CHAVEZ V. DOJ SEC.

GONZALES
FACTS:
Petitioner Chavez filed a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against
respondents Secretary Gonzales and the NTC, praying for the issuance of the
writs of certiorari and prohibition, as extraordinary legal remedies, to annul
void proceedings, and to prevent the unlawful, unconstitutional and
oppressive exercise of authority by the respondents. alleging that the acts
of respondents are violations of the freedom of expression and of the press,
and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern
- The issue in the case herein stemmed from the leaked Hello Garci tape
which contained allegations with regard to fixing votes against PGMA, her
husband, and Virgilio Garcillano
- This petition is particularly directed to DOJ Secretary Gonzales and to the
NTC
1. Gonzales warned reporters that those who had copies of the compact
disc (CD) and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could be
held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act. In another press briefing,
Secretary Gonzales ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
to go after media organizations found to have caused the spread, the
playing and the printing of the contents of a tape of an alleged
wiretapped conversation involving the President about fixing votes in
the 2004 national elections.
2. the NTC issued this press release:
NTC GIVES FAIR WARNING TO RADIO AND TELEVISION
OWNERS/OPERATORS TO OBSERVE ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW AND
PERTINENT CIRCULARS ON PROGRAM STANDARDS
ISSUES:
W/N PETITIONER HAS LEGAL STANDING?
YES. BECAUSE OF TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE.
W/N THE ACTIONS OF GONZALES AND THE NTC VIOLATE THE FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?
NO.
Note: Before directly addressing the aforestated issue, the Court first made a long
exposition regarding the freedom of the press/expression
ABSTRACTION
OF FREE SPEECH

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
At the very least, free speech and free press may be
identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully
any matter of public interest without censorship and
punishment. There is to be no previous restraint on the
communication of views or subsequent liability whether in

libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or

contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present
danger of substantive evil that Congress has a right to
prevent (Gonzales v. COMELEC)

THE LIMITS AND

RESTRAINTS OF
FREE SPEECH
(freedom of
expression is
not absolute)

To paraphrase Justice Holmes, it is freedom for the thought

that we hate, no less than for the thought that agrees with
us
All speech are not treated the same. Some types of
speech may be subjected to some regulation by the State
under its pervasive police power, in order that it may not be
injurious to the equal right of others or those of the
community or society
Restraints on freedom of speech and expression are
evaluated by either or a combination of three tests:

1. dangerous tendency doctrine which permits

2.

limitations on speech once a rational connection has

been established between the speech restrained and
the danger contemplated
balancing of interests tests, 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

3. clear and present danger rule which rests on the

FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS

FOUR ASPECTS
OF THE
FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS

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)
It is the sharpest weapon in the fight to keep government
responsible and efficient. Without a vigilant press, the
mistakes of every administration would go uncorrected and
its abuses unexposed.
1. FREEDOM FROM PRIOR RESTRAINT
2. FREEDOM FROM PUNISHMENT SUBSEQUENT TO
PUBLICATION
3. FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION
4. FREEDOM OF CIRCULATION
The case at hand concerns an issue involving prior restraint,
thus, the Court focused on this particular aspect.
Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions

on the press or other forms of expression in advance of

actual publication or dissemination. Freedom from prior
restraint is largely freedom from government censorship of
publications, whatever the form of censorship, and
regardless of whether it is wielded by the executive,
legislative or judicial branch of the government. Thus, it
precludes governmental acts that required approval
of a proposal to publish; licensing or permits as
prerequisites to publication including the payment of
license taxes for the privilege to publish; and even
injunctions against publication. Even the closure of
the business and printing offices of certain
newspapers, resulting in the discontinuation of their
printing and publication, are deemed as previous
restraint or censorship.
HOWEVER, certain previous restraints (contentneutral [merely concerned with the incidents of the speech,
or one that merely controls the time, place or manner, and
under well-defined standards] vs. content-based [the
restriction is based on the subject matter of the utterance or
speech]) may be permitted by the Constitution, but
determined only upon a careful evaluation of the challenged
act as against the appropriate test by which it should be
measured against.

