Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Case 19

    Uploaded by

    Almira
    1) Petitioner Chavez filed a petition against the Secretary of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) regarding a warning by the NTC about airing recordings of a wiretapped phone call between then-President Arroyo and a COMELEC commissioner. 2) The NTC warned that continuously airing the recordings would violate the Anti-Wiretapping Law and the conditions of broadcast licenses and authorizations. 3) The main issue is whether the NTC warning constituted an impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that the NTC's restriction was content-based and that airing the

    Copyright:

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

    Case 19

    Uploaded by

    Almira
    20 views2 pages
    1) Petitioner Chavez filed a petition against the Secretary of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) regarding a warning by the NTC about airing recordings of a wiretapped phone call between then-President Arroyo and a COMELEC commissioner. 2) The NTC warned that continuously airing the recordings would violate the Anti-Wiretapping Law and the conditions of broadcast licenses and authorizations. 3) The main issue is whether the NTC warning constituted an impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that the NTC's restriction was content-based and that airing the

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CASE 19

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner Chavez filed a petition against the Secretary of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) regarding a warning by the NTC about airing recordings of a wiretapped phone call between then-President Arroyo and a COMELEC commissioner. 2) The NTC warned that continuously airing the recordings would violate the Anti-Wiretapping Law and the conditions of broadcast licenses and authorizations. 3) The main issue is whether the NTC warning constituted an impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that the NTC's restriction was content-based and that airing the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    20 views2 pages

    Case 19

    Uploaded by

    Almira
    1) Petitioner Chavez filed a petition against the Secretary of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) regarding a warning by the NTC about airing recordings of a wiretapped phone call between then-President Arroyo and a COMELEC commissioner. 2) The NTC warned that continuously airing the recordings would violate the Anti-Wiretapping Law and the conditions of broadcast licenses and authorizations. 3) The main issue is whether the NTC warning constituted an impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that the NTC's restriction was content-based and that airing the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    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.

    You might also like