G.R. No. 168338 - Chavez vs. Gonzales

In the wake of the May 2004 elections, on June 5, 2005, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told reporters that wiretapped audiotapes of a mobile phone conversation allegedly between President Arroyo and a COMELEC official were about to be released; he then played two CDs—one claimed authentic, one doctored—to the Malacañang press corps.
On June 7, 2005, former counsel Atty. Alan Paguia released what he called the genuine recordings, including conversations involving President Arroyo, the First Gentleman, COMELEC Commissioner Garcillano, and others.

On June 8–9, 2005, DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales warned that anyone in possession of the CDs or broadcasting their contents could be prosecuted under the Anti-Wiretapping Act (R.A. 4200), and that the tapes’ airing constituted a continuing offense punishable by arrest.
He directed the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate media outlets that aired or printed the tapes’ contents.

On June 11, 2005, the NTC issued a press release warning radio and television stations that

airing unverified or false taped conversations violated the Anti-Wiretapping Act and the conditions of their Provisional Authority/Certificate of Authority, and
if subsequent investigation proved the tapes false or fraudulent, airing them would justify suspension, revocation, or cancellation of their licenses.

On June 14, 2005, the NTC and the broadcasters’ group KBP held a dialogue and issued a joint press statement clarifying that

no memorandum circular or order constituting prior restraint or censorship had been issued,
freedom of the press and right to information would not be hindered, and
the NTC only urged responsible exercise of press freedom under existing laws and program standards.

On June 21, 2005, petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, as citizen and taxpayer, filed a Rule 65 petition seeking writs of certiorari and prohibition to nullify respondents’ acts as unconstitutional restraints on expression.
In their Comment, respondents denied unconstitutionality, questioned petitioner’s standing, and justified the NTC warning under its regulatory mandate.
Despite mootness concerns following the joint statement, the Court took up the case due to its public importance.

Does petitioner have the legal standing and a live case or controversy to challenge respondents’ press statements?
Did the DOJ Secretary’s warnings and the NTC’s press release constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression and of the press?
Did the NTC exceed its regulatory authority under Executive Order 546 and Republic Act 7925 by issuing the June 11, 2005 press release?