CASE NO.

6
EN BANC
FRANCISCO CHAVEZ, petitioner,
vs.
RAUL M. GONZALES, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Justice; and
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC), respondents.
PUNO, C.J.:

TOPIC: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS – Doctrine of Preferred Freedom (Hierarchy of Rights)

On the other hand, restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by
either or a combination of three tests:
1) dangerous tendency doctrine which permits limitations on speech once a rational
connection has been established between the speech restrained and the danger
contemplated;
2) balancing of interests tests which is used as a standard when courts need to
balance conflicting social values and individual interests, and requires a conscious
and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation
of type of situation; and
3) clear and present danger rule which rests on the premise that speech may be
restrained because there is substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an
evil the government has a right to prevent. This rule requires that the evil
consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive, “extremely serious and
the degree of imminence extremely high.
FACTS:
 On 24 June 2004, Congress, acting as national board of canvassers, proclaimed President
Arroyo winner in the 2004 presidential elections over her nearest rival Fernando Poe Jr.;
 Sometime before 6 June 2005, the radio station dzMM aired the Garci Tapes where the
parties to the conversation discussed "rigging" the results of the 2004 elections to favor
President Arroyo;
 Presidential spokesperson Ignacio Bunye (Bunye) held a press conference in Malacañang
Palace, where he played before the presidential press corps two compact disc recordings of
conversations between a woman and a man and identified the woman in both recordings as
President Arroyo but claimed that the contents of the second compact disc had been "spliced"
to make it appear that President Arroyo was talking to Garcillano;
 On 9 June 2005, Bunye backtracked and stated that the woman's voice in the compact discs
was not President Arroyo’s after all.3 Meanwhile, other individuals went public, claiming
possession of the genuine copy of the Garci Tapes;
 Respondent Gonzalez (DOJ Secretary) ordered the NBI to investigate media organizations
which aired the Garci Tapes for possible violation of Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti-
Wiretapping Law;
 On 11 June 2005, the NTC issued a press release warning radio and television stations that
airing the Garci Tapes is a "cause for the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the
licenses or authorizations" issued to them;
 On 14 June 2005, NTC officers met with officers of the broadcasters’ group, Kapisanan ng
mga Broadcasters sa Pilipinas (KBP), to dispel fears of censorship and issued a joint press
statement expressing commitment to press freedom;
 CASE NO. 6
 On 21 June 2005, petitioner Francisco I. Chavez (petitioner), as citizen, filed this petition to
nullify the "acts, issuances, and orders" of the NTC and respondent Gonzalez
(respondents) on the following grounds: (1) respondents’ conduct violated freedom of
expression and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern under
Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, and (2) the NTC acted ultra vires when it warned
radio and television stations against airing the Garci Tapes.
 Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether the NTC warning embodied in its press release dated June 11, 2005 regarding
radio and television stations that airing the Garci Tapes is a "cause for the suspension,
revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations" constitutes an
impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression

RULING: Yes. the NTC warning embodied in its press release dated June 11, 2005 regarding
radio and television stations that airing the Garci Tapes is a "cause for the suspension,
revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations" constitutes an
impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression.
Under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution prohibits the enactment of any law
curtailing freedom of expression: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.” The totality of the injurious effects of the violation to
private and public interest must be calibrated in light of the preferred status accorded by the
Constitution and by related international covenants protecting freedom of speech and of the
press. In calling for a careful and calibrated measurement of the circumference of all these
factors to determine compliance with the clear and present danger test, the Court should not
be misinterpreted as devaluing violations of law. By all means, violations of law should be
vigorously prosecuted by the State for they breed their own evil consequence. But to repeat, the
need to prevent their violation cannot per se trump the exercise of free speech and free press,
a preferred right whose breach can lead to greater evils. For this failure of the respondents
alone to offer proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test, the Court has no option but to
uphold the exercise of free speech and free press. There is no showing that the feared
violation of the anti-wiretapping law clearly endangers the national security of the State.
The Court held that the mere press statements of the Secretary of Justice and of the
NTC in question constitute a form of content-based prior restraint that has transgressed the
Constitution. In resolving this issue, it is not decisive that the press statements made by
respondents were not reduced in or followed up with formal orders or circulars. It is
sufficient that the press statements were made by respondents while in the exercise of their
official functions. Undoubtedly, respondent Gonzales made his statements as Secretary of
Justice, while the NTC issued its statement as the regulatory body of media. Any act done, such
as a speech uttered, for and on behalf of the government in an official capacity is covered by the
rule on prior restraint. The concept of an “act” does not limit itself to acts already converted to a
formal order or official circular. Otherwise, the non-formalization of an act into an official order or
circular will result in the easy circumvention of the prohibition on prior restraint. The press
statements at bar are acts that should be struck down as they constitute impermissible forms of
prior restraints on the right to free speech and press.

CONCLUSION: The petition is GRANTED. The writs of certiorari and prohibition are hereby issued,
nullifying the official statements made by respondents on June 8, and 11, 2005 warning the
media on airing the alleged wiretapped conversation between the President and other
 CASE NO. 6
personalities, for constituting unconstitutional prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of
speech and of the press.