Francisco Chavez v. Raul M.
Gonzales of the respondents on the who’s and the how’s of the wiretapping act is ambivalent,
GR No. 168338, 15 February 2008
Ponente: Puno
FACTS:
A year following the 2004 national and local elections, Press Secretary Ignacio
Bunye disclosed to the public how the opposition planned to destabilize the
administration by releasing an audiotape of a mobile phone conversation allegedly
between President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Commissioner Garcillano of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The conversation was alleged to have been
audio-taped through wire-tapping. On June 8, 2005, respondent Secretary Raul
Gonzales of the Department of Justice (DOJ) warned reporters who are in possession
of copies of the said conversation, as well as those broadcasting companies and/or
publishers that they may be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
Consequently, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued a press
release strengthening the prohibition on the dissemination of the same – that the
broadcasting/airing of such information shall be just cause for the suspension,
revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations issued by the
Commission. Petitioner Francisco Chavez filed a petition against respondent Chavez
and NTC, praying for the issuance of writs of certiorari and prohibition for the
nullification of the acts, issuances and orders of respondents – as they were outright
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 acts of the respondents abridge freedom of speech and of
the press.
HELD:
Yes. Generally, restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by
either or a combination of three tests, i.e., (a) the dangerous tendency doctrine,
which limits speech once a rational connection has been established between the
speech restrained and the danger contemplated; (b) the balancing of interests tests,
a standard when courts balance conflicting social values and individual
interests, and (c) the clear and present danger rule which rests on the premise that
speech may be restrained because there is substantial danger that the speech will
likely lead to an evil the government has a right to prevent.
It appears that the great evil which government wants to prevent is the airing of a
tape recording in alleged violation of the anti-wiretapping law. However,
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
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.
We rule that not every violation of a law will justify straitjacketing the exercise
of freedom of speech and of the press.
The need to prevent their violation cannot per se trump the exercise of
free speech and free press, a preferred right whose breach can lead to greater
evils. For this failure of the respondents alone to offer proof to satisfy the clear and
present danger test, the Court has no option but to uphold the exercise of free speech
and free press. There is no showing that the feared violation of the anti-wiretapping
law clearly endangers the national security of the State.
NEWSOUNDS v. DY
GR No. 170270 & 179411, April 2, 2009
“Mayor’s permit for Radio Station”
Summary:
Newsounds is a radio station which was denied a mayor’s permit and ordered by
Cauayan City to cease operation because of the lack of the same permit. We’ll focus
on the issue which deals with Freedom of the Press and Expression specifically
‘prior restraint’. Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the
press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.
Ponente: J. Tinga
Facts:
 Petitioners Newsounds Broadcasting Network Inc., (Newsounds) which
runs DZNC and Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS) which run
Star FM are stations operated, organized, and incorporated by Bombo
Radyo Philippines (Bombo Radyo). Both petitioners are operating out of
Cauayan City, Isabela.
 In 1996, Newsounds relocated its broadcasting station, management office
and transmitters on property still in Cauayan City, owned by another
affiliate corporation of Bombo Radyo which is CBS Development Corp.
(CDC).
 During the same year 1996, CDC secured necessary permits from the
municipal government to build a commercial establishment on the said
property. the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued a
 Zoning Decision certifying the property as commercial. Also, the Office of
the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (OMPDC) of
Cauayan affirmed that the commercial establishment to be constructed by
CDC conformed to local zoning regulations, noting as well that the location
“is classified as a Commercial area. Similar certifications would be issued
by OMPDC from 1997-2001
 A building was erected and both DZNC and Star FM operated from 1997-
2001 after securing necessary operating documents.
 When they were renewing their 2002 operating documents, additional
documents were required from them which were not required before.
Hence, they were not able to secure the necessary operating documents.
 Petitioners obtained from the DAR orders stating that the land is considered
commercial. They submitted this for the 2003 operating documents renewal.
However the City Administrator claims that the DAR orders were void.
Again, the mayor’s permit was denied This also continued for the 2004
renewal and the permit was again denied.
 The legal officer of the City attempted to physically close the station
however the petitioners filed with the COMELEC seeking enforcement of
the Election Code which prohibited the closure of radio stations during
election period. Petitioners was able to continue operations until the end of
the election period.
 Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus and preliminary mandatory
injunction to the RTC but was denied. They also filed actions (Certiorari)
with the CA but also lost.
Issue: (relevant to our discussion)
1. Whether or not there has been a violation of the freedom of speech and of
the press?  Yes, there is a violation
Ratio:
1. The court recognized that the LGU concerned has legal authority to
promulgate ordinances required for permits. However, the burden is with
the government concerned to establish compelling reasons to infringe the
freedom of speech and expression as in the case at bar. The court justifies
