consti 2 freedom of expression

8/10/2019 consti 2 freedom of expression

1/31

G.R. No. 168338 February 15, 2008

FRANCISCO CHAVEZ, petitioner,

vs.

RAU !. GONZAES, "# $"% &a'a&"(y a% ($e Se&re(ary o) ($e

*e'ar(+e#( o) u%("&e- a# NA/IONA /EECO!!UNICA/IONS

CO!!ISSION N/C,respondents.

SEARA/E CONCURRING OINION

CARIO, J.

/$e Ca%e

This is a petition for the writs of certiorari and prohibition to set aside

"acts, issuances, and orders" of respondents Secretary of Justice Raul M.

Gonzalez (respondent Gonzales and the !ational Telecounications

#oission (!T#, particularly an !T# "press release" dated $$ June%&&', warnin radio and television stations aainst airin taped

conversations alleedly between )resident Gloria Macapaal*+rroyo and

#oission on lections (#-M# #oissioner /irilio Garcillano

(Garcillano$under pain of suspension or revocation of their airwave

licenses.

/$e Fa&(%

-n %0 June %&&0, #onress, actin as national board of canvassers,

proclaied )resident +rroyo winner in the %&&0 presidentialelections.%)resident +rroyo received a total of $%,1&',2&2 votes,

$,$%3,'45 ore than the votes of her nearest rival, 6ernando )oe, Jr.

Soetie before 5 June %&&', the radio station dzMM aired the Garci

Tapes where the parties to the conversation discussed "riin" the

results of the %&&0 elections to favor )resident +rroyo. -n 5 June %&&',

)residential spo7esperson 8nacio 9unye (9unye held a press

conference in Malaca:an )alace, where he played before the

presidential press corps two copact disc recordins of conversations

between a woan and a an. 9unye identified the woan in both

recordins as )resident +rroyo but claied that the contents of the

second copact disc had been "spliced" to a7e it appear that )resident

+rroyo was tal7in to Garcillano.

;owever, on 1 June %&&', 9unye bac7trac7ed and stated that the

woaniretappin aw.

-n $$ June %&&', the !T# issued a press release warnin radio and

television stations that airin the Garci Tapes is a "cause for the

suspension, revocation and?or cancellation of the licenses or

authorizations" issued to the.'-n $0 June %&&', !T# officers et with

officers of the broadcasters roup, Kapisanan ng mga Broadcasters sa

Pilipinas(@9), to dispel fears of censorship. The !T# and @9) issued a

Aoint press stateent eBpressin coitent to press freedo.5

-n %$ June %&&', petitioner 6rancisco 8. #havez (petitioner, as citizen,

filed this petition to nullify the "acts, issuances, and orders" of the !T#

and respondent Gonzalez (respondents on the followin roundsC ($

respondents= conduct violated freedo of eBpression and the riht of the

people to inforation on atters of public concern under Section 4,

+rticle 888 of the #onstitution, and (% the !T# acted ultra vires when it

warned radio and television stations aainst airin the Garci Tapes.

8n their #oent to the petition, respondents raised threshold obAectionsthat ($ petitioner has no standin to litiate and (% the petition fails to

eet the case or controversy reDuireent in constitutional adAudication.

-n the erits, respondents clai that ($ the !T#


2/31

8n his Reply, petitioner belied respondents< clai on his lac7 of standin

to litiate, contendin that his status as a citizen assertin the

enforceent of a public riht vested hi with sufficient interest to

aintain this suit. )etitioner also contests respondents< clai that the

!T# press release of $$ June %&&' is a ere warnin as it already

preAuded the Garci Tapes as inauthentic and violative of the +nti*

>iretappin aw, a7in it a "cleverly disuised B B B a order."

ISSUE

The principal issue for resolution is whether the !T# warnin ebodied

in the press release of $$ June %&&' constitutes an iperissible prior

restraint on freedo of eBpression.

8 vote to ($ rant the petition, (% declare the !T# warnin, ebodied in

its press release dated $$ June %&&', an unconstitutional prior restraint

on protected eBpression, and (3 enAoin the !T# fro enforcin the

sae.

