EN BANC

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.

DECISION

PUNO, C.J.:

A. Precis

In this jurisdiction, it is established that freedom of the press is crucial and so inextricably woven into the right to free
speech and free expression, that any attempt to restrict it must be met with an examination so critical that only a
danger that is clear and present would be allowed to curtail it.

Indeed, we have not wavered in the duty to uphold this cherished freedom. We have struck down laws and issuances
meant to curtail this right, as in Adiong v. COMELEC,1 Burgos v. Chief of Staff,2 Social Weather Stations v.
COMELEC,3 and Bayan v. Executive Secretary Ermita.4 When on its face, it is clear that a governmental act is nothing
more than a naked means to prevent the free exercise of speech, it must be nullified.

B. The Facts

1. The case originates from events that occurred a year after the 2004 national and local elections. On June 5, 2005,
Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told reporters that the opposition was planning to destabilize the administration by
releasing an audiotape of a mobile phone conversation allegedly between the President of the Philippines, Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo, and a high-ranking official of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The conversation was
audiotaped allegedly through wire-tapping. 5 Later, in a Malacañang press briefing, Secretary Bunye produced two
versions of the tape, one supposedly the complete version, and the other, a spliced, "doctored" or altered version,
which would suggest that the President had instructed the COMELEC official to manipulate the election results in the
President’s favor. 6 It seems that Secretary Bunye admitted that the voice was that of President Arroyo, but
subsequently made a retraction. 7

2. On June 7, 2005, former counsel of deposed President Joseph Estrada, Atty. Alan Paguia, subsequently released
an alleged authentic tape recording of the wiretap. Included in the tapes were purported conversations of the
President, the First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, COMELEC Commissioner Garcillano, and the late Senator
Barbers.8

3. On June 8, 2005, respondent Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul Gonzales warned reporters that those
who had copies of the compact disc (CD) and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could be held liable under
the Anti-Wiretapping Act. These persons included Secretary Bunye and Atty. Paguia. 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. 9

4. On June 9, 2005, in another press briefing, Secretary Gonzales ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (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 about fixing votes in the 2004 national elections.
Gonzales said that he was going to start with Inq7.net, a joint venture between the Philippine Daily Inquirer and
GMA7 television network, because by the very nature of the Internet medium, it was able to disseminate the contents
of the tape more widely. He then expressed his intention of inviting the editors and managers of Inq7.net and GMA7 to
a probe, and supposedly declared, "I [have] asked the NBI to conduct a tactical interrogation of all concerned." 10

5. On June 11, 2005, the NTC issued this press release: 11

NTC GIVES FAIR WARNING TO RADIO AND TELEVISION OWNERS/OPERATORS TO OBSERVE

ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW AND PERTINENT CIRCULARS ON PROGRAM STANDARDS
 xxx xxx xxx

Taking into consideration the country’s unusual situation, and in order not to unnecessarily aggravate
the same, the NTC warns all radio stations and television network owners/operators that the
conditions of the authorization and permits issued to them by Government like the Provisional Authority
and/or Certificate of Authority explicitly provides that said companies shall not use [their] stations for
the broadcasting or telecasting of false information or willful misrepresentation. Relative thereto, it has
come to the attention of the [NTC] that certain personalities are in possession of alleged taped
conversations which they claim involve the President of the Philippines and a Commissioner of the
COMELEC regarding supposed violation of election laws.

These personalities have admitted that the taped conversations are products of illegal wiretapping
operations.

Considering that these taped conversations have not been duly authenticated nor could it be said at
this time that the tapes contain an accurate or truthful representation of what was recorded therein, it is
the position of the [NTC] that the continuous airing or broadcast of the said taped conversations by
radio and television stations is a continuing violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law and the conditions of
the Provisional Authority and/or Certificate of Authority issued to these radio and television stations. It
has been subsequently established that the said tapes are false and/or fraudulent after a prosecution
or appropriate investigation, the concerned radio and television companies are hereby warned that
their broadcast/airing of such false information and/or willful misrepresentation shall be just
cause for the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations
issued to the said companies.

