CHAVEZ v.

GONZALES
G.R. No. 168338
January 15, 2008

FACTS:
On June 25, 2005, Press Sec. Ignacio Bunye revealed that the opposition was planning to release
a wiretapped conversation of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and a COMELEC official. He later
produced two versions of the tape, a complete and an allegedly doctored version. Atty. Alan
Paguia, former counsel of ex-Pres. Joseph Estrada, would also release an alleged authentic tape
on June 7, 2005. The following day, respondent DOJ Sec. Raul Gonzales warned reporters that
those who had copies of the CD could be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act. He
subsequently ordered the NBI to pursue media organizations found to have disseminated the
tape. On June 11, 2005, respondent NTC issued a press release giving “fair warning” to radio
and TV owners/operators to observe the Anti-Wiretapping Law. After a dialogue with the KBP
on June 14, 2005, the NTC and the former issued a Joint Press Statement averring that the NTC
did not issue any Memorandum Circular or Order infringing on press freedom.

Petitioner Francisco Chavez filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against respondents,
alleging that their acts violate the freedom of expression and of the press, and the right of the
people to information on matters of public concern.

ISSUE:
Whether respondents’ actions infringe on freedom of expression and of the press.

HELD:
YES.
a. Restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by either or a combination
of three tests: a) the dangerous tendency doctrine; b) the balancing of interests test; and c)
the clear and present danger rule. As early as the 1935 Constitution, Philippine
jurisprudence has also recognized four aspects of freedom of the press: a) freedom from
prior restraint; b) freedom from punishment subsequent to publication; c) freedom of
access to information; and d) freedom of circulation.

It is important to note that not all prior restraints on speech are invalid. However, a
distinction must be made between whether the restraint is: a) content-neutral, which
requires an intermediate approach to review; or b) content-based, which demands
strictest scrutiny and must pass the clear and present danger rule.

Unlike in the US, the Philippine approach to press freedom in the broadcast media has
two distinct features. First, the regulatory scheme is confined to unprotected speech like
obscenity and seditious speech. Second, the clear and present danger rule applies to both
print and broadcast media.

b. Given the Court’s prior observations, the case should follow the following procedural
map: a) test; b) presumption; c) burden of proof; d) party to discharge the burden; and e)
quantum of evidence necessary.
It is evident that the release of the wiretapped conversation does not satisfy the clear and
present danger rule. Not only do Sec. Bunye’s statements obfuscate the identity of the
voices in the tape, but the integrity of the conversation is suspect. Given the different
versions of the tapes, respondents’ statements on the whos and hows of the wiretapping
act are equally suspect.

Furthermore, the Court has also noted the chilling effect of the said acts. Respondents’
warnings to the media resulted in the KBP’s joint press statement, leaving petitioner
Chavez alone in the case.