$. Standin to 6ile )etition

)etitioner has standin to file this petition. >hen the issue involves

freedo of eBpression, as in the present case, any citizen has the riht to

brin suit to Duestion the constitutionality of a overnent action in

violation of freedo of eBpression, whether or not the overnent action

is directed at such citizen. The overnent action ay chill into silence

those to who the action is directed. +ny citizen ust be allowed to ta7e

up the cudels for those who have been cowed into inaction becausefreedo of eBpression is a vital public riht that ust be defended by

everyone and anyone.

6reedo of eBpression, bein fundaental to the preservation of a free,

open and deocratic society, is oftranscendental importancethat ust

be defended by every patriotic citizen at the earliest opportunity. >e have

held that any concerned citizen has standin to raise an issue

of transcendental importance to the nation,4and petitioner in this present

petition raises such issue.

%. -verview of 6reedo of Bpression, )rior Restraint and SubseDuent

)unishent

6reedo of eBpression is the foundation of a free, open and deocratic

society. 6reedo of eBpression is an indispensable condition2to the

eBercise of alost all other civil and political rihts. !o society can

reain free, open and deocratic without freedo of eBpression.

6reedo of eBpression uarantees full, spirited, and even contentiousdiscussion of all social, econoic and political issues. To survive, a free

and deocratic society ust zealously safeuard freedo of eBpression.

6reedo of eBpression allows citizens to eBpose and chec7 abuses of

public officials. 6reedo of eBpression allows citizens to a7e infored

choices of candidates for public office. 6reedo of eBpression crystallizes

iportant public policy issues, and allows citizens to participate in the

discussion and resolution of such issues. 6reedo of eBpression allows

the copetition of ideas, the clash of clais and counterclais, fro

which the truth will li7ely eere. 6reedo of eBpression allows theairin of social rievances, itiatin sudden eruptions of violence fro

arinalized roups who otherwise would not be heard by overnent.

6reedo of eBpression provides a civilized way of enaeent aon

political, ideoloical, reliious or ethnic opponents for if one cannot use

his tonue to arue, he iht use his fist instead.

6reedo of eBpression is the freedo to disseinate ideas and beliefs,

whether copetin, conforin or otherwise. 8t is the freedo to eBpress

to others what one li7es or disli7es, as it is the freedo of others to

eBpress to one and all what they favor or disfavor. 8t is the freeeBpression for the ideas we love, as well as the free eBpression for the

ideas we hate.18ndeed, the function of freedo of eBpression is to stir

disputesC

E8Ft ay indeed best serve its hih purpose when it induces a

condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they

are, or even stirs people to aner. Speech is often provocative

and challenin. 8t ay stri7e at preAudices and preconceptions

and have profound unsettlin effects as it presses for acceptance

of an idea.$&
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt10


3/31

Section 0, +rticle 888 of the #onstitution prohibits the enactent of any law

curtailin freedo of eBpressionC

!o law shall be passed abridin the freedo of speech, of

eBpression, or the press, or the riht of the people peaceably to

asseble and petition the overnent for redress of rievances.

Thus, the rule is that eBpression is not subAect to anyprior restraint orcensorshipbecause the #onstitution coands that freedo of

eBpression shall not be abrided. -ver tie, however, courts have

carved out narrow and well defined eBceptions to this rule out of

necessity.

The eBceptions, when expression may be subject to prior

restraint,apply in this Aurisdiction to only four cateories of eBpression,

naelyC pornoraphy,$$false or isleadin advertiseent,$%advocacy of

iinent lawless action,$3and daner to national security.$0A44 o($er

e're%%"o# "% #o( %ube&( (o 'r"or re%(ra"#(.+s stated in TurnerBroadcasting System v. Federal Communication Commission, "ETFhe 6irst

+endent (6ree Speech #lause, subAect only to narrow and well

understood eBceptions, does not countenance overnental control over

the content of essaes eBpressed by private individuals."$'

Bpression not subAect to prior restraint isprotected expressionor hih*

value eBpression.Any content-based prior restraint on protected

expression is unconstitutional without exception.+ protected

eBpression eans what it says it is absolutely protected fro

censorship. Thus, there can be no prior restraint on public debates on theaendent or repeal of eBistin laws, on the ratification of treaties, on

the iposition of new taB easures, or on proposed aendents to the

#onstitution.

