From Legal Wiki
The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice. A violation of the sub judice rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
A matter is no longer sub judice or "before a court or judge for consideration" when it is already moot and academic. An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a determination of the issue would be without practical use and value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.
The rationale for the sub judice rule
It is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.
- ↑ Romero, et al. vs. Estrada, et al., G.R. No. 174105, 2 April 2009
- ↑ Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing.––After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon x x x and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
- x x x x
- (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.
- ↑ Romero, et al. vs. Estrada, et al., G.R. No. 174105, 2 April 2009, citing S.H. Gifis, Law Dictionary 492 (4th ed., 1996)
- ↑ Romero, et al. vs. Estrada, et al., G.R. No. 174105, 2 April 2009, citing Vda. de Dabao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116526, 23 March 2004, 426 SCRA 91, 97
- ↑ Nestle Philippines vs. Sanchez, G.R. Nos. L-75209 & L-78791, 30 September 1987, 154 SCRA 542, 546, cited in Romero, et al. vs. Estrada, et al., G.R. No. 174105, 2 April 2009