In addition to the above, the [NTC] reiterates the pertinent NTC circulars on program standards to be
observed by radio and television stations. NTC Memorandum Circular 111-12-85 explicitly states,
among others, that "all radio broadcasting and television stations shall, during any broadcast or
telecast, cut off from the air the speech, play, act or scene or other matters being broadcast or telecast
the tendency thereof is to disseminate false information or such other willful misrepresentation, or to
propose and/or incite treason, rebellion or sedition." The foregoing directive had been reiterated by
NTC Memorandum Circular No. 22-89, which, in addition thereto, prohibited radio, broadcasting and
television stations from using their stations to broadcast or telecast any speech, language or scene
disseminating false information or willful misrepresentation, or inciting, encouraging or assisting in
subversive or treasonable acts.

The [NTC] will not hesitate, after observing the requirements of due process, to apply with full
force the provisions of said Circulars and their accompanying sanctions on erring radio and
television stations and their owners/operators.

6. On June 14, 2005, NTC held a dialogue with the Board of Directors of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa
Pilipinas (KBP). NTC allegedly assured the KBP that the press release did not violate the constitutional freedom of
speech, of expression, and of the press, and the right to information. Accordingly, NTC and KBP issued a Joint Press
Statement which states, among others, that: 12

 NTC respects and will not hinder freedom of the press and the right to information on matters of public
concern. KBP & its members have always been committed to the exercise of press freedom with high
sense of responsibility and discerning judgment of fairness and honesty.
 NTC did not issue any MC [Memorandum Circular] or Order constituting a restraint of press freedom or
censorship. The NTC further denies and does not intend to limit or restrict the interview of members of
the opposition or free expression of views.
 What is being asked by NTC is that the exercise of press freedom [be] done responsibly.
 KBP has program standards that KBP members will observe in the treatment of news and public affairs
programs. These include verification of sources, non-airing of materials that would constitute inciting to
sedition and/or rebellion.
 The KBP Codes also require that no false statement or willful misrepresentation is made in the
treatment of news or commentaries.
 The supposed wiretapped tapes should be treated with sensitivity and handled responsibly giving due
consideration to the process being undertaken to verify and validate the authenticity and actual content
 of the same."

C. The Petition

Petitioner Chavez filed a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against respondents Secretary Gonzales and the
NTC, "praying for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, as extraordinary legal remedies, to annul void
proceedings, and to prevent the unlawful, unconstitutional and oppressive exercise of authority by the respondents." 13

Alleging that the acts of respondents are violations of the freedom on expression and of the press, and the right of the
people to information on matters of public concern,14 petitioner specifically asked this Court:

[F]or [the] nullification of acts, issuances, and orders of respondents committed or made since June 6,
2005 until the present that curtail the public’s rights to freedom of expression and of the press, and to
information on matters of public concern specifically in relation to information regarding the
controversial taped conversion of President Arroyo and for prohibition of the further commission of
such acts, and making of such issuances, and orders by respondents. 15

Respondents16 denied that the acts transgress the Constitution, and questioned petitioner’s legal standing to file the
petition. Among the arguments they raised as to the validity of the "fair warning" issued by respondent NTC, is that
broadcast media enjoy lesser constitutional guarantees compared to print media, and the warning was issued
pursuant to the NTC’s mandate to regulate the telecommunications industry. 17 It was also stressed that "most of the
[television] and radio stations continue, even to this date, to air the tapes, but of late within the parameters agreed
upon between the NTC and KBP." 18

D. The Procedural Threshold: Legal Standing

To be sure, the circumstances of this case make the constitutional challenge peculiar. Petitioner, who is not a member
of the broadcast media, prays that we strike down the acts and statements made by respondents as violations of the
right to free speech, free expression and a free press. For another, the recipients of the press statements have not
come forward—neither intervening nor joining petitioner in this action. Indeed, as a group, they issued a joint
statement with respondent NTC that does not complain about restraints on freedom of the press.

It would seem, then, that petitioner has not met the requisite legal standing, having failed to allege "such a personal
stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the Court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." 19

But as early as half a century ago, we have already held that where serious constitutional questions are involved, "the
transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing
aside if we must, technicalities of procedure." 20 Subsequently, this Court has repeatedly and consistently refused to
wield procedural barriers as impediments to its addressing and resolving serious legal questions that greatly impact on
public interest,21 in keeping with the Court's duty under the 1987 Constitution to determine whether or not other
branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws and that they have not
abused the discretion given to them.

Thus, in line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi when a case involves an issue of overarching
significance to our society,22 we therefore brush aside technicalities of procedure and take cognizance of this petition, 23
seeing as it involves a challenge to the most exalted of all the civil rights, the freedom of expression. The petition
raises other issues like the extent of the right to information of the public. It is fundamental, however, that we
need not address all issues but only the most decisive one which in the case at bar is whether the acts of the
respondents abridge freedom of speech and of the press.

But aside from the primordial issue of determining whether free speech and freedom of the press have been
infringed, the case at bar also gives this Court the opportunity: (1) to distill the essence of freedom of speech
and of the press now beclouded by the vagaries of motherhood statements; (2) to clarify the types of
speeches and their differing restraints allowed by law; (3) to discuss the core concepts of prior restraint,
content-neutral and content-based regulations and their constitutional standard of review; (4) to examine the
historical difference in the treatment of restraints between print and broadcast media and stress the standard
of review governing both; and (5) to call attention to the ongoing blurring of the lines of distinction between
print and broadcast media.
 E. Re-examining The law on freedom of speech,
of expression and of the press

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. 24

Freedom of expression has gained recognition as a fundamental principle of every democratic government, and given
a preferred right that stands on a higher level than substantive economic freedom or other liberties. The cognate rights
codified by Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution, copied almost verbatim from the First Amendment of the U.S. Bill
of Rights,25 were considered the necessary consequence of republican institutions and the complement of free
speech.26 This preferred status of free speech has also been codified at the international level, its recognition now
enshrined in international law as a customary norm that binds all nations. 27

In the Philippines, the primacy and high esteem accorded freedom of expression is a fundamental postulate of our
constitutional system. 28 This right was elevated to constitutional status in the 1935, the 1973 and the 1987
Constitutions, reflecting our own lesson of history, both political and legal, that freedom of speech is an indispensable
condition for nearly every other form of freedom. 29 Moreover, our history shows that the struggle to protect the freedom
of speech, expression and the press was, at bottom, the struggle for the indispensable preconditions for the exercise
of other freedoms.30 For it is only when the people have unbridled access to information and the press that they will be
capable of rendering enlightened judgments. In the oft-quoted words of Thomas Jefferson, we cannot both be free and ignorant.
E.1. Abstraction of Free Speech
Surrounding the freedom of speech clause are various concepts that we have adopted as part and parcel of our own
Bill of Rights provision on this basic freedom. 31 What is embraced under this provision was discussed exhaustively by
the Court in Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, 32 in which it was held:
…At the very least, free speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and
truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship and punishment. There is to be no previous
restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for
sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present danger
of substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. 33
Gonzales further explained that the vital need of a constitutional democracy for freedom of expression is undeniable,
whether as a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment; of attaining the truth; of assuring participation by the people
in social, including political, decision-making; and of maintaining the balance between stability and change. 34 As early
as the 1920s, the trend as reflected in Philippine and American decisions was to recognize the broadest scope and
assure the widest latitude for this constitutional guarantee. The trend represents a profound commitment to the
principle that debate on public issue should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. 35
Freedom of speech and of the press means something more than the right to approve existing political beliefs or
economic arrangements, to lend support to official measures, and to take refuge in the existing climate of opinion on
any matter of public consequence. 36 When atrophied, the right becomes meaningless.37 The right belongs as well -- if
not more – to those who question, who do not conform, who differ. 38 The ideas that may be expressed under this
freedom are confined not only to those that are conventional or acceptable to the majority. To be truly meaningful,
freedom of speech and of the press should allow and even encourage the articulation of the unorthodox view, though
it be hostile to or derided by others; or though such view "induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with
conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." 39 To paraphrase Justice Holmes, it is freedom for the thought
that we hate, no less than for the thought that agrees with us. 40
The scope of freedom of expression is so broad that it extends protection to nearly all forms of communication. It
protects speech, print and assembly regarding secular as well as political causes, and is not confined to any particular
field of human interest. The protection covers myriad matters of public interest or concern embracing all issues, about
which information is needed or appropriate, so as to enable members of society to cope with the exigencies of their
period. The constitutional protection assures the broadest possible exercise of free speech and free press for
religious, political, economic, scientific, news, or informational ends, inasmuch as the Constitution's basic guarantee of
freedom to advocate ideas is not confined to the expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by a majority.

The constitutional protection is not limited to the exposition of ideas. The protection afforded free speech extends to
speech or publications that are entertaining as well as instructive or informative. Specifically, in Eastern Broadcasting
Corporation (DYRE) v. Dans,41 this Court stated that all forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the
broad protection of the clause on freedom of speech and of expression.

