Case Digest (G.R. No. 199479) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case involves a Petition for Prohibition with prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed by media practitioners and media organizations, collectively petitioners including Napoleon Sanota, Bambi Magno Purisima, Antonio Tabbad, et al., against the Bureau of Customs (BOC), represented by Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon. The petitioners challenged the implementation of Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 issued by the BOC on November 8, 2011, which provided guidelines on the accreditation of media practitioners seeking to cover events inside BOC premises. The memorandum imposed documentary requirements, conditions, and a process overseen primarily by the Public Information and Assistance Division of the BOC, which granted accreditation cards and visitation passes. Petitioners asserted that the Memorandum was akin to censorship or prior restraint, violating their constitutional rights to freedom of speech, expression, and of the press under the 1987 Philippine Case Digest (G.R. No. 199479) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Issuance of Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011
- On November 8, 2011, the Bureau of Customs (BOC) issued Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 37-2011, providing guidelines on accrediting media practitioners.
- The purpose was to ensure that only bona fide media professionals and organizations were admitted to cover BOC events.
- Applicants had to submit accreditation documents to the Office of the Public Information and Assistance Division (PIAD).
- Within five days, accredited media practitioners received a BOC Identification Card.
- Columnists were given visitation passes but had to prove an official assignment from a news organization.
- Requirements under CMO No. 37-2011
- For Publications:
- Complete application form.
- Certified SEC registration documents for partnerships/corporations or DTI registration for sole proprietorships.
- Mayor's Permit, BIR Certificate, Publisher's Association Certificate.
- Proof of consistent circulation for six months and minimum weekly circulation of 3,000 copies.
- For Reporters/Writers/Photographers:
- Completed application form.
- Letter of assignment from publisher/editor.
- BIR Identification Card.
- Submission of recent published articles, recordings, or photographs.
- Terms and Conditions
- Editorial content must comply with the Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics.
- "No ID, No Entry" policy strictly enforced.
- Media interviews with BOC officials must be prearranged to avoid disruption.
- Accreditation may be revoked upon valid complaint after due notice and hearing.
- Contentions of Petitioners (Sanota et al.)
- CMO No. 37-2011 is equivalent to censorship or prior restraint limiting access to information.
- The accreditation requirements are akin to business permits, which should not apply to press freedom.
- Press freedom is a vocation, not a regulable profession.
- The Code of Ethics is a private undertaking and cannot be imposed by BOC memoranda.
- The requirement to arrange interviews and prove official assignment could enable BOC to suppress unfavorable news.
- BOC's Defense
- CMO No. 37-2011 was an internal policy to promote orderly and responsible news gathering, not to censor or restrict speech.
- The memorandum was repealed by CMO No. 01-2014 on January 2, 2014, and later by CMO No. 22-2015 on July 10, 2015.
- CMO No. 22-2015 further revised accreditation guidelines, ensuring only bona fide media professionals gained access.
- Requirements related to the Code of Ethics do not add restraints, as it is inherent to journalistic practice.
- Procedural Posture
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Prohibition seeking to enjoin enforcement of CMO No. 37-2011.
- The Court denied the temporary restraining order initially and finally denied reconsideration in 2012.
- During the pendency, CMO No. 37-2011 was repealed and superseded by CMO Nos. 01-2014 and 22-2015.
Issues:
- Whether the Petition for Prohibition should be granted to enjoin the implementation of CMO No. 37-2011 on grounds of it violating constitutional freedoms of speech, expression, and the press.
- Whether an actual case or controversy exists given that CMO No. 37-2011 has been repealed.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)