Cabanting, Princess Dominique T.

Cariño, Trixie Jhoy A.

Chavez v. Gonzales 205 SCRA 816

G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008

FACTS:

Petitioner Chavez filed a petition under Rule 65 against respondents Secretary Gonzales
and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) directly with the Supreme Court.

As the consequence of the public release of copies of the “Hello Garci” compact disc
audiotapes involving a wiretapped mobile phone conversation between then- President Gloria
Arroyo and COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, respondent DOJ Secretary 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. Finally, he stated that he had 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.”

Meanwhile, respondent NTC warned in a press release all radio stations and TV network
owners/ or 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
they shall not use their stations for the broadcasting or telecasting of false information or willful
misrepresentation. The NTC stated that the continuous airing or broadcast of the “Hello Garci”
taped conversations by radio and TV stations is a continuing violation of the Anti-Wiretapping
Law and the conditions of the provisional authority and/ or certificate of authority. It warned that
their broadcast/ airing of such false information and/ or willful misrepresentation shall be a just
cause for the suspension, revocation and/ or cancelation of the licenses or authorizations issued
to the said media establishments.

Subsequently, a dialogue was held between the NTC and Kapisanan ng mga
Broadcaster sa Pilipinas (KBP) which resulted in the issuance of a joint press statement which
stated, among others, that the supposed wiretapped tapes should be treated with sensitivity and
handled responsibly.

ISSUE:

The principal issue for resolution is whether the NTC warning embodied in the press
release of 11 June 2005 constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression.
RULING:

In this jurisdiction, where speech can be subject to prior control, apply only four types of
speech, namely: pornography, deceptive or misleading ads, promotion of immediate illegal
action and threat to national security. The NTC's allegation that the Garci Tapes could contain
"false facts and/or intentional misrepresentation," and may therefore not be publicly broadcast,
is an acknowledgment that the restriction is content-based The Garci Tapes' public airing is a
protected expression because it does not fall into any of the four current definitions of
unprotected speech accepted throughout this jurisdiction.