1. CONTENT-NEUTRAL REGULATION
-

only a substantial governmental interest is required

for its validity
Because regulations of this type are not designed
to suppress any particular message, they are not
subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny but
an intermediate approachsomewhere between
the mere rationality that is required of any other
law and the compelling interest standard applied to
content-based restrictions

2. CONTENT-BASED REGULATION
-

PRINT V.
BROADCAST
MEDIA

Given the strictest scrutiny

Subject to the clear and present danger rule
the government must also show the type of harm
the speech sought to be restrained would bring
about especially the gravity and the imminence
of the threatened harm otherwise the prior
restraint will be invalid
The Court in Dans adopted the arguments found in U.S.
jurisprudence to justify differentiation of treatment (i.e., the
scarcity, pervasiveness and accessibility to children), but

only after categorically declaring that the test for

limitations on freedom of expression continues to be
the clear and present danger rule, for all forms of
media, whether print or broadcast
when this Court declared in Dans that the freedom given to
broadcast media was somewhat lesser in scope than the
freedom accorded to newspaper and print media, it was not
as to what test should be applied, but the context by which
requirements of licensing, allocation of airwaves, and
application of norms to unprotected speech
GIVEN THE FOREGOING, APPLYING THEEM NOW TO THE CASE AT BAR, the Court
opined that respondents who have the burden to show that these acts do not
abridge freedom of speech and of the press failed to hurdle the clear and present
danger test. It appears that the great evil which government wants to prevent is
the airing of a tape recording in alleged violation of the anti-wiretapping law. The
records of the case at bar, however, are confused and confusing, and respondents
evidence falls short of satisfying the clear and present danger test. Firstly, the
various statements of the Press Secretary obfuscate the identity of the voices in the
tape recording. Secondly, the integrity of the taped conversation is also suspect.
The Press Secretary showed to the public two versions, one supposed to be a
complete version and the other, an altered version. Thirdly, the evidence of the
respondents on the whos and the hows of the wiretapping act is ambivalent,
especially considering the tapes different versions. The identity of the wire-tappers,
the manner of its commission and other related and relevant proofs are some of the
invisibles of this case. Fourthly, given all these unsettled facets of the tape, it is
even arguable whether its airing would violate the anti-wiretapping law.
-

the need to prevent the violation of laws cannot per se trump the
exercise of free speech and free press, a preferred right whose
breach can lead to greater evils
it is not decisive that the press statements made by respondents
were not reduced in or followed up with formal orders or
circulars concept of an act does not limit itself to acts already
converted to a formal order or official circular, otherwise, the nonformalization of an act into an official order or circular will result
in the easy circumvention of the prohibition on prior restraint

CONCERNED BOHOLANOS V. CALIBO, JR.

FACTS:
In an anonymous complaint dated August 28, 2000 filed by Concerned
Boholanos for Law and Order, Judge Dionisio R. Calibo, Jr., of the Regional

Trial Court (RTC), Branch 50, Loay, Bohol, is charged with conduct
unbecoming a judge and highly unethical act for publicly speaking on radio
and in public fora regarding his bias and parochial views on certain
controversial issues against public personalities and public officials
- He spoke about the project was being pursued by the Provincial Governor
which was to sell the two major performing assets of the Province of
Bohol, the Provincial Electrical System (PES) and the Provincial
Waterworks System (PWS) of the Provincial Utilities Division (PPUD),
without consulting its customers in Tagbilaran and Dauis, Bohol, which are
the places served by these two utilities
- At first, he didnt comment, but when it became apparent that the
governor was ignoring the issues presented by the people, he decided to
participate
- He read the contract; and ultimately joined those who oppose the project
on air
ISSUE: W/N HIS ACT OF GOING ON AIR IS ENOUGH TO MAKE HIM
ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE?
NO. Going on the air to express ones opinion over a matter of public concern,
respondent Judge cannot be held to answer administratively simply because he was
only exercising his constitutional right to be heard in a petition for the redress of
grievances. As a consumer and as a member of the body politic, it was his right, nay
his duty to air what he honestly believed to be an incipient irregularity. However, his
two telephone calls to Judge Achilles L. Melicor who was presiding the court where
the petition to stop the governor was pending, definitely violates the Code of
Judicial Conduct, particularly Section 3 of Canon I, which states that Judges shall
refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending
before another court or administrative agency.