Chavez vs Gonzales [G.R. No. 168338] Case Digest

 

Chavez vs Gonzales

[G.R. No. 168338]

Facts:

            Congress, acting as national board of canvassers, proclaimed President Arroyo winner in the 2004 presidential elections. 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. Respondent Gonzalez ordered the NBI to investigate media organizations which aired the Garci Tapes for possible violation of RA 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

            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.

            Chavez, as citizen, filed this petition to nullify the "acts, issuances, and orders" of the NTC and respondent Gonzalez; that 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.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the NTC warning embodied in the press release of 11 June 2005 constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression.

 

Held:

           

 

Ratio:

            Freedom of expression is the foundation of a free, open and democratic society. Freedom of expression is an indispensable condition to the exercise of almost all other civil and political rights. No society can remain free, open and democratic without freedom of expression. Freedom of expression guarantees full, spirited, and even contentious discussion of all social, economic and political issues. To survive, a free and democratic society must zealously safeguard freedom of expression.

            The function of freedom of expression is to stir disputes: it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.

            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 restraint.

 

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 content-based prior restraint is directed at protected expression, courts will strike down the restraint as unconstitutional because there can be no content-based prior restraint on protected expression. The analysis thus turns on whether the prior restraint is content-based, and if so, whether such restraint is directed at protected expression, that is, those not falling under any of the recognized categories of unprotected expression.

            If the prior restraint is not aimed at the message or idea of the expression, it is content-neutral even if it burdens expression. A content-neutral restraint is a restraint which regulates the time, place or manner of the expression in public places without any restraint on the content of the expression. Courts will subject content-neutral restraints to intermediate scrutiny.

An example of a content-neutral restraint is a permit specifying the date, time and route of a rally passing through busy public streets. A content-neutral prior restraint on protected expression which does not touch on the content of the expression enjoys the presumption of validity and is thus enforceable subject to appeal to the courts.

Only unprotected expression may be subject to prior restraint. However, any such prior restraint on unprotected expression must hurdle a high barrier. First, such prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional. Second, the government bears a heavy burden of proving the constitutionality of the prior restraint.

 

Prior restraint is a more severe restriction on freedom of expression than subsequent punishment. Although subsequent punishment also deters expression, still the ideas are disseminated to the public. Prior restraint prevents even the dissemination of ideas to the public.

 

The prevailing test in this jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of government action imposing prior restraint on three categories of unprotected expression – pornography, advocacy of imminent lawless action, and danger to national security - is the clear and present danger test. The expression restrained must present a clear and present danger of bringing about a substantive evil that the State has a right and duty to prevent, and such danger must be grave and imminent.

 

            The NTC does not claim that the public airing of the Garci Tapes constitutes unprotected expression that may be subject to prior restraint. The NTC does not specify what substantive evil the State seeks to prevent in imposing prior restraint on the airing of the Garci Tapes. The NTC does not claim that the public airing of the Garci Tapes constitutes a clear and present danger of a substantive evil, of grave and imminent character, that the State has a right and duty to prevent.

           

            Clearly, the NTC has no factual or legal basis in claiming that the airing of the Garci Tapes constitutes a violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law. The radio and television stations were not even given an opportunity to be heard by the NTC.