Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case

7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case

1/24

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N

PUNO, C.J.:

A. Precis

In this jurisdiction, it is established that freedom of the press is crucial and so inextricably woven into the riht to

free speech and free expression, that any attempt to restrict it must be met with an examination so critical that only a

daner that is clear and present would be allowed to curtail it!

1

EN BANC

FRANCISCO CHAVEZ,

Petitioner,

- versus -

RAUL M. GONZALES,

in his caaci!" as !he

Secre!ar" #$ !he

Dear!%en! #$ &us!ice'

an( NA)IONAL )ELECOMMUNICA)IONS

COMMISSION *N)C+,

Respondents.

G.R. N#. //

Present:

PUNO, C.J.,

"UI#U$%IN&,

'N()*#-#(N+I(&O,

#(NO(.-&U+I*))*/,

0()PIO,(U#+)I(-$()+IN*/,

0O)ON(,

0()PIO $O)(.*#,

(/0UN(,

+IN&(,

01I0O-N(/()IO,

*.(#0O, 2)!,

N(01U)(,

)*'*#, and

.*ON()O-* 0(#+)O,JJ.

Promulated:

3ebruary 45, 6778


2/24

Indeed, we have not wavered in the duty to uphold this cherished freedom! 9e have struc down laws and

issuances meant to curtail this riht, as in Adiong v. COMELEC,;4


3/24

5! On 2une 44, 6775, the N+0 issued this press release:;44, 6775, N+0 held a (ia3#7uewith the %oard of irectors of the%apisanan ng #ga Brod&aster sa

Pilipinas '%BP(! N+0 alleedly assured the J%P that the press release did not violate the constitutional freedom

of speech, of expression, and of the press, and the riht to information! (ccordinly, N+0 and J%P issued

a in! 2ress S!a!e%en!which states, amon others, that:;468H


9/24

interfere or defeat the freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication are liable for damaes, be they

private individuals or public officials!

E.4. AATO$, OF RESTR!CT!OS: PR!OR RESTRA!T& COTET"EUTRAL AD COTET"BASED

REGULAT!OS

Philippine jurisprudence, even as early as the period under the 4H=5 0onstitution, has reconi?ed four aspects of

freedom of the press! +hese are @4A freedom from prior restraint @6A freedom from punishment subseFuent to

publication;5=A freedom of circulation!;55i33 #$ Ri7h!s :; 4e 3i


13/24

%roadcastin has to be licensed! (irwave freFuencies have to be allocated amon Fualified users!

( broadcast corporation cannot simply appropriate a certain freFuency without reard for

overnment reulation or for the rihts of others!

(ll forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression

clause! Necessarily, however, the freedom of television and radio broadcastin is somewhat lesser

in scope than the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media!

+heA#erican Court in 8ederal Co##unications Co##ission v. Pacifica 8oundation @>=8 U!#!

G6EA, confronted with a patently offensive and indecent reular radio proram, explained whyradio broadcastin, more than other forms of communications, receives the most limited

protection from the free expression clause! 3irst, broadcast media have established a uniFuely

pervasive presence in the lives of all citi?ens, $aterial presented over the airwaves confronts the

citi?en, not only in public, but in the privacy of his home! #econd, broadcastin is uniFuely

accessible to children! %oostores and motion picture theaters may be prohibited from main

certain material available to children, but the same selectivity cannot be done in radio or

television, where the listener or viewer is constantly tunin in and out!

#imilar considerations apply in the area of national security!

+he broadcast media have also established a uniFuely pervasive presence in the lives of all

3ilipinos! Newspapers and current boos are found only in metropolitan areas and in the

poblaciones of municipalities accessible to fast and reular transportation! *ven here, there arelow income masses who find the cost of boos, newspapers, and maa?ines beyond their humble

means! %asic needs lie food and shelter perforce enjoy hih priorities!

On the other hand, the transistor radio is found everywhere! +he television set is also becomin

universal! +heir messae may be simultaneously received by a national or reional audience of

listeners includin the indifferent or unwillin who happen to be within reach of a blarin radio

or television set! +he materials broadcast over the airwaves reach every person of every ae,

persons of varyin susceptibilities to persuasion, persons of different I!"!s and mental

capabilities, persons whose reactions to inflammatory or offensive speech would be difficult to

monitor or predict! +he impact of the vibrant speech is forceful and immediate! Unlie readers of

the printed wor, the radio audience has lesser opportunity to coitate analy?e, and reject the

utterance!

@5A +he clear and present daner test, therefore, must tae the particular circumstances of broadcast

media into account! +he supervision of radio stations-whether by overnment or throuh self-

reulation by the industry itself calls for thouhtful, intellient and sophisticated handlin!

+he overnment has a riht to be protected aainst broadcasts which incite the listeners to

violently overthrow it! )adio and television may not be used to orani?e a rebellion or to sinalthe start of widespread uprisin! (t the same time, the people have a riht to be informed! )adio

and television would have little reason for existence if broadcasts are limited to bland,

obseFuious, or pleasantly entertainin utterances! #ince they are the most convenient and popular

means of disseminatin varyin views on public issues, they also deserve special protection!

@EA +he freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative

democracy! In the 4H48 case of 0nited States v. Bustos @=G Phil! G=4A this 0ourt was alreadystressin that!

+he interest of society and the maintenance of ood overnment demand a full discussion of

public affairs! 0omplete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case

of free speech! +he sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom! $en in

public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation the wound can be assuaed with

the balm of a clear conscience! ( public officer must not be too thin-sinned with reference to

comment upon his official acts! Only thus can the intellience and dinity of the individual be

exalted!

13


14/24

@GA %roadcast stations deserve the special protection iven to all forms of media by the due process

and freedom of expression clauses of the 0onstitution! ;0itations omitted


16/24

abride freedom of speech and of the press failed to hurdle the clear and present daner test! It appears that the 7rea!

evi3which overnment wants to prevent is the airin of a tape recordin in alleed violation of the anti-wiretappin law!

+he records of the case at bar, however, are confused and confusin, and respondentsD evidence falls short of satisfyin the

clear and present daner test! Firs!3", the various statements of the Press #ecretary obfuscate the identity of the voices in

the tape recordin! Sec#n(3", the interity of the taped conversation is also suspect! +he Press #ecretary showed to the

public two versions, one supposed to be a BcompleteC version and the other, an BalteredC version! )hir(3", the evidence

of the respondents on the whoDs and the howDs of the wiretappin act is ambivalent, especially considerin the tapeDs

different versions! +he identity of the wire-tappers, the manner of its commission and other related and relevant proofs are

some of the invisibles of this case! F#ur!h3", iven all these unsettled facets of the tape, it is even aruable whether its

airin would violate the anti-wiretappin law!

9e rule that n#! ever" vi#3a!i#n #$ a 3a4 4i33 8us!i$" s!rai!8ac


17/24

resu3! in !he eas" circu%ven!i#n #$ !he r#hi5i!i#n #n ri#r res!rain!. +he press statements at bar are acts that should

be struc down as they constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints on the riht to free speech and press!

+here is enouh evidence of chi33in7 e$$ec!of the complained acts on record! +he 4arnin7siven to

media ca%e $r#% n# 3essthe N+0, a reulatory aency that can cancel the 0ertificate of (uthority of the radio and

broadcast media! +hey also came from the #ecretary of 2ustice, the alter eo of the *xecutive, who wields the awesome

power to prosecute those perceived to be violatin the laws of the land! A$!er !he 4arnin7s, the J%P inexplicably joined

the N+0 in issuin an ambivalent 2oint Press #tatement! (fter the warnins, petitioner 0have? was left alone to fiht this

battle for freedom of speech and of the press! +his silence on the sidelines on the part of some media practitioners is too

deafenin to be the subject of misinterpretation!

+he constitutional imperative for us to strie down unconstitutional acts should always be exercised with care and in

liht of the distinct facts of each case! 3or there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to slippery constitutiona

Fuestions, and the limits and construct of relative freedoms are never set in stone! Issues revolvin on their construc

must be decided on a case to case basis, always based on the peculiar shapes and shadows of each case! %ut in caseswhere the challened acts are patent invasions of a constitutionally protected riht, 4e sh#u3( 5e s4i$!in striin them

down as nullities per se! A 53#4 !## s##n s!ruc< $#r $ree(#% is re$erre( !han a 53#4 !## 3a!e.

In VIE HEREOF, the petition is GRAN)ED! +he writs of certiorariand prohibition are hereby issued

nullifyin the official statements made by respondents on 2une 8, and 44, 6775 warnin the media on airin the alleed

wiretapped conversation between the President and other personalities, for constitutin unconstitutional prior restraint on

the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press

SO ORDERED!

RENA)O S. 2UNO

0hief 2ustice

9* 0ON0U):

LEONARDO A. UISUM>ING(ssociate 2ustice

CONSUELO NARES-SAN)IAGO(ssociate 2ustice

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GU)IERREZ

(ssociate 2ustice

AN)ONIO ). CAR2IO

(ssociate 2ustice

17


18/24

MA. ALICIA AUS)RIA-MAR)INEZ

(ssociate 2ustice

RENA)O C. CORONA

(ssociate 2ustice

CONCHI)A CAR2IO MORALES

(ssociate 2ustice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA

(ssociate 2ustice

DAN)E O. )INGA

(ssociate 2ustice

MINI)A V. CHICO-NAZARIO

(ssociate 2ustice

2RES>I)ERO &. VELASCO, &R.

(ssociate 2ustice

AN)ONIO EDUARDO >. NACHURA

(ssociate 2ustice

RU>EN ). REES )ERESI)A LEONARDO-DE CAS)RO

(ssociate 2ustice (ssociate 2ustice

18


19/24

C E R ) I F I C A ) I O N

Pursuant to #ection 4=, (rticle III of the 0onstitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been

reached in consultation before the case was assined to the writer of the opinion of the 0ourt!

RENA)O S. 2UNO

0hief 2ustice

;4A!;=G5G4, $ay 5, 6774, =5G #0)( >HE!;>88 #0)( 66E!;5, 6775, p! (4Aand p! 58!

;E #0)( =4G uingona v. Carague, &!)! No! H>5G4, (pril 66, 4HH4, 4HE #0)( 664 Os#e$a v

COMELEC, &!)! No! 477=48, 2uly =7, 4HH4, 4HH #0)( G57Basco v. PACOR, 6G> Phil! =6= @4HH4A Carpio v

19
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref22


20/24

E"ecutive Secretar!, &!)! No! HE>7H, 3ebruary 4>, 4HH6, 67E #0)( 6H7el Mar v. PACOR, >77 Phil! =7G

@6777A!;6= Phil! =6= @4HH4A, citin%apatiran ng #ga )agliling&od sa Pa#ahalaan ng Pilipinas 9nc. v.

4an, &!)! No! .-84=44, 2une =7, 4H88, 4E= #0)( =G4!;6>!;65A!;=E>, E55 @4H6HA!;>46G4, >H>@4HEHA!;>=85 @677=

;1ereinafter * .*ON, 0ON#+I+U+ION(. .(9>85! .aws have also limited the freedom of speech and of the press, or

otherwise affected the media and freedom of expression! +he 0onstitution itself imposes certain limits @such as

(rticle IS on the 0ommission on *lections, and (rticle SI prohibitin forein media ownershipA as do

20
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref45


21/24

the )evised Penal 0ode @with provisions on national security, libel and obscenityA,

the 0ivil 0ode @which contains two articles on privacyA, the )ules of 0ourt @on the fair administration of justice

and contemptA and certain presidential decrees! +here is also a Bshield law,C or )epublic (ct No! 5=, as amended by

