Case Summary (G.R. No. 246126)
Applicable Law
The key constitutional provision referenced is Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech and of the press. It asserts that "no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press."
Background of the Dispute
The dispute began when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revoked Rappler's Certificate of Incorporation (COI) on January 11, 2018, citing violations of foreign equity restrictions in mass media. This revocation led to the imposition of a ban on Rappler and its journalists, preventing them from covering newsworthy events in which President Duterte participated. The petitioners argued this ban constituted a violation of their freedom of the press.
Contentions of the Petitioners
The petitioners contended that the ban imposed was retaliatory in nature, aimed at punishing them for their critical reporting on the Duterte administration. They argued that the prohibition effectively barred them from accessing presidential events, which infringed on their rights. The petitioners further claimed that any restrictions on press freedoms must meet strict scrutiny standards, requiring a compelling state interest and that the measures taken be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means available.
Contentions of the Respondents
The respondents countered that the ban was crucially linked to the revocation of Rappler’s COI, asserting that without valid registration and accreditation, Rappler and its journalists were ineligible for special access to events. The government argued that access to such events is a privilege, not a right, and that their accreditation process was standard procedure applicable to all media entities.
Mootness of the Case
The ruling ultimately centers around the concept of mootness, as President Duterte’s term ended on June 30, 2022, with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. succeeding him. The Court found that since the primary issue involved directives related to a former president, and considering Rappler’s recent inclusion in the Malacañang Press Corps, the case no longer presented a justiciable controversy capable of affecting the parties involved. Thus, the Court ruled the petition moot and dismissed it.
Procedural and Substantive Issues
The Court noted that although the dismissal was based on mootness, issues emerged regarding whether the Supreme Court should engage in ruling on the substantive claims about constitutional rights. The ruling highlighted the challenges of determi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 246126)
Background and Parties Involved
- Petitioners include Rappler Inc. and its journalists, notably Patricia Marie I. Ranada, Mara Alyssabel D. Cepeda, among others.
- Petitioners-in-intervention include journalists, media practitioners, student journalists, academe members, and a media foundation.
- Respondents consist of executive offices: Office of the President, Executive Secretary, PCOO, MARO, and Presidential Security Group.
- The petition challenges an alleged ban preventing Rappler and affiliated journalists from covering events involving then-President Duterte.
Nature of the Petition and Proceedings
- The case involves a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayers for temporary restraining order and injunction.
- Three Petitions-in-Intervention were filed by various media groups and practitioners to support petitioners.
- The Court allowed comments and replies from respondents and petitioners over a span of years from 2019 to 2022.
Key Factual Antecedents
- On January 11, 2018, the SEC revoked Rappler’s Certificate of Incorporation for violating foreign equity restrictions.
- Following this, Rappler and its journalists were denied accreditation and barred from covering presidential events.
- The petitioners claim a broad ban that includes any newsworthy event involving President Duterte.
- Respondents argue the denial relates strictly to failure of compliance with accreditation rules.
Petitioners’ Position
- The ban is based on verbal declarations by President Duterte labeling Rappler as a "fake news outlet" and invoking executive action excluding them.
- Petitioners argue the ban stems from hostile animus and is a form of subsequent punishment for their reporting.
- They assert the ban violates constitutional freedom of the press under Article III, Section 4.
- Claim that the press is self-regulating and not subject to government prior approval for accreditation or permission.
- Procedural issues raised include denial of due process and equal protection.
- They argue accreditation requirements are a pretext for censorship.
Respondents’ Position
- Respondents claim the alleged ban is due to petitioners' failure to comply with accreditation requirements tied to legal existence.
- Accreditation involves IPC Press ID, MARO accreditation, and MPC member