FRANCISCO CHAVEZ VS. RAUL M.

GONZALES

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 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. However, 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 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 KBP, to dispel fears of censorship. The NTC and KBP issued a joint
press statement expressing commitment to press freedom 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.

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:

Freedom of expression is the foundation of a free, open and democratic society. Freedom of expression
is an indispensable condition8 to the exercise of almost all other civil and political rights. 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.

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. 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