While all forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of freedom of expression clause, the freedom of
film, television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to
newspapers and other print media, as will be subsequently discussed.

E.2. Differentiation: The Limits & Restraints of Free Speech

From the language of the specific constitutional provision, it would appear that the right to free speech and a free
press is not susceptible of any limitation. But the realities of life in a complex society preclude a literal interpretation of
the provision prohibiting the passage of a law that would abridge such freedom. For freedom of expression is not an
absolute, 42 nor is it an "unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the
punishment of those who abuse this freedom."

Thus, all speech are not treated the same. Some types of speech may be subjected to some regulation by the State
under its pervasive police power, in order that it may not be injurious to the equal right of others or those of the
community or society.43 The difference in treatment is expected because the relevant interests of one type of speech,
e.g., political speech, may vary from those of another, e.g., obscene speech. Distinctions have therefore been made in
the treatment, analysis, and evaluation of the permissible scope of restrictions on various categories of speech. 44 We
have ruled, for example, that in our jurisdiction slander or libel, lewd and obscene speech, as well as "fighting words"
are not entitled to constitutional protection and may be penalized. 45

Moreover, the techniques of reviewing alleged restrictions on speech (overbreadth, vagueness, and so on) have been
applied differently to each category, either consciously or unconsciously. 46 A study of free speech jurisprudence—
whether here or abroad—will reveal that courts have developed different tests as to specific types or categories of
speech in concrete situations; i.e., subversive speech; obscene speech; the speech of the broadcast media and of the
traditional print media; libelous speech; speech affecting associational rights; speech before hostile audiences;
symbolic speech; speech that affects the right to a fair trial; and speech associated with rights of assembly &petition. 47

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 permits limitations on speech once a rational connection has been
established between the speech restrained and the danger contemplated; 48 (b) the balancing of interests tests,
used as a standard when courts need to balance conflicting social values and individual interests, and requires a
conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation of type of situation; 49
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. This rule requires
that the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive, "extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high." 50

As articulated in our jurisprudence, we have applied either the dangerous tendency doctrine or clear and present
danger test to resolve free speech challenges. More recently, we have concluded that we have generally adhered to
the clear and present danger test. 51

E.3. In Focus: Freedom of the Press

Much has been written on the philosophical basis of press freedom as part of the larger right of free discussion and
expression. Its practical importance, though, is more easily grasped. It is the chief source of information on current
affairs. It is the most pervasive and perhaps most powerful vehicle of opinion on public questions. It is the instrument
by which citizens keep their government informed of their needs, their aspirations and their grievances. It is the
sharpest weapon in the fight to keep government responsible and efficient. Without a vigilant press, the mistakes of
every administration would go uncorrected and its abuses unexposed. As Justice Malcolm wrote in US v. Bustos:52

The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete
liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe
relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and unjust accusation; the wound
can be assuaged with the balm of clear conscience.

Its contribution to the public weal makes freedom of the press deserving of extra protection. Indeed, the press benefits
from certain ancillary rights. The productions of writers are classified as intellectual and proprietary. Persons who
interfere or defeat the freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication are liable for damages, be
they private individuals or public officials.

E.4. Anatomy of Restrictions: Prior Restraint, Content-Neutral and Content-Based Regulations

Philippine jurisprudence, even as early as the period under the 1935 Constitution, has recognized four aspects of
freedom of the press. These are (1) freedom from prior restraint; (2) freedom from punishment subsequent to
publication; 53 (3) freedom of access to information; 54 and (4) freedom of circulation. 55

Considering that petitioner has argued that respondents’ press statement constitutes a form of impermissible prior
restraint, a closer scrutiny of this principle is in order, as well as its sub-specie of content-based (as distinguished from
content-neutral) regulations.

At this point, it should be noted that respondents in this case deny that their acts constitute prior restraints. This
presents a unique tinge to the present challenge, considering that the cases in our jurisdiction involving prior
restrictions on speech never had any issue of whether the governmental act or issuance actually constituted prior
restraint. Rather, the determinations were always about whether the restraint was justified by the Constitution.

Be that as it may, the determination in every case of whether there is an impermissible restraint on the freedom of
speech has always been based on the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the restraint. And in its
application in our jurisdiction, the parameters of this principle have been etched on a case-to-case basis,
always tested by scrutinizing the governmental issuance or act against the circumstances in which they
operate, and then determining the appropriate test with which to evaluate.

Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination. 56 Freedom from prior restraint is largely freedom from government censorship of
publications, whatever the form of censorship, and regardless of whether it is wielded by the executive, legislative or
judicial branch of the government. Thus, it precludes governmental acts that required approval of a proposal to
publish; licensing or permits as prerequisites to publication including the payment of license taxes for the privilege to
publish; and even injunctions against publication. Even the closure of the business and printing offices of certain
newspapers, resulting in the discontinuation of their printing and publication, are deemed as previous restraint or
censorship. 57 Any law or official that requires some form of permission to be had before publication can be made,
commits an infringement of the constitutional right, and remedy can be had at the courts.

Given that deeply ensconced in our fundamental law is the hostility against all prior restraints on speech, and any act
that restrains speech is presumed invalid, 58 and "any act that restrains speech is hobbled by the presumption of
invalidity and should be greeted with furrowed brows," 59 it is important to stress not all prior restraints on speech are
invalid. Certain previous restraints may be permitted by the Constitution, but determined only upon a careful
evaluation of the challenged act as against the appropriate test by which it should be measured against.

Hence, it is not enough to determine whether the challenged act constitutes some form of restraint on freedom of
speech. A distinction has to be made whether the restraint is (1) a content-neutral regulation, i.e., merely concerned
with the incidents of the speech, or one that merely controls the time, place or manner, and under well defined
standards;60 or (2) a content-based restraint or censorship, i.e., the restriction is based on the subject matter of the
utterance or speech. 61 The cast of the restriction determines the test by which the challenged act is assayed with.

When the speech restraints take the form of a content-neutral regulation, only a substantial governmental interest is
required for its validity.62 Because regulations of this type are not designed to suppress any particular message, they
are not subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny but an intermediate approach—somewhere between the mere
rationality that is required of any other law and the compelling interest standard applied to content-based restrictions. 63
The test is called intermediate because the Court will not merely rubberstamp the validity of a law but also require
that the restrictions be narrowly-tailored to promote an important or significant governmental interest that is unrelated
to the suppression of expression. The intermediate approach has been formulated in this manner:

A governmental regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the

Government, if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental
interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incident restriction on alleged
[freedom of speech & expression] is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. 64

On the other hand, a governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on content is given
the strictest scrutiny in light of its inherent and invasive impact. Only when the challenged act has overcome the
clear and present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster,65 with the government having the burden of
overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality.

Unless the government can overthrow this presumption, the content-based restraint will be struck down. 66

With respect to content-based restrictions, the government must also show the type of harm the speech sought to be
restrained would bring about— especially the gravity and the imminence of the threatened harm – otherwise the prior
restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech based on its content cannot be justified by hypothetical fears, "but
only by showing a substantive and imminent evil that has taken the life of a reality already on ground." 67 As formulated,
"the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
It is a question of proximity and degree." 68

The regulation which restricts the speech content must also serve an important or substantial government interest,
which is unrelated to the suppression of free expression. 69

Also, the incidental restriction on speech must be no greater than what is essential to the furtherance of that interest. 70
A restriction that is so broad that it encompasses more than what is required to satisfy the governmental interest will
be invalidated. 71 The regulation, therefore, must be reasonable and narrowly drawn to fit the regulatory purpose, with
the least restrictive means undertaken. 72

Thus, when the prior restraint partakes of a content-neutral regulation, it is subjected to an intermediate review. A
content-based regulation,73 however, bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured against the clear and
present danger rule. The latter will pass constitutional muster only if justified by a compelling reason, and the
restrictions imposed are neither overbroad nor vague. 74

Applying the foregoing, it is clear that the challenged acts in the case at bar need to be subjected to the clear and
present danger rule, as they are content-based restrictions. The acts of respondents focused solely on but one
object—a specific content— fixed as these were on the alleged taped conversations between the President and a
COMELEC official. Undoubtedly these did not merely provide regulations as to the time, place or manner of the
dissemination of speech or expression.

E.5. Dichotomy of Free Press: Print v. Broadcast Media

Finally, comes respondents’ argument that the challenged act is valid on the ground that broadcast media enjoys free
speech rights that are lesser in scope to that of print media. We next explore and test the validity of this argument,
insofar as it has been invoked to validate a content-based restriction on broadcast media.

The regimes presently in place for each type of media differ from one other. Contrasted with the regime in
respect of books, newspapers, magazines and traditional printed matter, broadcasting, film and video have been
subjected to regulatory schemes.

The dichotomy between print and broadcast media traces its origins in the United States. There, broadcast radio and
television have been held to have limited First Amendment protection,75 and U.S. Courts have excluded broadcast
media from the application of the "strict scrutiny" standard that they would otherwise apply to content-based
restrictions.76 According to U.S. Courts, the three major reasons why broadcast media stands apart from print media
are: (a) the scarcity of the frequencies by which the medium operates [i.e., airwaves are physically limited while print
medium may be limitless]; 77 (b) its "pervasiveness" as a medium; and (c) its unique accessibility to children. 78 Because
cases involving broadcast media need not follow "precisely the same approach that [U.S. courts] have applied to other
media," nor go "so far as to demand that such regulations serve ‘compelling’ government interests," 79 they are
decided on whether the "governmental restriction" is narrowly tailored to further a substantial governmental
interest,"80 or the intermediate test.

As pointed out by respondents, Philippine jurisprudence has also echoed a differentiation in treatment between
broadcast and print media. Nevertheless, a review of Philippine case law on broadcast media will show that—as
we have deviated with the American conception of the Bill of Rights81— we likewise did not adopt en masse
the U.S. conception of free speech as it relates to broadcast media, particularly as to which test would govern
content-based prior restraints.

Our cases show two distinct features of this dichotomy. First, the difference in treatment, in the main, is in the
regulatory scheme applied to broadcast media that is not imposed on traditional print media, and narrowly confined to
unprotected speech (e.g., obscenity, pornography, seditious and inciting speech), or is based on a compelling
government interest that also has constitutional protection, such as national security or the electoral process.

Second, regardless of the regulatory schemes that broadcast media is subjected to, the Court has consistently held
that the clear and present danger test applies to content-based restrictions on media, without making a distinction as
to traditional print or broadcast media.

The distinction between broadcast and traditional print media was first enunciated in Eastern Broadcasting
Corporation (DYRE) v. Dans,82 wherein it was held that "[a]ll forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to
the broad protection of the freedom of speech and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of
expression continues to be the clear and present danger rule…"83

Dans was a case filed to compel the reopening of a radio station which had been summarily closed on grounds of
national security. Although the issue had become moot and academic because the owners were no longer interested
to reopen, the Court still proceeded to do an analysis of the case and made formulations to serve as guidelines for all
inferior courts and bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions. Particularly, the Court made a detailed exposition as to
what needs be considered in cases involving broadcast media. Thus:84

xxx xxx xxx

(3) All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of
speech and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be
the clear and present danger rule, that words are used in such circumstances and are of such a
nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the
lawmaker has a right to prevent, In his Constitution of the Philippines (2nd Edition, pp. 569-570) Chief
Justice Enrique M. Fernando cites at least nine of our decisions which apply the test. More recently,
the clear and present danger test was applied in J.B.L. Reyes in behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition v.
Bagatsing. (4) The clear and present danger test, however, does not lend itself to a simplistic and all
embracing interpretation applicable to all utterances in all forums.

Broadcasting has to be licensed. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated among qualified users. A
broadcast corporation cannot simply appropriate a certain frequency without regard for government
regulation or for the rights of others.

All forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression clause.
Necessarily, however, the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope
than the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media.

The American Court in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (438 U.S. 726),
confronted with a patently offensive and indecent regular radio program, explained why radio
broadcasting, more than other forms of communications, receives the most limited protection from the
free expression clause. First, broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the
lives of all citizens, Material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but in
the privacy of his home. Second, broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children. Bookstores and
motion picture theaters may be prohibited from making certain material available to children, but the
same selectivity cannot be done in radio or television, where the listener or viewer is constantly tuning
in and out.

Similar considerations apply in the area of national security.

The broadcast media have also established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Filipinos.
Newspapers and current books are found only in metropolitan areas and in the poblaciones of
municipalities accessible to fast and regular transportation. Even here, there are low income masses
who find the cost of books, newspapers, and magazines beyond their humble means. Basic needs like
food and shelter perforce enjoy high priorities.

On the other hand, the transistor radio is found everywhere. The television set is also becoming
universal. Their message may be simultaneously received by a national or regional audience of
listeners including the indifferent or unwilling who happen to be within reach of a blaring radio or
 television set. The materials broadcast over the airwaves reach every person of every age, persons of
varying susceptibilities to persuasion, persons of different I.Q.s and mental capabilities, persons whose
reactions to inflammatory or offensive speech would be difficult to monitor or predict. The impact of the
vibrant speech is forceful and immediate. Unlike readers of the printed work, the radio audience has
lesser opportunity to cogitate analyze, and reject the utterance.

(5) The clear and present danger test, therefore, must take the particular circumstances of broadcast
media into account. The supervision of radio stations-whether by government or through self-regulation
by the industry itself calls for thoughtful, intelligent and sophisticated handling.

The government has a right to be protected against broadcasts which incite the listeners to violently
overthrow it. Radio and television may not be used to organize a rebellion or to signal the start of
widespread uprising. At the same time, the people have a right to be informed. Radio and television
would have little reason for existence if broadcasts are limited to bland, obsequious, or pleasantly
entertaining utterances. Since they are the most convenient and popular means of disseminating
varying views on public issues, they also deserve special protection.

(6) The freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy.
In the 1918 case of United States v. Bustos (37 Phil. 731) this Court was already stressing that.

The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public
affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free
speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may
suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear
conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official
acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted.

(7) Broadcast stations deserve the special protection given to all forms of media by the due process
and freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution. [Citations omitted]

It is interesting to note that the Court in Dans adopted the arguments found in U.S. jurisprudence to justify
differentiation of treatment (i.e., the scarcity, pervasiveness and accessibility to children), but only after categorically
declaring that "the test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be the clear and present danger
rule," for all forms of media, whether print or broadcast. Indeed, a close reading of the above-quoted provisions
would show that the differentiation that the Court in Dans referred to was narrowly restricted to what is otherwise
deemed as "unprotected speech" (e.g., obscenity, national security, seditious and inciting speech), or to validate a
licensing or regulatory scheme necessary to allocate the limited broadcast frequencies, which is absent in print media.
Thus, when this Court declared in Dans that the freedom given to broadcast media was "somewhat lesser in scope
than the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media," it was not as to what test should be applied, but the
context by which requirements of licensing, allocation of airwaves, and application of norms to unprotected speech. 85

In the same year that the Dans case was decided, it was reiterated in Gonzales v. Katigbak,86 that the test to
determine free expression challenges was the clear and present danger, again without distinguishing the media. 87
Katigbak, strictly speaking, does not treat of broadcast media but motion pictures. Although the issue involved
obscenity standards as applied to movies,88 the Court concluded its decision with the following obiter dictum that a less
liberal approach would be used to resolve obscenity issues in television as opposed to motion pictures:

All that remains to be said is that the ruling is to be limited to the concept of obscenity applicable to
motion pictures. It is the consensus of this Court that where television is concerned, a less liberal
approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures where the patrons have to
pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then will likely be among
the avid viewers of the programs therein shown…..It cannot be denied though that the State as parens
patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young.

More recently, in resolving a case involving the conduct of exit polls and dissemination of the results by a broadcast
company, we reiterated that the clear and present danger rule is the test we unquestionably adhere to issues that
involve freedoms of speech and of the press.89

This is not to suggest, however, that the clear and present danger rule has been applied to all cases that
involve the broadcast media. The rule applies to all media, including broadcast, but only when the challenged act is
a content-based regulation that infringes on free speech, expression and the press. Indeed, in Osmena v.
COMELEC,90 which also involved broadcast media, the Court refused to apply the clear and present danger rule to a
COMELEC regulation of time and manner of advertising of political advertisements because the challenged restriction
was content-neutral.91 And in a case involving due process and equal protection issues, the Court in
Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. COMELEC 92 treated a restriction imposed on a
broadcast media as a reasonable condition for the grant of the media’s franchise, without going into which test would
apply.

That broadcast media is subject to a regulatory regime absent in print media is observed also in other jurisdictions,
where the statutory regimes in place over broadcast media include elements of licensing, regulation by administrative
bodies, and censorship. As explained by a British author:

The reasons behind treating broadcast and films differently from the print media differ in a number of
respects, but have a common historical basis. The stricter system of controls seems to have been
adopted in answer to the view that owing to their particular impact on audiences, films, videos and
broadcasting require a system of prior restraints, whereas it is now accepted that books and other
printed media do not. These media are viewed as beneficial to the public in a number of respects, but
are also seen as possible sources of harm. 93

