SC rules media accreditation guidelines must not infringe free speech
The Supreme Court Building. INQUIRER PHOTO / NIÑO JESUS ORBETA
MANILA, Philippines – Freedoms of speech, expression and of the press should not be suppressed by guidelines and procedures for media accreditation, the Supreme Court (SC) said.
The SC’s reminder is contained in a decision dismissing as moot and academic the petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by the Customs Tri-Media Association Inc., and several journalists covering the Bureau of Customs (BOC).
READ: Tri-comm probe on fake news online not meant to gag free speech – Barbers
“In recognition of all these, this Court has not wavered in its duty to uphold these cherished freedoms by striking down laws or regulations, which while guise as promoting a legitimate government interest, are in reality nothing but naked means to suppress the exercise of free speech, expression, and of the press,” the SC said through Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez.
It added that any limitation on the exercise of free speech “must be justified on legitimate grounds that are clear and indubitable and with means that are narrowly tailored and only specifically calibrated to achieve those purposes.”
Article continues after this advertisement“Thus, no matter how laudable the objective of respondent in weeding out illegitimate media personalities, the means used to achieve such an objective must not unnecessarily sweep on the rights of legitimate media personalities. The furtherance of a substantial governmental interest must not amount to an infringement of the freedom of expression. Otherwise, any rule or regulation that encroaches on this area of protected speech will be stricken down,” the SC said.
Article continues after this advertisementThe petition assailed Custom Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 issued by then Bureau of Customs Commissioner RozzAno Rufino Biazon requiring media practitioners to submit accreditation requirements to the Office of the Public Information and Assistance Division (PIAD) of the BOC who would screen and issue the identification card.
Columnists can enter the BOC premises as long as they can present clear documentation that they were on assignment from a specific news organization or publication.
The memorandum also provides, among others, that: (1) the editorial content of the publication must at all times be compliant with the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics; (2) the No I.D., No Entry shall be strictly enforced; and (3) media interview with the BOC officials and employees must be pre-arranged with the PIAD to avoid work disruption.
Petitioners argued that the BOC converted into law the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics, which is only a private undertaking agreed upon by journalists.
They added that requiring members of the press to prearrange the conduct of interviews and to obtain visitation passes before they could enter the BOC, would enable the BOC to receive advance information as to who will be interviewed, allowing its errant employees to avoid the discovery of illicit activities.
The case is already moot and academic after the BOC repealed the questioned memorandum.
With the repeal of Custom Memorandum Order No. 37-2011, the SC said “there is nothing left for this Court to declare as unconstitutional.”
Meanwhile, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented with the majority of the justices as he insisted that the Court should have ruled on the merit of the petition despite the repeal of Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 37-201 “to guide the Bench and the Bar, and to avoid its repetition in the near future.”
Leonen said a memorandum can be considered as a form of “prior restraint” as it infringes on the right of members of the media to free speech and free press.
“Information gathering is necessary to journalistic work. When the State hampers this task, it harms the role of the press in a democracy. Any regulation that goes into the content of the press, as in this case, only stifles the exercise of free expression, speech, and of the press,” the justice explained.
