PRELIM- Media Law MC AdDU (Digested Cases 2)

7/31/2019 PRELIM- Media Law MC AdDU (Digested Cases 2)

1/5

EASTERN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (DYRE)petitioner, vs.THE HON. JOSE P. DANS, JR., MINISTER OFTRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATIONS

Facts: This petition was filed to compel therespondents to allow the reopening of Radio StationDYRE which had been summarily closed on grounds ofnational security.

- petitioner contended that it was denied dueprocess when it was closed on the mere allegation thatthe radio station was used to incite people to sedition.

-it alleged that no hearing was held and not abit of proof was submitted to establish a factual basisfor the closure. The petitioner was not informed

beforehand why administrative action which closed theradio station was taken against it. No action was takenby the respondents to entertain a motion seeking thereconsideration of the closure action.

- The petitioner also raised the issue offreedom of speech. It appears from the records thatthe respondents' general charge of "inciting people tocommit acts of sedition" arose from the petitioner'sshift towards what it stated was the coverage of publicevents and the airing of programs geared towardspublic affairs.

before the Court could promulgate a decisionsquarely passing upon all the issues raised, thepetitioner through its president, Mr. Rene G. Espinasuddenly filed a motion to withdraw or dismiss thepetition.

The petitioner alleged:

1. Petitioner Eastern Broadcasting Corporationhas already sold its radio broadcasting station in favorof Manuel B. Pastrana as well as its rights and interest

in the radio station DYRE in Cebu including its right tooperate and its equipment;

2. Respondent National TelecommunicationsCommission has expressed its willingness to grant tothe said new owner Manuel B. Pastrana the requisitelicense and franchise to operate the said radio stationand to approve the sale of the radio transmitter of saidstation DYRE;

3. In view of the foregoing, petitioner has nolonger any interest in said case, and the new owner,Manuel B. Pastrana is likewise not interested inpursuing the case any further.

Issue:

Ruling: The case having become moot and academic,the petitioner's motion to withdraw or dismiss thepetition is hereby GRANTED. The freedom to comment

on public affairs is essential to the vitality of arepresentative democracy. The government has a rightto be protected against broadcasts which incite thelisteners to violently overthrow it. Radio and televisionmay not be used to organize a rebellion or to signal thestart of widespread uprising. At the same time, thepeople have a right to be informed.

J Teehankee. This Court i s particularly concerned when allegationsare made that restraints have been imposed uponmere criticisms of government and public officials.Political discussion is essential to the ascertainment ofpolitical truth. It cannot be the basis of criminalindictments. the Court has taught that "the interest ofsociety and the maintenance of good government

demand a full discussion of public affairs. Completeliberty to comment on the conduct of public men is ascalpel in the case of free speech

The materials broadcast over the airwaves reach everyperson of every age, persons of varying susceptibilitiesto persuasion, persons of different I.Q.s and mentalcapabilities, persons whose reactions to inflammatoryor offensive speech would be difficult to monitor orpredict. The impact of the vibrant speech is forcefuland immediate.

RE: REQUEST RADIO-TV COVERAGE OFTHE TRIAL IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF THEPLUNDER CASES AGAINST THE FORMERPRESIDENT JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, SECRETARY OFJUSTICE HERNANDO PEREZ, KAPISANAN NG MGABRODKASTER NG PILIPINAS, CESAR SARINO,RENATO CAYETANO and ATTY. RICARDOROMULO,petitioners, vs.JOSEPH E. ESTRADAand INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES,oppositors.

