FRANCISCO CHAVEZ vs. RAUL M.

GONZALES, DoJ Secretary;

and NTC

FACTS:
In 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo won in the
presidential elections against her nearest rival, Fernando Poe, Jr.
Sometime in June 2005, dzMM radio station aired the Garci
Tapes where the parties to the conversation discussed “rigging”
the results of the 2004 elections to favor President Arroyo. In a
press conference in Malacañang Palace, a recordings of alleged
conversations between President Arroyo and COMELEC
Commissioner Garcillano was identified. Then DoJ Secretary
Raul Gonzalez 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. The NTC, on
one hand, issued a press release warning radio and television
stations that those who will air the Garci Tapes will face
suspension or revocation of their license. Petitioner Francisco I.
Chavez, as citizen, filed a petition to nullify the “acts, issuances,
and orders” of the NTC and respondent Gonzalez on the grounds
that it violated the freedom of expression and the right of the
people to information on matters of public concern.

Issue: Whether the NTC warning constitutes an impermissible

prior restraint on freedom of expression.

Held: 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.
Freedom of expression allows citizens to expose and check
abuses of public officials. Freedom of expression allows citizens
to make informed choices of candidates for public office. Freedom
of expression crystallizes important public policy issues, and
allows citizens to participate in the discussion and resolution of
such issues. Freedom of expression allows the competition of
ideas, the clash of claims and counterclaims, from which the truth
will likely emerge. Freedom of expression allows the airing of
social grievances, mitigating sudden eruptions of violence from
marginalized groups who otherwise would not be heard by
government. Freedom of expression provides a civilized way of
engagement among political, ideological, religious or ethnic
opponents for if one cannot use his tongue to argue, he might use
his fist instead.
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.”
Thus, the rule is that expression is not subject to any prior
restraint or censorship because the Constitution commands that
freedom of expression shall not be abridged. Over time, however,
courts have carved out narrow and well defined exceptions to this
rule out of necessity.
Exceptions:
The exceptions, when expression may be subject to prior
restraint, apply in this jurisdiction to only four categories of
expression namely:
1. pornography,
2. false or misleading advertisement,
3. advocacy of imminent lawless action, and
4. danger to national security.
All other expression is not subject to prior restraint. The history of
press freedom has been a constant struggle against the censor
whose weapon is the suspension or cancellation of licenses to
publish or broadcast. The NTC warning resurrects the weapon of
the censor. In sum, the NTC press release constitutes an
unconstitutional prior restraint on protected expression. There can
be no content-based prior restraint on protected expression. This
rule has no exception.v