CHAVEZ VS.

GONZALES of expression and the right of the

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.