)rior restraint on eBpression is content*based if the restraint is aied at

the essae or idea of the eBpression. #ourts will subAect to strict

scrutiny content*based restraint. 8f the content*based prior restraint is

directed at protected eBpression, courts will stri7e down the restraint as

unconstitutional because there can be no content*based prior restraint on

protected eBpression. The analysis thus turns on whether the prior

restraint is content*based, and if so, whether such restraint is directed at

protected eBpression, that is, those not fallin under any of the

reconized cateories of unprotected eBpression.

8f the prior restraint is not aied at the essae or idea of the

eBpression, it is content*neutral even if it burdens eBpression. + content*

neutral restraint is a restraint which reulates the tie, place or anner

of the eBpression in public places$5without any restraint on the content ofthe eBpression. #ourts will subAect content*neutral restraints to

interediate scrutiny.$4

+n eBaple of a content*neutral restraint is a perit specifyin the date,

tie and route of a rally passin throuh busy public streets. + content*

neutral prior restraint on protected eBpression which does not touch on

the content of the eBpression enAoys the presuption of validity and is

thus enforceable subAect to appeal to the courts.$2#ourts will uphold tie,

place or anner restraints if they are content*neutral, narrowly tailored to

serve a sinificant overnent interest, and leave open aple alternativechannels of eBpression.$1

8n content*neutral prior restraint on protected speech, there should be no

prior restraint on the content of the eBpression itself. Thus, subission of

ovies or pre*taped television proras to a overnent review board is

constitutional only if the review is for classification and not for censorin

any part of the content of the subitted aterials .%&;owever, failure to

subit such aterials to the review board ay be penalized without

reard to the content of the aterials.%$The review board has no power

to reAect the airin of the subitted aterials. The review board=s poweris only to classify the aterials, whether for eneral patronae, for adults

only, or for soe other classification. The power to classify eBpressions

applies only to ovies and pre*taped television proras%%but not to live

television proras. +ny classification of live television proras

necessarily entails prior restraint on eBpression.

Bpression that ay be subAect to prior restraint is unprotected

expressionor low*value eBpression. 9y definition, prior restraint on

unprotected eBpression is content*based%3since the restraint is iposed

because of the content itself. 8n this Aurisdiction, there are currently only
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt23


4/31

four cateories of unprotected eBpression that ay be subAect to prior

restraint. This #ourt reconized false or isleadin advertiseent as

unprotected eBpression only in -ctober %&&4.%0

Only unprotected expression may be subject to prior

restraint.;owever, any such prior restraint on unprotected eBpression

ust hurdle a hih barrier. First,such prior restraint is presued

unconstitutional.Second,the overnent bears a heavy burden ofprovin the constitutionality of the prior restraint.%'

#ourts will subAect to strict scrutiny any overnent action iposin prior

restraint on unprotected eBpression.%5The overnent action will be

sustained if there is a copellin State interest, and prior restraint is

necessary to protect such State interest. 8n such a case, the prior

restraint shall be narrowly drawn* only to the eBtent necessary to

protect or attain the copellin State interest.

)rior restraint is a more severerestriction on freedo of eBpression thansubseDuent punishent. +lthouh subseDuent punishent also deters

eBpression, still the ideas are disseinated to the public. )rior restraint

prevents even the disseination of ideas to the public.

>hile there can be no prior restraint on protected eBpression, such

eBpression ay be subAect to subseDuent punishent,%4either civilly or

criinally. Thus, the publication of election surveys cannot be subAect to

prior restraint,%2but an arieved person can sue for redress of inAury if

the survey turns out to be fabricated. +lso, while +rticle %&$ (%(b(3 of

the Revised )enal #ode punishin "shows which offend any race orreliion" cannot be used to Austify prior restraint on reliious eBpression,

this provision can be invo7ed to Austify subseDuent punishent of the

perpetrator of such offensive shows.%1

Siilarly, if the unprotected eBpression does not warrant prior restraint,

the sae eBpression ay still be subAect to subseDuent punishent,

civilly or criinally. ibel falls under this class of unprotected eBpression.