Facts: The Sandiganbayan reels to starthearing the criminal charges against Mr. Joseph E.Estrada. Media seeks to cover the event via livetelevision and live radio broadcast and endeavors thisCourt to allow it that kind of access to the proceedings.On 13 March 2001, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkasterng Pilipinas (KBP), an association representing dulyfranchised and authorized television and radionetworks throughout the country, sent a letter[1requesting this Court to allow live media coverage ofthe anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminalcases filed against former President Joseph E. Estradabefore the Sandiganbayan in order "1.to assure the public of full transparency in theproceedings of an unprecedented case in our

history."2. The foregoing criminal cases involve theprevious acts of the former highest official of the land,members of his family, his cohorts and, therefore, itcannot be over emphasized that the prosecutionthereof, definitely involves a matter of public concernand interest,

Issue: whether or not live tv coverage violates the rightof privacy of Erap Estrada

Ruling: , the petition is DENIED. Unlike othergovernment offices, courts do not express the popularwill of the people .For the defendant, telecasting is aform of mental harassment and subjects him toexcessive public exposure and distracts him from theeffective presentation of his defense.'The television camera is a powerful weapon whichintentionally or inadvertently can destroy an accusedand his case in the eyes of the public.The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied

freedom of the press and the right to public

information. It also approves of media's exalted powerto provide the most accurate and comprehensivemeans of conveying the proceedings to the public andin acquainting the public with the judicial process inaction; nevertheless, within the courthouse, theoverriding consideration is still the paramount right ofthe accused to due process

The propriety of granting or denying the instantpetition involve the weighing out of the constitutionalguarantees of freedom of the press and the right topublic information, on the one hand, and thefundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand,along with the constitutional power of a court to controlits proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial.


2/5

AYER PRODUCTIONS PTY. LTD. andMcELROY & McELROY FILM PRODUCTIONS,petitioners,vs.HON.IGNACIO M. CAPULONG and JUAN PONCEENRILE, respondents.

G.R. No. 82398 April 29, 1988HAL MCELROY petitioner,Facts: Hal McElroy an Australian film maker, and hismovie production company, Petitioner Ayer Productionspty Ltd. (Ayer Productions), 1 envisioned, sometime in1987, the for commercial viewing and for Philippineand international release, the histolic peaceful struggleof the Filipinos at EDSA. The Four Day Revolution" wasendorsed by the Movie Television Review and

Classification Board as well as the other governmentagencies consulted. General Fidel Ramos also signifiedhis approval of the intended film production. petitionerHal McElroy informed private respondent Juan PonceEnrile about the projected motion picture enclosing asynopsis of it, the full text of which is set out below:

The Four Day Revolution is a six hour mini-series about People Powera unique event in modernhistory that-made possible the Peaceful revolution inthe Philippines in 1986.

Faced with the task of dramatizing theseremarkable events, screenwriter David Williamson andhistory Prof Al McCoy have chosen a "docu-drama"style and created [four] fictitious characters to tracethe revolution from the death of Senator Aquino, to theFeb revolution and the fleeing of Marcos from thecountry.

The story incorporates actual documentaryfootage filmed during the period which we hope willcapture the unique atmosphere and forces thatcombined to overthrow President Marcos.

David Williamson is Australia's leading playwright withsome 14 hugely successful plays to his credit. ProfessorMcCoyis an American historian with a deepunderstanding of the Philippines, who has worked onthe research for this project for some 18 months.private respondent Enrile replied that "[he] would notand will not approve of the use, appropriation,reproduction and/or exhibition of his name, or picture,or that of any member of his family in any cinema ortelevision production, film or other medium foradvertising or commercial exploitation" and furtheradvised petitioners that 'in the production, airing,showing, distribution or exhibition of said or similarfilm, no reference whatsoever (whether written, verbalor visual) should not be made to [him] or any memberof his family, much less to any matter purely personalto them. Petitioners acceded to this demand anddeleted the name of Enrile. private respondent filed a

