THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
First Regular Session 
SENATE 
S. No. 
INTRODUCED BY HON. MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR. 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
In the case of Nestle 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, including the press and other 
media should interfere by publication or public clamor with the court’s 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 infrequently, 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 impairment of the latter. In Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 362-363, the U.S. 
Supreme Court noted that “there is nothing that prescribes the press from reporting events that 
transpire in the courtroom.” This is just like saying that once 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 the 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 judice 
rule 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 rule must be 
acknowledged by Philippine courts as an impermissible incursion on the salutary constitutional 
precept that discussion of public affairs in a free society cannot depend on the preliminary grace 
of judicial censors. 


In view of foregoing, elimination of the sub judice rule is earnestly sought in this Bill. 


1 
z 
‘b 
SENATE 
’ 
.*ir’ 
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
First Regular Session 
SENATE 
S. No. 
7 8  9 
TNTRODUCED BY HON. MANUEL B. VILLAR JR. 
THE JUDICIAL RIGHT TO KNOW ACT 
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress 
assem bled: 
SECTION 1. Title. This Act shall be known as the Judicial Right to Know Act. 
SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy. Conformably with the constitutional guarantees of free 
press and of the people’s right to petition and to information on matters of public concern, it is 
hereby declared a national policy that no court order, writ or injunction shall issue that would 
have the effect of enjoining the press and other media fi-om publishing information in connection 
with a criminal, civil, or administrative case of widespread concern to the community. 
SECTION 3. Gag Orders Generally Unlawful; Exception. Court orders, writs, or injunctions 
which prohibit media reports and commentaries on, or publication of, proceedings held in public 
or on events that transpire in the courtroom shall be invalid. In cases where the report, 
commentary, or publication is based on information gained from other sources, i.e., based on 
events that did not transpire in the courtroom or in a public hearing, a gag order may lawfblly 
issue only upon prior showing by the party who seeks its issuance that the report, commentary, or 
publication will likely prevent, directly and irreparably, a fair and impartial resolution of the case. 
This requires a clear showing that the report, commentary or publication will prejudice the 
outcome of the proceedings of the case and that no less restrictive alternatives are available. 
Notwithstanding such a showing, a gag order, writ or injunction may not issue, unless it is also 
shown that a previous report, commentary, or publication will not render the order, writ or 
injunction inefficacious. 
SECTION 4. Repealing Clause. All laws, rules and regulations inconsistent with this Act are 
hereby repealed or modified accordingly. 
SECTION 5. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from the date of the 
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
Approved,