Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 558 views

    Chavez vs. Secretary Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ella Kriziana Cruz
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that airing the audiotape did not violate the clear and present danger rule for content-based restrictions on freedom of speech. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence that airing the tape posed a clear and present danger to national security. 2. The Court also held that not every violation of law justifies restricting freedom of the press. While violations should be prosecuted, suppression of speech and press requires more than just a violation of law. There was no showing that airing the tape clearly endangered national security. 3. The respondents did not meet their burden of proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test and override the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and a free

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Chavez vs. Secretary Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ella Kriziana Cruz
    558 views3 pages
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that airing the audiotape did not violate the clear and present danger rule for content-based restrictions on freedom of speech. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence that airing the tape posed a clear and present danger to national security. 2. The Court also held that not every violation of law justifies restricting freedom of the press. While violations should be prosecuted, suppression of speech and press requires more than just a violation of law. There was no showing that airing the tape clearly endangered national security. 3. The respondents did not meet their burden of proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test and override the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and a free

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The Supreme Court ruled that airing the audiotape did not violate the clear and present danger rule for content-based restrictions on freedom of speech. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence that airing the tape posed a clear and present danger to national security. 2. The Court also held that not every violation of law justifies restricting freedom of the press. While violations should be prosecuted, suppression of speech and press requires more than just a violation of law. There was no showing that airing the tape clearly endangered national security. 3. The respondents did not meet their burden of proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test and override the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and a free

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    558 views3 pages

    Chavez vs. Secretary Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ella Kriziana Cruz
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that airing the audiotape did not violate the clear and present danger rule for content-based restrictions on freedom of speech. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence that airing the tape posed a clear and present danger to national security. 2. The Court also held that not every violation of law justifies restricting freedom of the press. While violations should be prosecuted, suppression of speech and press requires more than just a violation of law. There was no showing that airing the tape clearly endangered national security. 3. The respondents did not meet their burden of proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test and override the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and a free

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Chavez vs. Secretary Gonzales, G.R. No.

    168338

    Facts:

    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
    COMELEC. The conversation is about the manipulation of 2004 presidential
    election, which was instructed by Arroyo to win the election.

    On June 8, 2005, the respondent 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.

    On June 11, 2005, the NTC issued a press release wherein it pronounced
    that the said audio tape have not been duly authenticated nor the tapes contain
    an accurate or truthful representation of what was recorded therein. As such, the
    NTC warned that the 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.

    Due to the aforementioned events, 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.

    Issue:

    1. Whether or not the airing of the said wiretapped conversation passed the
    clear and present danger rule which was done to test the content-based
    restriction.

    2. Whether or not the airing of the said wiretapped conversation by the


    broadcasting companies violates RA4200.
    Ruling:

    1. Yes. The Court provides:

    To recapitulate, a governmental actionthat restricts freedom of


    speech or of the press based oncontent 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 ofmedia, including broadcast
    media. This outlines the procedural map to follow in caseslike the
    one at bar as it spells out the following: (a) the test;(b) the
    presumption; (c) the burden of proof; (d) the party todischarge the
    burden; and (e) the quantum of evidencenecessary. On the basis of
    the records of the case at bar,respondents who have the burden to
    show that these actsdo not abridge freedom of speech and of the
    press failed tohurdle the clear and present danger test. It appears
    thatthe 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 therespondents on the
    who’s and the how’s of the wiretappingact is ambivalent,
    especially considering the tape’s different versions. The identity of
    the wire-tappers, the manner of its commission and other related
    and relevan tproofs 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.

    2. No. The Court held:

    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 do 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.

    You might also like