or modified accordingly. 
SECTION 5 .  Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days 
after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
Approved. 
Fn: 283