Chavez v. Gonzales

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW I
JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

Case Number: 200
RICA MAE DI ÑO
Topic: VI. BILL OF RIGHTS, G. Freedom of speech and expression
Case Name: Francisco Chavez, petitioner, vs. Raul M. Gonzales and NTC, respondents
GR No.:168338
Date: February 15, 2008
I. Facts:
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.
On 6 June 2005, Presidential spokesperson Ignacio 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. Bunye 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 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. The NTC and KBP issued
a joint press statement expressing commitment to press freedom.
II. Issues:
Whether the NTC warning embodied in the press release of 11 June 2005 constitutes an
impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression.
III. Ruling:
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
personalities, for constituting unconstitutional prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of
speech and of the press. So Ordered.
IV. Ratio Decidendi:
When expression may be subject to prior restraint, apply in this jurisdiction to only four
categories of expression, namely: pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advocacy of
imminent lawless action, and danger to national security.
All other expression is not subject to prior restrain Expression not subject to prior
restraint is protected expression or high-value expression. Any content-based prior restraint on
protected expression is unconstitutional without exception. A protected expression means what it
says – it is absolutely protected from censorship. Prior restraint on expression is content-based if
the restraint is aimed at the message or idea of the expression. Courts will subject to strict
scrutiny content-based restraint. If the prior restraint is not aimed at the message or idea of the
expression, it is content-neutral even if it burdens expression
The NTC action restraining the airing of the Garci Tapes is a content-based prior restraint
because it is directed at the message of the Garci Tapes. The NTC’s claim that the Garci Tapes
might contain "false information and/or willful misrepresentation," and thus should not be
publicly aired, is an admission that the restraint is content-based. The public airing of the Garci
Tapes is a protected expression because it does not fall under any of the four existing categories
of unprotected expression recognized in this jurisdiction.
The airing of the Garci Tapes is essentially a political expression because it exposes that
a presidential candidate had allegedly improper conversations with a COMELEC Commissioner
right after the close of voting in the last presidential elections. The content of the Garci Tapes
affects gravely the sanctity of the ballot. Public discussion on the sanctity of the ballot is
indisputably a protected expression that cannot be subject to prior restraint. Public discussion on
the credibility of the electoral process is one of the highest political expressions of any electorate,
and thus deserves the utmost protection. If ever there is a hierarchy of protected expressions,
political expression would occupy the highest rank.
The rule, which recognizes no exception, is that there can be no content-based prior
restraint on protected expression. On this ground alone, the NTC press release is
unconstitutional. Of course, if the courts determine that the subject matter of a wiretapping,
illegal or not, endangers the security of the State, the public airing of the tape becomes
unprotected expression that may be subject to prior restraint. However, there is no claim here by
respondents that the subject matter of the Garci Tapes involves national security and publicly
airing the tapes would endanger the security of the State.
The alleged violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law is not in itself a ground to impose a
prior restraint on the airing of the Garci Tapes because the Constitution expressly prohibits the
enactment of any law, and that includes anti-wiretapping laws, curtailing freedom of expression.
The only exceptions to this rule are the four recognized categories of unprotected expression.
However, the content of the Garci Tapes does not fall under any of these categories of
unprotected expression.
V. Statement of Principle / Doctrine:
All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the
freedom of speech and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of expression
continues to be the clear and present danger rule, that words are used in such circumstances and
are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that the lawmaker has a right to prevent, a governmental action that restricts
freedom of speech or of the press based on content is given the strictest scrutiny, with the
government having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality by the clear and
present danger rule. This rule applies equally to all kinds of media, including broadcast media.
The procedure: (a) the test; (b) the presumption; (c) the burden of proof; (d) the party to
discharge the burden; and (e) the quantum of evidence necessary.

Chavez v. Gonzales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chavez v. Gonzales

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chavez v. Gonzales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW I

JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

On 6 June 2005, Presidential spokesperson Ignacio Bunye held a press conference in

You might also like