Facts: The case
originates from events that occurred a year after the 2004 national and local
elections. On June 5, 2005, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told reporters that
the opposition was planning to release an audiotape of a mobile phone
conversation allegedly between the President of the Philippines, Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo, and a high-ranking official of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) which was audiotaped allegedly through wire-tapping. On June 8, 2005,
respondent Department of Justice (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..
In another press briefing, Secretary Gonzales 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" of an
alleged wiretapped conversation involving the President about fixing votes in
the 2004 national elections.
Issue: Is the
warning to media in not airing the “hello Garci” tapes a case of prior
restraint?
Ruling: Yes. The
Court holds that it is not decisive that the press statements made by
respondents were not reduced in or followed up with formal orders or circulars.
It is sufficient that the press statements were made by respondents while in
the exercise of their official functions. Any act done, such as a speech
uttered, for and on behalf of the government in an official capacity is covered
by the rule on prior restraint. The concept of an "act" does not
limit itself to acts already converted to a formal order or official circular.
Otherwise, the non formalization of an act into an official order or circular
will result in the easy circumvention of the prohibition on prior restraint.
The press statements at bar are acts that should be struck down as they constitute
impermissible forms of prior restraints on the right to free speech and press.