The document discusses two Supreme Court cases regarding prior restraint on freedom of expression:
1) Chavez vs. Gonzales examines the constitutionality of the NTC issuing a press release warning media outlets against airing the "Hello Garci" tapes, which contained conversations allegedly showing election fraud. The Court ruled this was an unconstitutional prior restraint as the tapes discussed a matter of public concern.
2) Newsounds Broadcasting Network vs. Dy concerns a libel case. The Court affirmed that prior restraint is a severe restriction and there are very limited categories where expression can be subject to prior restraint, such as national security issues. Otherwise, subsequent punishment is the proper remedy after expression has been disseminated.
The document discusses two Supreme Court cases regarding prior restraint on freedom of expression:
1) Chavez vs. Gonzales examines the constitutionality of the NTC issuing a press release warning media outlets against airing the "Hello Garci" tapes, which contained conversations allegedly showing election fraud. The Court ruled this was an unconstitutional prior restraint as the tapes discussed a matter of public concern.
2) Newsounds Broadcasting Network vs. Dy concerns a libel case. The Court affirmed that prior restraint is a severe restriction and there are very limited categories where expression can be subject to prior restraint, such as national security issues. Otherwise, subsequent punishment is the proper remedy after expression has been disseminated.
The document discusses two Supreme Court cases regarding prior restraint on freedom of expression:
1) Chavez vs. Gonzales examines the constitutionality of the NTC issuing a press release warning media outlets against airing the "Hello Garci" tapes, which contained conversations allegedly showing election fraud. The Court ruled this was an unconstitutional prior restraint as the tapes discussed a matter of public concern.
2) Newsounds Broadcasting Network vs. Dy concerns a libel case. The Court affirmed that prior restraint is a severe restriction and there are very limited categories where expression can be subject to prior restraint, such as national security issues. Otherwise, subsequent punishment is the proper remedy after expression has been disseminated.
people to information on matters of 545 SCRA 441; G.R No. 168338 public concern under Section 7, Article Francisco Chavez – Petitioner III of the Constitution, and (2) the NTC acted ultra vires when it warned radio Raul M. Gonzales – Sec. of DOJ & National and television stations against airing Telecommunications Commission, Respondent the Garci Tapes. Respondent said that (1) petitioner has FACTS no standing to litigate and (2) the June 24, 2004 – President Arroyo was petition fails to meet the case or proclaimed winner in the 2004 controversy requirement in Presidential elections. constitutional adjudication. On the Sometime before June 6, 2005, DZMM merits, respondents claim that (1) the aired the “Hello Garci” Tapes where the NTC's press release of 11 June 2005 is parties to the conversation discussed a mere "fair warning," not censorship, the “rigging” of the results of the 2004 cautioning radio and television elections in favor of GMA. networks on the lack of authentication On June 6, 2005, Presidential of the Garci Tapes and of the Spokesperson Ignacio Bunye held a consequences of airing false or press con in Malacanang, where he fraudulent material, and (2) the NTC did played the two discs. not act ultra vires in issuing the warning to radio and television stations. Bunye identified the woman in both recordings as President Arroyo but Petitioner disprove of respondents’ claimed that the contents of the second claim, contending that his status as a compact disc had been "spliced" to citizen to enforce of a public right within make it appear that President Arroyo him is sufficient interest to maintain his was talking to Garcillano. suit. And that the NTC press release is a mere warning as it already prejudged However, on 9 June 2005, Bunye the tapes as false and a violation backtracked and stated that the making it a gag order. woman's voice in the compact discs was not President Arroyo’s after all. ISSUE Gonzalez ordered the National Bureau of Investigation to investigate media The principal issue for resolution is whether organizations which aired the Garci the NTC warning embodied in the press Tapes for possible violation of Republic release of 11 June 2005 constitutes an Act No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping impermissible prior restraint on freedom of Law expression. June 11, 2005, NTC issues a press Freedom of expression is the release warning radio and TV stations foundation of a free, open and that airing the said tapes is a democratic society. “cause for the suspension, revocation Freedom of expression guarantees full, and/or cancellation of the licenses or spirited, and even contentious authorizations" issued to them discussion of all social, economic and June 14, 2005, NTC met with KBP to political issues. To survive, a