;owever, if the eBpression cannot be subAect to the lesser restriction of

subseDuent punishent, loically it cannot also be subAect to the ore

severe restriction of prior restraint. Thus, since profane lanuae or "hate

speech" aainst a reliious inority is not subAect to subseDuent

punishent in this Aurisdiction,3&such eBpression cannot be subAect to

prior restraint.

8f the unprotected eBpression warrants prior restraint, necessarily the

sae eBpression is subAect to subseDuent punishent. There ust be a

law punishin criinally the unprotected eBpression before prior restraint

on such eBpression can be Austified. The leislature ust punish theunprotected eBpression because it creates a substantive evil that the

State ust prevent. -therwise, there will be no leal basis for iposin a

prior restraint on such eBpression.

The prevailin test in this Aurisdiction to deterine the constitutionality of

overnent action iposin prior restraint on three cateories of

unprotected eBpression pornoraphy,3$advocacy of iinent lawless

action, and daner to national security * is the clear and present daner

test.3%The eBpression restrained ust present a clear and present

daner of brinin about a substantive evil that the State has a riht andduty to prevent, and such daner ust be rave and iinent. 33

)rior restraint on unprotected eBpression ta7es any fors * it ay be a

law, adinistrative reulation, or iperissible pressures li7e threats of

revo7in licenses or withholdin of benefits.30The iperissible

pressures need not be ebodied in a overnent aency reulation, but

ay eanate fro policies, advisories or conduct of officials of

overnent aencies.

3. Governent +ction in the )resent #ase

The overnent action in the present case is a warning by the !"

that the airing or broadcasting o# the $arci !apes by radio and

television stations is a %cause #or the suspension, revocation and&or

cancellation o# the licenses or authori'ations% issued to radio and

television stations. The !T# warnin, ebodied in a press release, relies

on two rounds. 6irst, the airin of the Garci Tapes "is a continuin

violation of the +nti*>iretappin aw and the conditions of the )rovisional

+uthority and?or #ertificate of +uthority issued to radio and T/ stations."

Second, the Garci Tapes have not been authenticated, and subseDuent
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt34


5/31

investiation ay establish that the tapes contain false inforation or

willful isrepresentation.

Specifically, the !T# press release contains the followin cateorical

warninC

Ta7in into consideration the country=s unusual situation, and in

order not to unnecessarily aravate the sae, the !T# warns allradio stations and television networ7s owners?operators that the

conditions of the authorizations and perits issued to the by

Governent li7e the )rovisional +uthority and?or #ertificate of

+uthority eBplicitly provides that said copanies shall not use its

stations for the broadcastin or telecastin of false inforation or

willful isrepresentation. Relative thereto, it has coe to the

attention of the #oission that certain personalities are in

possession of alleed taped conversation which they clai, (sic

involve the )resident of the )hilippines and a #oissioner of

the #-M# reardin their supposed violation of electionlaws. These personalities have aditted that the taped

conversations are product of illeal wiretappin operations.

#onsiderin that these taped conversations have not been duly

authenticated nor could it be said at this tie that the tapes

contain an accurate or truthful representation of what was

recorded therein, (sic "( "% ($e 'o%"("o# o) ($e Co++"%%"o# ($a(

($e &o#("#uou% a"r"#7 or broa&a%( o) ($e %a" (a'e

&o#er%a("o#% by ra"o a# (e4e"%"o# %(a("o#% "% a

&o#("#u"#7 "o4a("o# o) ($e A#("9:"re(a''"#7 a; a# ($e&o#"("o#% o) ($e ro"%"o#a4 Au($or"(y a#a("o#% "%%ue (o ($e %a"

&o+'a#"e%. (9oldfacin and underscorin supplied

The !T# does not clai that the public airin of the Garci Tapes

constitutes unprotected eBpression that ay be subAect to prior restraint.

The !T# does not specify what substantive evil the State see7s to

prevent in iposin prior restraint on the airin of the Garci Tapes. The

!T# does not clai that the public airin of the Garci Tapes constitutes a

clear and present daner of a substantive evil, of rave and iinent

character, that the State has a riht and duty to prevent.

The !T# did not conduct any hearin in reachin its conclusion that the

airin of the Garci Tapes constitutes a continuin violation of the +nti*

>iretappin aw. +t the tie of issuance of the !T# press release, and

even up to now, the parties to the conversations in the Garci Tapes have

not coplained that the wire*tappin was without their consent, an

essential eleent for violation of the +nti*>iretappin aw. 3'8t was even

the -ffice of the )resident, throuh the )ress Secretary, that played and

released to edia the Garci Tapes containin the alleed "spliced"

conversation between )resident +rroyo and #oissioner Garcillano.

There is also the issue of whether a wirelesscellular phone conversationis covered by the +nti*Wiretappingaw.

#learly, the !T# has no factual or leal basis in claiin that the airin of

the Garci Tapes constitutes a violation of the +nti*>iretappin aw. The

radio and television stations were not even iven an opportunity to be

heard by the !T#. The !T# did not observe basic due process as

andated inAng Tiay v. Court o! "ndustrial #elations.35

The !T# clais that the Garci Tapes, "after a prosecution or the

appropriate investiation," ay constitute "false inforation and?or willfulisrepresentation." ;owever, the !T# does not clai that such possible

false inforation or willful isrepresentation constitutes isleadin

coercial advertiseent. 8n the Hnited States, false or deceptive

coercial speech is cateorized as unprotected eBpression that ay

be subAect to prior restraint. Recently, this #ourt upheld the

constitutionality of Section 5 of the Mil7 #ode reDuirin the subission to

a overnent screenin coittee of advertisin aterials for infant

forula il7 to prevent false or deceptive clais to the public.34There is,

however, no clai here by respondents that the Garci Tapes constitute

false or isleadin coercial advertiseent.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt37


6/31

The !T# concedes that the Garci Tapes have not been authenticated as

accurate or truthful. The !T# also concedes that only "after a

prosecution or appropriate investiation" can it be established that the

Garci Tapes constitute "false inforation and?or willful

isrepresentation." "learly, the !" admits that it does not even

(now i# the $arci !apes contain #alse in#ormation or will#ul

misrepresentation.

0. !ature of )rior Restraint in the )resent #ase

The !T# action restrainin the airin of the Garci Tapes is a content*

based prior restraint because it is directed at the essae of the Garci

Tapes. The !T#=s clai that the Garci Tapes iht contain "false

inforation and?or willful isrepresentation," and thus should not be

publicly aired, is an admissionthat the restraint is content*based.

'. !ature of Bpression in the )resent #ase

The public airin of the Garci Tapes is a 'ro(e&(e e're%%"o#because

it does not fall under any of the four eBistin cateories of unprotected

eBpression reconized in this Aurisdiction. The airin of the Garci Tapes is

essentially a political eBpression because it eBposes that a presidential

candidate had alleedly iproper conversations with a #-M#

#oissioner riht after the close of votin in the last presidential

elections.

-bviously, the content of the Garci Tapes a))e&(% 7rae4y($e %a#&("(y o)

($e ba44o(.)ublic discussion on the sanctity of the ballot is indisputably aprotected eBpression that cannot be subAect to prior restraint. )ublic

discussion on the credibility of the electoral process is one of the hihest

political eBpressions of any electorate, and thus deserves the utost

protection. 8f ever there is a hierarchy of protected eBpressions, political

eBpression would occupy the hihest ran7,32and aon different 7inds of

political eBpression, the subAect of fair and honest elections would be at

the top. 8n any event, public discussion on all political issues should

always reain uninhibited, robust and wide open.

!he rule, which recogni'es no exception, is that there can be no

content-based prior restraint on protected expression. On this

ground alone, the !" press release is unconstitutional. -f course, if

the courts deterine that the subAect atter of a wiretappin, illeal or

not, endaners the security of the State, the public airin of the tape

becoes unprotected eBpression that ay be subAect to prior restraint.

;owever, there is no clai here by respondents that the subAect atter of

the Garci Tapes involves national security and publicly airin the tapeswould endaner the security of the State.31

The alleed violation of the +nti*>iretappin aw is not in itself a round

to ipose a prior restraint on the airin of the Garci Tapes because the

#onstitution eBpressly prohibits the enactent of any law, and that

includes anti*wiretappin laws, curtailin freedo of eBpression.0&The

only eBceptions to this rule are the four reconized cateories of

unprotected eBpression. ;owever, the content of the Garci Tapes does

not fall under any of these cateories of unprotected eBpression.

The airin of the Garci Tapes does not violate the riht to privacy

because the content of the Garci Tapes is a atter of iportant public

concern. The #onstitution uarantees the people=s riht to inforation on

atters of public concern.0$The reedy of any person arieved by the

public airin of the Garci Tapes is to file a coplaint for violation of the

+nti*>iretappin aw a!ter the coission of the crie. SubseDuent

punishent,asent a law!ul de!ense,is the reedy available in case of

violation of the +nti*>iretappin aw.

The present case involves a prior restraint on protected eBpression. )riorrestraint on protected eBpression differs sinificantly fro subseDuent

punishent of protected eBpression. >hile there can be no prior restraint

on protected eBpression, there can be subseDuent punishent for

protected eBpression under libel, tort or other laws. 8n the present case,

the !T# action see7s prior restraint on the airin of the Garci Tapes, not

punishent of personnel of radio and television stations for actual

violation of the +nti*>iretappin aw.

5. -nly the #ourts May 8pose #ontent*9ased )rior Restraint
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt41


7/31

The !T# has no power to ipose content*based prior restraint on

eBpression. The charter of the !T# does not vest !T# with any content*

based censorship power over radio and television stations.

8n the present case, the airin of the Garci Tapes is a protected

eBpression that can never be subAect to prior restraint. ;owever, even

assuin for the sa7e of aruent that the airin of the Garci Tapes

constitutes unprotected eBpression, only the courts have the power toadAudicate on the factual and leal issue of whether the airin of the

Garci Tapes presents a clear and present daner of brinin about a

substantive evil that the State has a riht and duty to prevent, so as to

Austify the prior restraint.

+ny order iposin prior restraint on unprotected expressionreDuires

prior adAudication by the courts on whether the prior restraint is

constitutional. This is a necessary conseDuence fro the presuption of

invalidity of any prior restraint on unprotected eBpression. Hnless ruled by

the courts as a valid prior restraint, overnent aencies cannotipleent outriht such prior restraint because such restraint is

presued unconstitutional at inception.

+s an aency that allocates freDuencies or airwaves, the !T# ay

reulate the bandwidth position, transitter wattae, and location of radio

and television stations, but not the content of the broadcasts. Such

content*neutral prior restraint ay a7e operatin radio and television

stations ore costly. ;owever, such content*neutral restraint does not

restrict the content of the broadcast.

4. Governent 6ailed to -vercoe )resuption of 8nvalidity

+ssuin that the airin of the Garci Tapes constitutes unprotected

eBpression, the !T# action iposin prior restraint on the airin is

presued unconstitutional. The Governent bears a heavy burden to

prove that the !T# action is constitutional. The Governent has failed to

eet this burden.

8n their #oent, respondents did not invo7e any copellin State

interest to ipose prior restraint on the public airin of the Garci Tapes.

The respondents clai that they erely "fairly warned" radio and

television stations to observe the +nti*>iretappin aw and pertinent

!T# circulars on prora standards. Respondents have not eBplained

how and why the observance by radio and television stations of the +nti*

>iretappin aw and pertinent !T# circulars constitutes a copellin

State interest Austifyin prior restraint on the public airin of the Garci

Tapes.

/iolation of the +nti*>iretappin aw, li7e the violation of any criinal

statute, can always be subAect to criinal prosecution a!terthe violation is

coitted. Respondents have not eBplained why there is a need in the

present case to ipose prior restraint Aust to prevent a possible future

violation of the +nti*>iretappin aw. Respondents have not eBplained

how the violation of the +nti*>iretappin aw, or of the pertinent !T#

circulars, can incite iinent lawless behavior or endaner the security

of the State. To allow such restraint is to allow prior restraint on all future

broadcasts that ay possibly violate any of the eBistin criinal statutes.

That would be the dawn of sweepin and endless censorship onbroadcast edia.