further its ruling based on the concept of content based restraint (subject
to more strict scrutiny) rather than content neutral regulation for the
reason that the circumstances surrounding the case warrants it such as the
alleged ill motives of the defendants together with the timing as it is very
near election. The steps employed by the City is to ultimately shutdown the
petitioners. The case falls on the classification of Prior Restraint. To
reiterate, Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the
press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or
dissemination.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Mandamus is granted. The Mayor’s Permit is to be issued together with
PHP5M Damages + Atty’s Fees
People vs. Perez
FACTS:
Isaac Perez while holding a discussion with several persons on political
matters uttered the following words "And the Filipinos, like myself, must
use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for the
Philippines.” Because of such utterances, he was charged in the CFI of Sorsogon
with violation of Art. 256 of the RPC which has something to do with contempt of
ministers of the Crown or other persons in authority. He was convicted. Hence, this
appeal.
ISSUE:
WON Perez’s remarks is protected by the constitutional protection on
freedom of speech.
Or
WON the provisions of Act No. 292 should be interpreted so as to abridge
the freedom of speech and the right of the people to peacebly assemble and petition
the Government for redress of grievances.
HELD:
No , it is not. Agreed with the lower court in its findings of facts but
convicted the accused for violation of Act No. 292 (Section 8).1
1 Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, or who shall write,
publish or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or
against the Government of the Philippine Islands, or who shall print, write, publish
utter or make any statement, or speech, or do any act which tends to disturb or
obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office or in performing his duty, or which
tends to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which
suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or which tends to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities, or which tends to disturb the peace of the community
or the safety or order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil
practices from the constituted authorities, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
two thousand dollars United States currency or by imprisonment not exceeding two
years, or both, in the discretion of the court.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
It is of course fundamentally true that the provisions of Act No. 292 must
not be interpreted so as to abridge the freedom of speech and the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.
Criticism is permitted to penetrate even to the foundations of Government.
Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and the
Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect
be seditious. But when the intention and effect of the act is seditious, the
constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of assembly and
petition must yield to punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of
constituted authority, the supremacy of the constitution and the laws, and the
existence of the State. (III Wharton's Criminal Law, pp. 2127 et seq.;
U.S. vs. Apurado [1907], 7 Phil., 422; People vs. Perfecto, supra)
Facts. The Smith Act (the Act) made it a criminal offense for a person to knowingly
or willfully advocate the overthrowing of any government in the United States by
force or to attempt to commit or conspire to commit the crime the same. The
Petitioners were brought up on charges under the Act for allegedly (1) willfully and
knowingly conspiring to organize as the Communist Party of the United States, a
group whose members advocated the overthrow of the United States government by
force and (2) willfully and knowingly advocating and teaching the duty to do the
same. It was clear from the record that the leaders of the Communist Party intended
to initiate a revolution when the opportunity came. The Trial Court found the
Petitioners guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The constitutionality of the statute
under which the Petitioners were convicted was challenged.
Issue. Was the statute invalid by its own terms because it prohibited academic
discussions on topics such as that of the merits of Marxism-Leninism?

In this instance, the attack on the Governor-General passes the furthest

bounds of free speech was intended. There is a seditious tendency in the words used,
which could easily produce disaffection among the people and a state of feeling
incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and obedient to
the laws.

In the words of the law, Perez has uttered seditious words. He has made a statement
and done an act which tended to instigate others to cabal or meet together for
unlawful purposes. He has made a statement and done an act which suggested and
incited rebellious conspiracies. He has made a statement and done an act which
tended to stir up the people against the lawful authorities. He has made a statement
and done an act which tended to disturb the peace of the community and the safety or
order of the Government. All of these various tendencies can be ascribed to the
action of Perez and may be characterized as penalized by section 8 of Act No. 292 as
amended.

DENNIS V US

Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioners, Dennis and others (Petitioners) were
convicted for (1) willfully and knowingly conspiring to organize as the Communist
Party of the United States, a group whose members advocated the overthrow of the
United States government by force and (2) willfully and knowingly advocating and
teaching the duty to do the same. The constitutionality of the statute under which the
Petitioners were convicted was challenged.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. For an impediment on free expression to be permissible,

the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability of coming about, must
sufficiently outweigh the invasion of free speech necessary to avoid the danger.