free and dispel fears of censorship. THE NTC democratic society must zealously and KBP issued a press statement safeguard freedom of expression. expressing commitment to press Freedom of expression allows citizens freedom. to expose and check abuses of public 21 June 2005, petitioner Francisco I. officials. Freedom of expression allows Chavez (petitioner), as citizen, filed this citizens to make informed choices of petition to nullify the "acts, issuances, candidates for public office. and orders" of the NTC and respondent Section 4, Article III of the Constitution Gonzalez on the following grounds: (1) prohibits the enactment of any law respondents’ conduct violated freedom curtailing freedom of expression: Thus, the rule is that expression is not that a presidential candidate had subject to any prior restraint or allegedly improper conversations with a censorship because the Constitution COMELEC Commissioner right after the commands that freedom of expression close of voting in the last presidential shall not be abridged. elections. The exceptions, when expression may The rule, which recognizes no be subject to prior restraint apply to exception, is that there can be no only four categories: pornography, content-based prior restraint on false/misleading advertisement, protected expression. On this ground advocacy of imminent lawless action, alone, the NTC press release is and danger to national security. unconstitutional. Expression not subject to prior restraint Any order imposing prior restraint is protected expression or high-value on unprotected expression requires expression. Any content-based prior prior adjudication by the courts on restraint on protected expression is whether the prior restraint is unconstitutional without exception. A constitutional. This is a necessary protected expression means what it consequence from the presumption of says – it is absolutely protected from invalidity of any prior restraint on censorship. unprotected expression. Expression that may be subject to prior Conclusion: In sum, the NTC press restraint is unprotected expression or release constitutes an unconstitutional low-value expression. By definition, prior restraint on protected expression. prior restraint on unprotected There can be no content-based prior expression is content-based23 since the restraint on protected expression. This restraint is imposed because of the rule has no exception. content itself. In this jurisdiction, there I therefore vote to (1) grant the petition, are currently only four categories of (2) declare the NTC warning, embodied in its press release dated 11 June unprotected expression that may be 2005, an unconstitutional prior subject to prior restraint. restraint on protected expression, and Only unprotected expression may be (3) enjoin the NTC from enforcing the subject to prior restraint. However, any same. such prior restraint on unprotected expression must hurdle a high barrier. First, such prior restraint is NEWSOUNDS BROADCASTING NETWORK VS. DY presumed 583 SCRA 333; G.R No. 170270 & 179411 unconstitutional. Second, the government bears a heavy burden of Newsounds Broadcasting Network - Petitioner proving the constitutionality of the prior restraint Hon. Ceasar G. Dy – Respondents Prior restraint is a more FACTS severe restriction on freedom of expression than subsequent punishment. Although subsequent NATIONAL PRESS CLUB VS. COMELEC punishment also deters expression, still the ideas are disseminated to the 201 SCRA 1 | GR NO. 1026653 |MARCH 5, 1992 public. Prior restraint prevents even the dissemination of ideas to the public. RULING The public airing of the Garci Tapes is . For it is precisely in the unlimited a protected expression because it does purchase of print space and radio and not fall under any of the four existing television time that the resources of categories of unprotected expression the financially affluent candidates are recognized in this jurisdiction. The likely to make a crucial difference. airing of the Garci Tapes is essentially a Here lies the core problem of political expression because it exposes equalization of the situations of the candidates with deep pockets and the candidates with shallow or empty pockets that Article IX(C) (4) of the Constitution and Section 11 (b) seek to address. such repetitive political commercials when fed into the electronic media themselves constitute invasions of the privacy of the general electorate. Or they may directly or indirectly own or control the stations or channels themselves. The contemporary reality in the Philippines is that, in a very real sense, listeners and viewers constitute a "captive audience
The right of the general listening and
viewing public to be free from such intrusions and their subliminal effects is at least as important as the right of candidates to advertise themselves through modern electronic media and the right of media enterprises to maximize their revenues from the marketing of "packaged" candidates. WHEREFORE, the Petitions should be, as they are hereby, DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.