Case Digest (G.R. No. 246126)
Facts:
Ranada v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 246126, June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc, Singh, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners were Patricia Marie I. Ranada, several Rappler journalists, and Rappler, Inc.; respondents were the Office of the President, Office of the Executive Secretary, Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO), Media Accreditation Registration Office (MARO), and Presidential Security Group. Three groups of journalists and a media foundation filed petitions-in-intervention.On January 11, 2018 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a decision revoking Rappler, Inc.’s Certificate of Incorporation for alleged foreign equity violations. Thereafter petitioners allege that Rappler and its reporters were effectively “banned” from covering presidential events attended by then‑President Rodrigo R. Duterte; respondents say the practical effect was loss of “special access” because accreditation (IPC/MARO/MPC) could not be renewed after Rappler’s SEC revocation. Petitioners trace the ban to verbal statements by President Duterte in January–March 2018; respondents point to established accreditation rules (International Press Center/IPC, MARO, and Malacañang Press Corps/MPC by‑laws) requiring, among other things, SEC registration as part of eligibility.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayers for temporary restraining order/status quo ante/preliminary injunction (and a motion for special raffle) on April 10, 2019. Three Petitions‑in‑Intervention followed (April–May 2019). The Court required respondents’ comment (Res. July 30, 2019); the Office of the Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment (Sept. 24, 2019). The petitioners and intervenors filed replies (January 20, 2020, except Pagbabago’s earlier reply), and the Court later dispensed with one intervenor’s belated reply (Res. Apr. 5, 2022). The petition invoked the Court’s original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs (certiorari and prohibition). No final injunction was issued by the Court prior to decision.
The Court, after consideration of the parties’ pleadings and annexes, dismissed the petitions on the gro...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition moot in view of supervening events?
- May the Supreme Court, exercising original jurisdiction in certiorari/prohibition, resolve disputed questions of fact central to the controversy?
- If reached, did respondents’ denial of “special access” or alleged ban violate the petitioners’ constitutional freedom of the pres...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)