CASE DIGEST : Chavez Vs Gonzales

G.R. No. 168338 February 15, 2008 FRANCISCO CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. RAUL M.
GONZALES, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Justice; and NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC), respondents.

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 Ignacio Bunye (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. 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.5 On 14 June 2005, NTC officers met with
officers of the broadcasters group, Kapisanan ng mga Broadcasters sa Pilipinas (KBP), to dispel
fears of censorship. The NTC and KBP issued a joint press statement expressing commitment to
press freedom

Issue : WON the NTC warning embodied in the press release of 11 June 2005 constitutes an
impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression

Held : 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 restrain Expression not subject to prior restraint is protected expression or high-value
expression. 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 prior restraint
is not aimed at the message or idea of the expression, it is content-neutral even if it burdens
expression The NTC action restraining the airing of the Garci Tapes is a content-based prior
restraint because it is directed at the message of the Garci Tapes. The NTC’s claim that the Garci
Tapes might contain "false information and/or willful misrepresentation," and thus should not be
publicly aired, is an admission that the restraint is content-based The public airing of the Garci
Tapes is a protected expression because it does not fall under any of the four existing categories
of unprotected expression recognized in this jurisdiction. The airing of the Garci Tapes is
essentially a political expression because it exposes that a presidential candidate had allegedly
improper conversations with a COMELEC Commissioner right after the close of voting in the
last presidential elections. The content of the Garci Tapes affects gravely the sanctity of the
ballot. Public discussion on the sanctity of the ballot is indisputably a protected expression that
cannot be subject to prior restraint. Public discussion on the credibility of the electoral process is
one of the highest political expressions of any electorate, and thus deserves the utmost
protection. If ever there is a hierarchy of protected expressions, political expression would
occupy the highest rank. The rule, which recognizes no exception, is that there can be no
content-based prior restraint on protected expression. On this ground alone, the NTC press
release is unconstitutional. Of course, if the courts determine that the subject matter of a
wiretapping, illegal or not, endangers the security of the State, the public airing of the tape
becomes unprotected expression that may be subject to prior restraint. However, there is no
claim here by respondents that the subject matter of the Garci Tapes involves national security
and publicly airing the tapes would endanger the security of the State. The alleged violation of
the Anti-Wiretapping Law is not in itself a ground to impose a prior restraint on the airing of the
Garci Tapes because the Constitution expressly prohibits the enactment of any law, and that
includes anti-wiretapping laws, curtailing freedom of expression. The only exceptions to this rule
are the four recognized categories of unprotected expression. However, the content of the Garci
Tapes does not fall under any of these categories of unprotected expression.