2. The !T# >arnin is a #lassic 6or of )rior Restraint

The !T# press release threatenin to suspend or cancel the airwave

perits of radio and television stations constitutes iperissible

pressure aountin to prior restraint on protected eBpression. >hether

the threat is ade in an order, reulation, advisory or press release, the

chillin effect is the saeC the threat freezes radio and television stations

into deafenin silence. Radio and television stations that have investedsubstantial sus in capital eDuipent and ar7et developent suddenly

face suspension or cancellation of their perits. The !T# threat is thus

real and potent.

8n Burgos v. Chie! o! Sta!!,0%this #ourt ruled that the closure of the We

Forumnewspapers under a eneral warrant "is in the nature of a

previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedo of the press

uaranteed under the fundaental law." The !T# warnin to radio and

television stations not to air the Garci Tapes or else their perits will be
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338ac_2008.html#fnt42


8/31

suspended or cancelled has the sae effect a prior restraint on

constitutionally protected eBpression.

8n the recent case of $avid v. %acapagal&Arroyo,03this #ourt declared

unconstitutional overnent threats to close down ass edia

establishents that refused to coply with overnent prescribed

"standards" on news reportin followin the declaration of a State of

!ational erency by )resident +rroyo on %0 6ebruary %&&5. The #ourtdescribed these threats in this annerC

Thereafter, a ;ae o) ;ar#"#7?%@ &a+e )ro+ 7oer#+e#(

o))"&"a4%.)residential #hief of Staff Michael Iefensor was Duoted

as sayin that such raid was "eant to show a


9/31

) *#s+s )Chairperson!

CAR"IO

ORALES! TINGA!

,ELASCO!

-R.! andON. CEASAR G. DY!

/ELICISIO "ERALTA!JJ.*

G. EER! BAGNOS AIO! RACA

/ERNANDE)GARCIA and TE CITYO/ CAUAYAN!

R#sond#n$s. "o3+5a$#

d'

A% 2!

2009

6)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

))))))))))))))))6

D E C I S I O N

TINGA!J.'

W#n#*# $# 8o# o8 5o*#n3#n$ o an: o8 %$s

o%$%a s+;d%*%s%ons ;#as +on $o os# do+s$%8%a$%ons

o88##d 8o $# os+#. In 3an: #s#$s! $# #s#n$

#$%$%ons o88# a $#6$;oo? #6a3# o8 o< $# ons$%$+$%ona

5+aan$## o8 8##do3 o8 s##! #6#ss%on and o8 $# #ss

3a: ;# +na


10/31

a$%+a: #$%$%on#s N#


11/31

D+# $o $%s #8+sa ;: a6%3o $o %ss+# $# =on%n5

#aan#! #$%$%on#s


12/31

Ano$# s#%#s o8 o#sond#n#s #ns+#d ;#$


13/31

#a%n5 +n$%on. On F0 a: 2007! $# Co+$ o8A#as %n CA)G.R. S" No. 2F d#n%#d $# a#a ;:

#$%oa%! a88%3%n5 $# %5$ o8 $# #sond#n$s $o d#n:

#$%$%on#s $#% 3a:os #3%$s. On ;o$ oas%ons!

#$%$%on#s 8%#d o%n%n5

#sond#n$s 8o3 %3#3#n$%n5 $# os+# od#

da$#d a 24! 200H! o o$#


14/31

#6#ss%on o $# #ss.F2/## s## and 8## #ss 3a: ;#

%d#n$%8%#d


15/31

W%$o+$ $a?%n5 %n$o ao+n$ an: #6$#n+a$%n5

%+3s$an#s $a$ 3a: 8a*o $# #sond#n$s!


16/31

o8 s##! #6#ss%on! and $# #ss! s+ a 3#as+# %s

*%$%a$#d ;: a +%s+d#n# d%s$%n5+%s#s

;#$


17/31

%n Isa;#a $a$ a#a $o a*# 8a*o#d#sond#n$ D: and o$# 3#3;#s o8 $# D:o%$%a d:nas$:. I$ %s >+s$ $oo o%n%d#n$a $a$

%$


18/31

A $os# %+3s$an#s #ad +s $o ;#%#*# $a$ $#

s$#s #3o:#d ;: #sond#n$s $o +$%3a$#: s+$ do


19/31

3o$%on 8o a +n$%on


20/31

dated ! "ebruary #$$% issued by respondents against

petitioners&'()*+here was no better e,idence to

substantiate the claim that petitioners faced the li,e

threat of their closure. o#o*#! #sond#n$s %n $#%

Ans


21/31

I$ 3a: ;# o%n$#d o+$ $a$ $# a%a$%on 8o

#%3%na: 3anda$o: %n>+n$%on a8$# #$%$%on#s ad%o

s$a$%ons ad ;##n os#d


22/31

$# #6#%s# o8 $%s o


23/31

#+%#d ;: $%s #*#n+# od# and o$#3+n%%a $a6 od%nan#s.

