FRANCISCO CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, VS. RAUL M. GONZALES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC), RESPONDENTS.

Francisco Chavez versus Raul Gonzales

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Francisco Chavez against Raul Gonzales, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Justice, and the National Telecommunications Commission. Chavez asked the Supreme Court to nullify the acts, issuances, and orders of the respondents made after the so-called Hello Garci wiretap controversy, on the ground that they violated freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the people's right to information on matters of public concern. The case matters because it is the Court's fullest modern restatement of the hierarchy of speech, the doctrine of prior restraint, and the standard of review for content-based and content-neutral regulations of print and broadcast media.

Procedural History

Chavez filed the petition directly with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, praying for the writs of certiorari and prohibition to annul void proceedings and to prevent what he called the unlawful, unconstitutional, and oppressive exercise of authority by the respondents. There were no prior proceedings in a trial court or in the Court of Appeals. The respondents denied that their acts transgressed the Constitution and questioned Chavez's legal standing to file the petition. The Supreme Court took cognizance of the petition, brushing aside technicalities of procedure because the case involved a challenge to freedom of expression and raised issues of overarching significance to society.

Facts

A year after the 2004 national and local elections, on June 5, 2005, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told reporters that the opposition was planning to destabilize the administration by releasing an audiotape of a mobile phone conversation allegedly between President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a high-ranking official of the Commission on Elections. The conversation was allegedly audiotaped through wiretapping. In a Malacañang press briefing, Secretary Bunye produced two versions of the tape, one supposedly complete and the other a spliced, doctored, or altered version suggesting that the President had instructed the elections official to manipulate the results in her favor. On June 7, 2005, Atty. Alan Paguia released an alleged authentic tape recording of the wiretap, which included purported conversations of the President, the First Gentleman, a Commissioner of the Commission on Elections, and the late Senator Barbers.

On June 8, 2005, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales warned reporters that those who had copies of the compact disc and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act, and that persons possessing or airing the tapes were committing a continuing offense subject to arrest by anybody who had personal knowledge if the crime was committed in their presence. On June 9, 2005, in another press briefing, Secretary Gonzales ordered the National Bureau of Investigation to go after media organizations found to have caused the spread, the playing, and the printing of the contents of the tape, saying he would start with Inq7.net, and declaring that he had asked the National Bureau of Investigation to conduct a tactical interrogation of all concerned.

On June 11, 2005, the National Telecommunications Commission issued a press release giving a fair warning to radio and television owners and operators to observe the Anti-Wiretapping Law and pertinent circulars on program standards, stating that the continuous airing or broadcast of the taped conversations was a continuing violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law and of the conditions of their authorities, and that such broadcast would be just cause for the suspension, revocation, or cancellation of their licenses. On June 14, 2005, the Commission held a dialogue with the Board of Directors of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas and issued a joint press statement saying that it respected freedom of the press and had issued no memorandum circular or order constituting a restraint of press freedom or censorship.

Issues

• Whether or not petitioner Chavez has the legal standing to file the petition.
• Whether or not the acts and statements of the respondents abridged freedom of speech and of the press.
• Whether or not the press release of the National Telecommunications Commission constituted an impermissible prior restraint.
• Whether or not broadcast media enjoy a lesser degree of constitutional protection than print media.

Applicable Provisions

Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

This is the provision whose scope and limits the Court examined in determining whether the respondents' acts amounted to an abridgment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that although Chavez had not met the requisite legal standing, having failed to allege such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues, the transcendental importance to the public of the case demanded that it be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside technicalities of procedure. The Court therefore took cognizance of the petition, seeing as it involved a challenge to the most exalted of all the civil rights, the freedom of expression.

On the second issue, the Court held that the acts of the respondents abridged freedom of speech and of the press. It distilled the essence of free speech, clarified the types of speech and their differing restraints, discussed prior restraint and content-based and content-neutral regulations, and stressed that freedom of expression is not absolute but may be regulated only within constitutional limits.

On the third issue, the Court defined prior restraint as official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination, and held that the National Telecommunications Commission's press release, threatening suspension, revocation, or cancellation of licenses for airing the tapes, operated as a prior restraint and could not stand.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that while all forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression clause, the freedom of film, television, and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to newspapers and other print media, but that this difference does not justify a prior restraint of the kind issued in this case.

Doctrine

Freedom of expression is not absolute, but any attempt to restrict it must be met with an examination so critical that only a danger that is clear and present would be allowed to curtail it. Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination, and it precludes governmental acts that require approval of a proposal to publish, licensing or permits as prerequisites to publication, and even injunctions against publication. All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression clause, although broadcast media enjoy a somewhat lesser scope of freedom than print media. When a governmental act is on its face nothing more than a naked means to prevent the free exercise of speech, it must be nullified.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition and nullified the acts and issuances of the respondents that constituted an impermissible prior restraint on freedom of speech and of the press.

Remember This

Memorize the line that any attempt to restrict freedom of the press must be met with an examination so critical that only a clear and present danger will be allowed to curtail it. Examiners use this case for the hierarchy of speech, the definition of prior restraint, and the distinction between the protection accorded to print media and the somewhat lesser protection accorded to broadcast media.