CHAVEZ vs.

GONZALES
G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008
Topic: R.A. No. 4200

Atty. Alan Paguia released an alleged authentic tape recording of a

wiretap. Included in the tapes were purported conversations of the President
Arroyo, Jose Miguel Arroyo, COMELEC Commissioner Garcillano, and the late
Senator Barbers.

Respondent DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales warned reporters that those

who had copies of the CD and those broadcasting or publishing its contents
could be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act. He also stated that persons
possessing or airing said tapes were committing a continuing offense, subject to
arrest by anybody who had personal knowledge if the crime was committed or
was being committed in their presence and ordered the 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.

Petitioner Chavez filed a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,

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.

Issue:

Whether or not the violation of Anti-wiretapping law satisfies the clear and
present danger test

Ruling:

No. In the case at bar, 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 who’s and the how’s of the wiretapping act is
ambivalent, especially considering the tape’s 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.

Further, it is not decisive that the press statements made by respondents

were not reduced in or followed up with formal orders or circulars. It is sufficient
that the press statements were made by respondents while in the exercise of
their official functions. Undoubtedly, respondent Gonzales made his statements
as Secretary of Justice, while the NTC issued its statement as the regulatory
body of media. Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for and on behalf of the
government in an official capacity is covered by the rule on prior restraint. The
concept of an “act” does not limit itself to acts already converted to a formal
order or official circular. Otherwise, the non-formalization of an act into an
official order or circular will result in the easy circumvention of the prohibition on
prior restraint. The press statements at bar are acts that should be struck down
as they constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints on the right to free
speech and press.
 People vs. Mañozca
G.R. No. 109779 March 13, 1997
Topic: P.D. No. 2018

Facts: