Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15K views

    Chavez v. Gonzales (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Arahbells
    This case involved Francisco Chavez filing a petition against Secretary Raul Gonzales of the Department of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission regarding acts that abridged freedom of speech and the press. Specifically, Gonzales warned reporters and media companies about potential liability for possessing or broadcasting an audiotaped phone conversation between President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a COMELEC commissioner. The NTC then issued a press release strengthening the prohibition on disseminating this information. The court found that the respondents failed to satisfy the clear and present danger test to justify restricting free speech and press. There was not sufficient proof of who recorded the conversation or how, and airing it would not necessarily violate the anti-wiret

    Copyright:

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

    Chavez v. Gonzales (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Arahbells
    15K views2 pages
    This case involved Francisco Chavez filing a petition against Secretary Raul Gonzales of the Department of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission regarding acts that abridged freedom of speech and the press. Specifically, Gonzales warned reporters and media companies about potential liability for possessing or broadcasting an audiotaped phone conversation between President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a COMELEC commissioner. The NTC then issued a press release strengthening the prohibition on disseminating this information. The court found that the respondents failed to satisfy the clear and present danger test to justify restricting free speech and press. There was not sufficient proof of who recorded the conversation or how, and airing it would not necessarily violate the anti-wiret

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved Francisco Chavez filing a petition against Secretary Raul Gonzales of the Department of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission regarding acts that abridged freedom of speech and the press. Specifically, Gonzales warned reporters and media companies about potential liability for possessing or broadcasting an audiotaped phone conversation between President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a COMELEC commissioner. The NTC then issued a press release strengthening the prohibition on disseminating this information. The court found that the respondents failed to satisfy the clear and present danger test to justify restricting free speech and press. There was not sufficient proof of who recorded the conversation or how, and airing it would not necessarily violate the anti-wiret

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15K views2 pages

    Chavez v. Gonzales (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Arahbells
    This case involved Francisco Chavez filing a petition against Secretary Raul Gonzales of the Department of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission regarding acts that abridged freedom of speech and the press. Specifically, Gonzales warned reporters and media companies about potential liability for possessing or broadcasting an audiotaped phone conversation between President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a COMELEC commissioner. The NTC then issued a press release strengthening the prohibition on disseminating this information. The court found that the respondents failed to satisfy the clear and present danger test to justify restricting free speech and press. There was not sufficient proof of who recorded the conversation or how, and airing it would not necessarily violate the anti-wiret

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Francisco Chavez v. Raul M.

    Gonzales
    GR No. 168338, 15 February 2008
    Ponente: Puno

    FACTS:
    A year following the 2004 national and local elections, Press Secretary
    Ignacio Bunye disclosed to the public how the opposition planned to
    destabilize the administration by releasing an audiotape of a mobile phone
    conversation allegedly between President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and
    Commissioner Garcillano of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The
    conversation was alleged to have been audio-taped through wire-tapping. On
    June 8, 2005, respondent Secretary Raul Gonzales of the Department of
    Justice (DOJ) warned reporters who are in possession of copies of the said
    conversation, as well as those broadcasting companies and/or publishers
    that they may be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act. Consequently,
    the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued a press release
    strengthening the prohibition on the dissemination of the same that the
    broadcasting/airing of such information shall be just cause for the
    suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations
    issued by the Commission. Petitioner Francisco Chavez filed a petition
    against respondent Chavez and NTC, praying for the issuance of writs of
    certiorari and prohibition for the nullification of the acts, issuances and
    orders of respondents as they were outright violations of the freedom of
    expression and of the press, and the right of the people to information on
    matters of public concern.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of the respondents abridge freedom of


    speech and of the press.

    HELD:

    Yes. 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 limits speech once a rational connection has
    been established between the speech restrained and the danger
    contemplated; (b) the balancing of interests tests, a standard when
    courts balance conflicting social values and individual
    interests, 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.

    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.
    However, 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 whos and the hows of the wiretapping act is
    ambivalent, especially considering the tapes 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.

    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

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy