The Supreme Court ruled that government advisories reminding media of potential legal liabilities for disobeying lawful orders during emergencies do not constitute prior restraint or censorship. This decision clarifies the limits of press freedom during critical situations, emphasizing that while the press has a right to report, it must also adhere to lawful orders designed to ensure public safety. Ultimately, the ruling seeks to strike a balance between safeguarding the freedom of the press and the government’s duty to maintain order and protect citizens.

Manila Pen Siege: Where Does Journalistic Freedom End and Public Safety Begin?

This case arose from the aftermath of the 2007 Manila Peninsula Hotel standoff, where Senator Antonio Trillanes IV and other members of the Magdalo group took over the hotel to call for the ouster of then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Several journalists, including the petitioners, covered the event, some staying inside the hotel despite police orders to vacate the premises. Following the incident, government officials issued advisories reminding media practitioners of potential criminal liabilities for disobeying lawful orders during emergencies. This prompted the journalists to file a complaint, arguing that these advisories constituted prior restraint and had a chilling effect on press freedom.

The petitioners contended that the government’s actions violated their constitutional right to press freedom. They argued that the advisories issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and statements from other government officials created a chilling effect, deterring journalists from reporting on matters of public interest. The core of their argument rested on the premise that these actions constituted prior restraint, an impermissible form of censorship that restricts expression before it occurs.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that while press freedom is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. The Court highlighted that the exercise of this right could be regulated to ensure it does not infringe upon the rights of others or the general welfare of society. This regulatory power falls under the State’s police power, which allows the government to prescribe regulations that promote health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and the general welfare of the people. The court then turned to dissect whether there was an actual form of prior restraint.

Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. Freedom from prior restraint is largely freedom from government censorship of publications, whatever the form of censorship, and regardless of whether it is wielded by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the government.

Building on this principle, the Court differentiated the advisories from outright prohibitions or restrictions on reporting. Unlike cases where the government directly prohibited the publication of specific content, the advisories merely reminded media personnel of existing laws regarding obstruction of justice and disobedience to lawful orders. The Supreme Court found that the advisories did not prevent journalists from covering any subject matter or from being present at newsworthy events.

The Court emphasized that the government’s actions were a valid exercise of its authority to maintain peace and order. The police had a legitimate interest in securing the Manila Peninsula Hotel and ensuring the safety of everyone present, including the journalists. The order to vacate the premises was not aimed at suppressing news coverage but at managing a volatile situation. The Court referenced Republic Act No. 6975, which establishes the PNP and recognizes the State’s commitment to peace, order and safety. The Court said, citing Chavez v. Gonzales, “the productions of writers are classified as intellectual and proprietary. Persons who interfere or defeat the freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication are liable for damages, be they private individuals or public officials.”

A critical aspect of the ruling was the Court’s assessment of whether the government’s actions had a chilling effect on press freedom. The petitioners argued that the threat of arrest and prosecution deterred journalists from covering similar events in the future. However, the Court found no evidence to support this claim. News and commentary on the Manila Peninsula incident continued to be disseminated, and there was no indication that the media had refrained from covering subsequent events due to fear of reprisal. As such, the court affirmed the CA’s finding that there was, in fact, no prior restraint.

The Court also addressed the issue of whether the lower courts erred in excluding the testimony of Dean Raul Pangalangan, who was presented as an expert witness. The Court upheld the lower courts’ decision, noting that the admissibility of expert testimony is discretionary. The Court stated that the expert’s opinion should not sway the court in favor of any parties, but to assist the court in its determination of the issue.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, dismissing the petition for lack of cause of action. The Court concluded that the government’s actions did not violate the petitioners’ right to press freedom and that the prayer for an injunction must fail because the petitioners did not demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right that needed protection. The Court stated that the freedom of expression and of the press does not entail unfettered access to information.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether government advisories reminding media of potential legal liabilities for disobeying lawful orders during emergencies constituted prior restraint or censorship, violating press freedom.
Did the Supreme Court find a violation of press freedom?	No, the Supreme Court ruled that the government’s actions did not violate press freedom because the advisories did not prohibit or restrict reporting, but merely reminded media of existing laws.
What is prior restraint?	Prior restraint refers to government restrictions on expression before it occurs, such as censorship or requiring permission to publish. The Court determined the government advisories in this case did not meet the criteria.
Can press freedom be regulated?	Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed that press freedom is not absolute and can be regulated to ensure it does not infringe upon the rights of others or the general welfare of society.
What is the State’s police power?	The State’s police power allows the government to prescribe regulations that promote health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and the general welfare of the people.
Did the government’s actions have a chilling effect on press freedom?	The Supreme Court found no evidence to support the claim that the government’s actions had a chilling effect, as news and commentary on the Manila Peninsula incident continued to be disseminated.
Was the exclusion of the expert witness testimony proper?	Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decision to exclude the testimony of Dean Raul Pangalangan, noting that the admissibility of expert testimony is discretionary.
What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, dismissing the petition for lack of cause of action, concluding that the government’s actions did not violate the petitioners’ right to press freedom.

This case underscores the delicate balance between press freedom and public safety, particularly during times of crisis. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that while the press plays a vital role in informing the public, it must also adhere to lawful orders designed to protect the community. The ruling provides a framework for understanding the limits of press freedom and the government’s authority to maintain order in emergency situations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Tordesillas, et al. v. Puno, et al., G.R. No. 210088, October 01, 2018