)epublic (ct No! 4>GG! #ection 4 of this law provides protection for non

disclosure of sources of information, without prejudice to oneDs liability under civil and criminal laws! +he

publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter of a newspaper, maa?ine or periodical of

eneral circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any information or news report appearin in said

publication, if the information was released in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless the court or a

0ommittee of 0onress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the state!;>EG8G4 @4HEHA! #eePeople v. Pere-

> Phil! 5HH @4H75APeople v. )a+ong, 5G Phil! >55 @4H==APeople v. 8eleo, 5G Phil! >54 @4H==A!;>HG4, 5=6-5=G

@4HEHA!;57


22/24

system of prior restraint comes to court bearin a heavy burden aainst its constitutionality! It is the overnment

which must show justification for enforcement of the restraint!CA! #ee also9glesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, =68

Phil! 8H= @4HHEA @reliious speech falls within the protection of free speechA!;5H7= U# G4= @4HG4A!;E75G @4H8=A,)avarro v. ;illegas, &!)! No! .-=4E8G, 3ebruary 48, 4HG7, =4

#0)( G=79gnacio v. Ela, HH Phil! =>E @4H5EAPri#icias v. 3uosa, 87 Phil! G4 @4H>8A!;E4 @6777A!;EH


23/24

Broadcasting Co. v. 0nited States, =4H U!#! 4H7, 64H @4H>=A@notin that the public interest standard denoted to the

300 is an expansive powerA!;GE=8 U!#! G6E @4HG8ASa+le

Co##unications v. 8CC, >H6 U!#! 445 @4H8HA andReno v. A#erican Civil Li+erties 0nion 2ACL03, 564 U!#! 8>>

8G> @4HHGA! In these cases, U!#! courts disrearded the arument that the offended listener or viewer could simply

turn the dial and avoid the unwanted broadcast ;thereby puttin print and broadcast media in the same footinH6 U!#! 445 @4H8HA andReno v. A#erican Civil Li+erties 0nion 2ACL03, 564 U!#! 8>>, 8G> @4HHGA! In 300

v! Pacifica 3oundation, involvin an 300 decision to reFuire broadcasters to channel indecent prorammin away

from times of the day when there is a reasonable ris that children may be in the audience, the U!#! 0ourt found

that the broadcast medium was an intrusive and pervasive one! In reaffirmin that this medium should receive the

most limited of 3irst (mendment protections, the U!#! 0ourt held that the rihts of the public to avoid indecent

speech trump those of the broadcaster to disseminate such speech! +he justifications for this rulin were two-fold!3irst, the reulations were necessary because of the pervasive presence of broadcast media in (merican life,

capable of injectin offensive material into the privacy of the home, where the riht Tto be left alone plainly

outweihs the 3irst (mendment rihts of an intruder!T #econd, the U!#! 0ourt found that broadcastin Tis uniFuelyaccessible to children, even those too youn to read!T +he 0ourt dismissed the arument that the offended listener

or viewer could simply turn the dial and avoid the unwanted broadcast, reasonin that because the broadcast

audience is constantly tunin in and out, prior warnins cannot protect the listener from unexpected proram

content!;GHE8 U!#! =E>, =GE @4H8>A!;87?!;84Bbein in fact an animatin principle of that document!C =54 Phil! EH6, G48 @4HH8A!;86


24/24

;8H @0O$*.*0 )esolution restrainin (%#-0%N, a

corporation enaed in broadcast media of television and radio, from conductin exit surveys after the 4HH8

electionsA! (lthouh the decision was rendered after the 4HH8 elections, the 0ourt proceeded to rule on the case to

rule on the issue of the constitutionality of holdin exit polls and the dissemination of data derived therefrom! +he

0ourt ruled that restriction on exit polls must be tested aainst the clear and present daner rule, the rule we

BunFuestionablyC adhere to! +he framin of the uidelines issued by the 0ourt clearly showed that the issue

involved not only the conduct of the exit polls but also its dissemination by broadcast media! (nd yet, the 0ourt did

not distinuish, and still applied the clear and present daner rule!;H7

Date post:	11-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kj
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case

Documents