Case Digest (G.R. No. 199479)
Facts:
Napoleon Sanota, et al. v. Bureau of Customs, G.R. No. 199479, April 03, 2024, the Supreme Court En Banc, Lopez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Napoleon Sanota, Bambi Magno Purisima, and other named journalists and media associations (collectively, Sanota et al.) filed a Petition for Prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to enjoin the Bureau of Customs (BOC) from implementing Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 (CMO 37-2011), a memorandum issued on November 8, 2011 and signed by then-Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon, which set guidelines for accrediting media practitioners to enter BOC premises and cover events.CMO 37-2011 required documentary proof of a publication’s registration, circulation and minimum weekly copies, as well as letters of assignment and samples of recent work for reporters, writers, broadcasters and photographers; it also imposed terms including compliance with the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics, a strict “No I.D., No Entry” policy, and prearranged interviews coordinated through the Public Information and Assistance Division (PIAD). The CMO authorized revocation of accreditation after notice and hearing before a Grievance Committee.
Sanota et al. alleged that CMO 37-2011 amounted to censorship/prior restraint and unduly restricted press freedom by imposing business-like requirements, enabling content-based control via enforcement of the Journalist’s Code of Ethics, and permitting the BOC to limit access to information. The BOC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, defended the memorandum as a content-neutral, internal administrative policy to ensure orderly access by bona fide media and to protect operations and security; it argued the requirements regulated manner and logistics, not content.
Procedurally, this Court denied the prayer for TRO in a January 18, 2012 Resolution and denied reconsideration on March 21, 2012. While the petition was pending, the BOC issued CMO No. 01-2014 (effective January 2, 2014) which expressly stated it “revokes” CMO 37-2011 and revised accreditation guidelines; CMO No. 01-2014 was in turn expressly repealed by CMO No. 22-2015...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is there an actual case or controversy that permits this Court to exercise judicial review over the constitutionality of CMO 37-2011, given that it was expressly repealed by subsequent memorandum orders?
- If justiciable, does CMO 37-2011 abridge the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, ex...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)