Parenthetically, these justifications are now the subject of debate. Historically, the scarcity of frequencies was
thought to provide a rationale. However, cable and satellite television have enormously increased the number of
actual and potential channels. Digital technology will further increase the number of channels available. But still, the
argument persists that broadcasting is the most influential means of communication, since it comes into the home, and
so much time is spent watching television. Since it has a unique impact on people and affects children in a way that
the print media normally does not, that regulation is said to be necessary in order to preserve pluralism. It has been
argued further that a significant main threat to free expression—in terms of diversity—comes not from government, but
from private corporate bodies. These developments show a need for a reexamination of the traditional notions of the
scope and extent of broadcast media regulation. 94

The emergence of digital technology -- which has led to the convergence of broadcasting, telecommunications and the
computer industry -- has likewise led to the question of whether the regulatory model for broadcasting will continue to
be appropriate in the converged environment. 95 Internet, for example, remains largely unregulated, yet the Internet and
the broadcast media share similarities, 96 and the rationales used to support broadcast regulation apply equally to the
Internet.97 Thus, it has been argued that courts, legislative bodies and the government agencies regulating media must
agree to regulate both, regulate neither or develop a new regulatory framework and rationale to justify the differential
treatment. 98

F. The Case At Bar

Having settled the applicable standard to content-based restrictions on broadcast media, let us go to its application to
the case at bar. To recapitulate, a governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on
content is given the strictest scrutiny, with the government having the burden of overcoming the presumed
unconstitutionality by the clear and present danger rule. This rule applies equally to all kinds of media, including
broadcast media.

This outlines the procedural map to follow in cases like the one at bar as it spells out the following: (a) the test; (b)
the presumption; (c) the burden of proof; (d) the party to discharge the burden; and (e) the quantum of evidence
necessary. On the basis of the records of the case at bar, respondents who have the burden to show that these acts
do not abridge freedom of speech and of the press failed to hurdle the clear and present danger test. 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. The records of the case at bar, however, are confused and confusing, and 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.

We rule that not every violation of a law will justify straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of speech and of the
press. Our laws are of different kinds and doubtless, some of them provide norms of conduct which even if violated
have only an adverse effect on a person’s private comfort but does not endanger national security. There are laws of
great significance but their violation, by itself and without more, cannot support suppression of free speech and free
press. In fine, violation of law is just a factor, a vital one to be sure, which should be weighed in adjudging whether
to restrain freedom of speech and of the press. The totality of the injurious effects of the violation to private and
public interest must be calibrated in light of the preferred status accorded by the Constitution and by related
international covenants protecting freedom of speech and of the press. In calling for a careful and calibrated
measurement of the circumference of all these factors to determine compliance with the clear and present danger test,
the Court should not be misinterpreted as devaluing violations of law. By all means, violations of law should be
vigorously prosecuted by the State for they breed their own evil consequence. But to repeat, 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.

This is not all the faultline in the stance of the respondents. We slide to the issue of whether the mere press
statements of the Secretary of Justice and of the NTC in question constitute a form of content-based prior restraint
that has transgressed the Constitution. In resolving this issue, we hold that 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.

There is enough evidence of chilling effect of the complained acts on record. The warnings given to media came
from no less the NTC, a regulatory agency that can cancel the Certificate of Authority of the radio and broadcast
media. They also came from the Secretary of Justice, the alter ego of the Executive, who wields the awesome power
to prosecute those perceived to be violating the laws of the land. After the warnings, the KBP inexplicably joined the
NTC in issuing an ambivalent Joint Press Statement. After the warnings, petitioner Chavez was left alone to fight this
battle for freedom of speech and of the press. This silence on the sidelines on the part of some media practitioners is
too deafening to be the subject of misinterpretation.

The constitutional imperative for us to strike down unconstitutional acts should always be exercised with care and in
light of the distinct facts of each case. For there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to slippery constitutional
questions, and the limits and construct of relative freedoms are never set in stone. Issues revolving on their construct
must be decided on a case to case basis, always based on the peculiar shapes and shadows of each case. But in
cases where the challenged acts are patent invasions of a constitutionally protected right, we should be swift in
striking them down as nullities per se. A blow too soon struck for freedom is preferred than a blow too late.

In VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The writs of certiorari and prohibition are hereby issued, nullifying the
official statements made by respondents on June 8, and 11, 2005 warning the media on airing the alleged wiretapped
conversation between the President and other personalities, for constituting unconstitutional prior restraint on the
exercise of freedom of speech and of the press

SO ORDERED.