An: 8as# s$a$#3#n$ d#%;#a$#: 3ad# ;:$# a%an$ sa ons$%$+$# s+88%%#n$ 5o+nd 8od#n:%n5 o #*o?%n5 $# #3%$ %ss+#d ;: $#

a:o! and $# a%an$ o %#ns## 3a: 8+$#;# os#+$#d %n aodan#


24/31

$# o#$: 8o3 s+;d%*%s%ons! ondo3%n%+3s o #s$a$# d#*#o3#n$ o>#$s

%n+d%n5 %nd+s$%a #s$a$#s! o8 ;o$ $# +;% and %*a$#

s#$os.J@In #6#%s%n5 s+ o


25/31

a$s and 3%s$a?#s o8 %$s o88%%as #s#%a: $os#


26/31

o# a%a$%onQ an a+$o%=# $# #ass%8%a$%on o

on*#s%on o8 $# +s# o8 $# and 8o3 a5%+$+a $o

#s%d#n$%a! o33#%a o %nd+s$%a.J T# %$a$%on %s

3%s#ad%n5. S#$%on 4 o8 $# sa3# a< o*%d#s 8o $# so#

o8 $# a5a%an #8o3 o5a3 +nd# $# CARL as o*#%n5

a +;% and %*a$# a5%+$+a ands! as o*%d#d %n"oa3a$%on No. 1F1 and E6#+$%*# Od# No. 229!

%n+d%n5 o$# ands o8 $# +;% do3a%n s+%$a;# 8o

a5%+$+#.J7S#$%on F d#8%n#s a5%+$+a ands as

and d#*o$#d $o a5%+$+a a$%*%$: as d#8%n#d %n $%s A$

and no$ ass%8%#d as 3%n#a! 8o#s$! #s%d#n$%a! o33#%a

o %nd+s$%a and.J79O;*%o+s:! %8 $# o#$: ad a#ad:

;##n ass%8%#d as o33#%a and a$ $# $%3# o8 $#

#na$3#n$ o8 $# CARL! %$ do#s no$ 8a


27/31

%n 2001! ass+3%n5 %$s #*#s%on $o $# a5%+$+a=on# no< $a6#s o5%. In an: as#! s+ a d+;%o+sass+3$%on an 8%nd no s+o$ %n an: +#n$

and +s# an 8o Ca+a:an ao*#d ;: $#Na$%ona Eono3% D#*#o3#n$ A+$o%$:.0

"#$%$%on#s %$a$%on o8 $%s Od# as ;##n *%%o+s:

a$$a?#d ;: #sond#n$s! #$andod%n5s #3o*a 8o3 $# a5%+$+a =on#

3os$ +5#n$ and! $+s %33#d%a$# a$%on on $#as# %3#a$%*#.

To $# #6$#n$ $a$ #5%$%3a$# so%a %n$##s$

a# +nn##ssa%: #>+d%#d o$#


28/31

$# on#$# +s$%#ad3%n%s$a$%on and 5ood 5o*#nan# a# no$

+nd+: sa%8%#d. T+s! %$ %s %n+3;#n$ +on $#D#a$3#n$ o8 A5a%an R#8o3! o DAR 8o;#*%$:! $o $a?# %n$o ao+n$ %n d#%s%on)3a?%n5

+%sd%$%on %n %n#


29/31


30/31

#n>o:3#n$ o8 a %5$ o o88%# $o


31/31

8o $#3#a$# da3a5#s. W# d##3 $# a3o+n$ o8 "4

%%on #asona;# +nd# $# %+3s$an#s.J9

E6#3a: da3a5#s an ;# a

consti 2 freedom of expression

Documents

Transcript of consti 2 freedom of expression