Complaint with application for Temporary RestrainingOrder and Wilt of Pretion. The complaint alleged thatpetitioners' production of the mini-series withoutprivate respondent's consent and over his objection,constitutes an obvious violation of his right of privacy.Ruling: Certiorari are GRANTED DUE COURSE.A publicfigure has been defined as a person who, by hisaccomplishments, fame, or mode of living, or byadopting a profession or calling which gives the publica legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs, and hischaracter, has become a 'public personage.' Privaterespondent is a "public figure" precisely because, interalia, of his participation as a principal actor in theculminating events of the change of government inFebruary 1986. Because his participation therein was

major in character, a film reenactment of the peacefulrevolution that fails to make reference to the roleplayed by private respondent would be grosslyunhistorical. The right of privacy of a "public figure" isnecessarily narrower than that of an ordinary citizen.Private respondent has not retired into the seclusion ofsimple private citizenship. he continues to be a "publicfigure." Petitioners' freedom of speech and ofexpression vs Private respondent, right of privacy. Alimited intrusion into a person's privacy has long beenregarded as permissible where that person is a publicfigure and the information sought to be elicited fromhim or to be published about him constitute of apubliccharacter. 7 Succinctly put, the right of privacy cannotbe invoked resist publication and dissemination ofmatters of public interest. 8 The interest sought to beprotected by the right of privacy is the right to be freefrom unwarranted publicity, from the wrongfulpublicizing of the private affairs and activities of anindividual which are outside the realm of legitimate

public concern. 9

such subject matter is one of public interest andconcern. Indeed, it is, petitioners' argue, ofinternational interest. The subject thus relates to ahighly critical stage in the history of this countryand assuch, must be regarded as having passed into thepublic domain and as an appropriate subject for speechand expression and coverage by any form of massmedia. The subject mater, as set out in the synopsisprovided by the petitioners and quoted above, does notrelate to the individual life and certainly not to theprivate life of private respondent Ponce Enrile.

BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner,

vs.

RUBEN D. TORRES, ALEXANDER AGUIRRE,HECTOR VILLANUEVA, CIELITO HABITO, ROBERTBARBERS, CARMENCITA REODICA, CESARSARINO, RENATO VALENCIA, TOMAS P. AFRICA,HEAD OF THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER andCHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT,respondents.

Facts: Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidateAdministrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of aNational Computerized Identification ReferenceSystem" on two important constitutional grounds,: one,it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate,

and two, it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry'sprotected zone of privacy.

A.O. No. 308 was issued by President Fidel V.Ramos On December 12, 1996 and reads asfollows:ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED

IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM

Sec. 1. Establishment of a NationalCompoterized Identification Reference System. Adecentralized Identification Reference System amongthe key basic services and social security providers ishereby established.

1. there is a need to provide Filipino citizensand foreign residents with the facility to convenientlytransact business with basic service and social securityproviders and other government instrumentalities;2. require a computerized system to properly andefficiently identify persons seeking basic services onsocial security and reduce, if not totally eradicatefraudulent transactions and misrepresentations.

A.O. No. 308 was published in fournewspapers of general circulation on January 22, 1997and January 23, 1997. On January 24, 1997, petitionerfiled the instant petition against respondents, thenExecutive Secretary Ruben Torres and the heads of thegovernment agencies, who as members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee, are charged with theimplementation of A.O. No. 308. On April 8, 1997, weissued a temporary restraining order enjoining itsimplementation.Petitioner: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.O. NO. 308INSIDIOUSLY LAYS THE GROUNDWORK FOR A SYSTEMWHICH WILL VIOLATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS ENSHRINEDIN THE CONSTITUTION

Issue: Whether or not A.O. No. 308 violates the right ofprivacy of an individualRuling: the petition is granted and Adminisrative Order


3/5

No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National ComputerizedIdentification Reference System" declared null and voidfor being unconstitutional.The right to privacy is one ofthe most threatened rights of man living in a masssociety. The threats emanate from various sources governments, journalists, employers, social scientists,etc. 88 In th case at bar, the threat comes from theexecutive branch of government which by issuing A.O.No. 308 pressures the people to surrender their privacyby giving information about themselves on the pretextthat it will facilitate delivery of basicservices.Assuming, argued, that A.O. No. 308 need notbe the subject of a law, still it cannot passconstitutional muster as an administrative legislationbecause facially it violates the right to privacy. The

essence of privacy is the "right to be let alone. A.O. No.308 which if implemented will put our people's rightto privacy in clear and present danger.

The heart of A.O. No. 308 lies in its Section 4which provides for a Population Reference Number(PRN) as a "common reference number to establish alinkage among concerned agencies" through the use of"Biometrics Technology" and "computer applicationdesigns."Biometry or biometrics is "the science of the applicatinof statistical methods to biological facts; amathematical analysis of biological data.

A.O. No. 308 can give the government theroving authority to store and retrieve information for apurpose other than the identification of the individualthrough his PRN.

The potential for misuse of the data to be gatheredunder A.O. No. 308 cannot be underplayed as thedissenters do. The data may be gathered for gainfuland useful government purposes; but the existence ofthis vast reservoir of personal information constitutes a

covert invitation to misuse, a temptation that may betoo great for some of our authorities to resist. ThoughA.O. No. 308 is undoubtedly not narrowly drawn, thedissenting opinions would dismiss its danger to theright to privacy as speculative and hypothetical.

SOCORRO D. RAMIREZ, petitioner,vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and ESTER S.GARCIA, respondents

A civil case damages was filed by petitionerSocorro D. Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court ofQuezon City alleging that the private respondent, EsterS. Garcia, in a confrontation in the latter's office,allegedly vexed, insulted and humiliated her in a"hostile and furious mood" and in a manner offensiveto petitioner's dignity and personality," contrary tomorals, good customs and public policy. In support ofher claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript ofthe event and sought moral damages. The transcripton which the civil case was based was culled from atape recording of the confrontation made by petitioner.As a result of petitioner's recording of the event andalleging that the said act of secretly taping theconfrontation was illegal, private respondent filed acriminal case before the Regional Trial Court of PasayCity for violation of Republic Act 4200, entitled "An Actto prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other relatedviolations of private communication, and otherpurposes." Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person,not being authorized by all the parties to any privatecommunication or spoken word, to tap any wire orcable, or by using any other device or arrangement, tosecretly overhear, intercept, or record suchcommunication or spoken word by using a devicecommonly known as a Dictaphone or dictograph ordetectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, orhowever otherwise described. Petitioner vigorouslyargues, as her "main and principal issue"7 that theapplicable provision of Republic Act 4200 does notapply to the taping of a private conversation by one ofthe parties to the conversation. She contends that theprovision merely refers to the unauthorized taping of aprivate conversation by a party other than thoseinvolved in the communication

Issue: Whether or not secretly taping a conversation isa violation of wiretapping law.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, because the law, asapplied to the case at bench is clear and unambiguousand leaves us with no discretion, the instant petition ishereby DENIED. The decision appealed from isAFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Consequently, as respondent Court ofAppeals correctly concluded, "even a (person) privy toa communication who records his private conversationwith another without the knowledge of the latter (will)qualify as a violator" 13 under this provision of R.A.4200.

EDGARDO A. GAANAN, petitioner,vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and PEOPLEOF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts: This petition for certiorari asks for aninterpretation of Republic Act (RA) No. 4200, otherwiseknown as the Anti-Wiretapping Act, on the issue ofwhether or not an extension telephone is among theprohibited devices in Section 1 of the Act, such that itsuse to overhear a private conversation wouldconstitute unlawful interception of communicationsbetween the two parties using a telephone line.Atty.

Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon were in the

living room of complainant's residence discussing theterms for the withdrawal of the complaint for directassault which they filed with the Office of the CityFiscal of Cebu against Leonardo Laconico. After theyhad decided on the proposed conditions, complainantmade a telephone call to Laconico. Laconico requestedappellant to secretly listen to the telephoneconversation through a telephone extension so as tohear personally the proposed conditions for thesettlement. Appellant heard complainant enumeratethe following conditions for withdrawal of the complaintfor direct assault. When he received the money at theIgloo Restaurant, complainant was arrested by agentsof the Philippine Constabulary. Since appellant listenedto the telephone conversation without complainant'sconsent, complainant charged appellant and Laconicowith violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act. the lowercourt, in a decision dated November 22, 1982, foundboth Gaanan and Laconico guilty of violating Section 1of Republic Act No. 4200. The two were eachsentenced to one (1) year imprisonment with costs.

Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision ofthe trial court, holding that the communicationbetween the complainant and accused Laconico wasprivate in nature and, therefore, covered by Rep. ActNo. 4200; The petitioner contends that telephones orextension telephones are not included in theenumeration of "commonly known" listening orrecording devices, nor do they belong to the sameclass of enumerated electronic devices contemplatedby law


4/5

Issue: whether or not the telephone conversationbetween the complainant and accused Laconico wasprivate in nature; (b) whether or not an extensiontelephone is covered by the term "device orarrangement" under Rep. Act No. 4200; (c) whether ornot the petitioner had authority to listen or overhearsaid telephone conversation and (d) whether or notRep. Act No. 4200 is ambiguous and, therefore, shouldbe construed in favor of the petitioner

Ruling: the petition is GRANTED. The decisionof the then Intermediate Appellate Court dated August16, 1984 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner ishereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Rep. ActNo. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-WiretappingAct. The mere act of listening, in order to be punishablemust strictly be with the use of the enumerateddevices in RA No. 4200 or others of similar nature. Weare of the view that an extension telephone is notamong such devices or arrangements.The law refers toa "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device orarrangement" for the purpose of secretly overhearing,intercepting, or recording the communication. Theremust be either a physical interruption through awiretap or the deliberate installation of a device orarrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or recordthe spoken words.

An extension telephone cannot be placed inthe same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or theother devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200as the use thereof cannot be considered as "tapping"the wire or cable of a telephone line.The issue iswhether or not the person called over the telephoneand his lawyer listening to the conversation on anextension line should both face prison sentencessimply because the extension was used to enable them

to both listen to an alleged attempt at extortion.There is no question that the telephone conversationbetween complainant Atty. Pintor and accused Atty.Laconico was "private" in the sense that the wordsuttered were made between one person and anotheras distinguished from words between a speaker and apublic

CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN,respondents

Facts:This is a petition to review the decision of theCourt of Appeals, affirming the decision of the Regional

Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) which orderedpetitioner to return documents and papers taken byher from private respondent's clinic without the latter'sknowledge and consent.

Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of privaterespondent Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1982,petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor ofmedicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driverand private respondent's secretary, forcibly opened thedrawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took157 documents consisting of private correspondencebetween Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours,greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's

passport, and photographs. The documents and paperswere seized for use in evidence in a case for legalseparation and for disqualification from the practice ofmedicine which petitioner had filed against herhusband. Dr. Martin recovery of the documents(Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch X) . For thatreason, the trial court declared the documents andpapers to be properties of private respondent, orderedpetitioner to return them to private respondent andenjoined her from using them in evidence

Issue:Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIEDfor lack of merit.

the privacy of communication andcorrespondence is inviolable is no less applicablesimply because it is the wife (who thinks herselfaggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the partyagainst whom the constitutional provision is to beenforced. "lawful order [from a] court or when publicsafety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by

law."4Any violation of this provision renders theevidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in anyproceeding The intimacies between husband and wifedo not justify any one of them in breaking the drawersand cabinets of the other and in ransacking them forany telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, bycontracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity orhis right to privacy as an individual and theconstitutional protection is ever available to him or toher. The law insures absolute freedom ofcommunication between the spouses by making itprivileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for oragainst the other without the consent of the affectedspouse while the marriage subsists.6Neither may beexamined without the consent of the other as to anycommunication received in confidence by one from theother during the marriage, save for specifiedexceptions
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt6


5/5

[

PRELIM- Media Law MC AdDU (Digested Cases 2)

Documents

Transcript of PRELIM- Media Law MC AdDU (Digested Cases 2)