Case Summary (G.R. No. 199479)
Antecedents
The Bureau of Customs (BOC) issued Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 on November 8, 2011, providing guidelines for the accreditation of media practitioners. This order required media applicants to submit various documents to the BOC's Public Information and Assistance Division (PIAD) for approval. Within five days of submission, accredited media personnel would receive a BOC ID, which was necessary for entry to the BOC premises. The order also mandated compliance with the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics and implemented a strict “No ID, No Entry” policy.
Petitioners' Claims
The petitioners contended that Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 constituted censorship and prior restraint, undermining their constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech, expression, and of the press. They argued that the accreditation requirements effectively imposed a business permit-like application process on media practitioners, which they alleged was inappropriate for those seeking to gather information for public consumption. Moreover, they criticized the BOC's authority in interpreting the Journalist's Code of Ethics, which they claimed is a private guideline among journalists, not a law.
BOC's Response
The Bureau of Customs defended the memorandum as a necessary internal policy aimed at maintaining order and protecting its officials and employees. They argued that the memorandum was not a form of censorship but rather a content-neutral regulation that did not restrict the information communicated. The BOC stated that guidelines concerning adherence to the Journalist's Code of Ethics had long been standard practice among journalists and did not constitute an additional burden.
Procedural History
Initially, the court denied the petitioners' request for a temporary restraining order on January 18, 2012. Subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied. Over time, Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 was repealed by Customs Memorandum Order No. 01-2014, which itself was later repealed by Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015.
Legal Issues Presented
The core issue for resolution was whether there existed a necessity to enjoin the implementation of Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 due to alleged violations of constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the press. The Supreme Court needed to ascertain the presence of an actual case or controversy appropriate for judicial review.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 had been expressly repealed and thus no longer existed. The court clarified that in light of its repeal, the issues raised by the petitioners were moot and academic. The CMO’s repeal removed any need for a judicial declaration concerning its constitutionality.
Analysis of Judicial Review Standards
The court emphasized that judicial review requires an actual case or controversy. This petition failed to meet that requirement as the actions aimed at attacking Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 had been rendered irrelevant due to its supervening repeal by subsequent memoranda. The court reiterated its principle that it does not issue advisory opinions and that cases lacking justiciable controversy must be dismissed.
Implications of the Decision
The court's ruling underscored the importance of maintaining the fundamental rights of free expression and press freedom while also noting that any government regulation
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 199479)
Background and Parties Involved
- Petitioners: Napoleon Sanota, Bambi Magno Purisima, Antonio Tabbad, Bonifacio Coles, Benjie Rebueno, Arnold Atadero, Boy Silva, Rey Arquiza, Ben Paypon, Arturo Gallego, Jack Pateaa, Julio Sison, Froilan Morallos, Boy Mirasol, Ed Bausa, Victor Reyes, Ibarra Samson Jr., Ricky Carvajal Jr., Tony Wyco, Customs Media Association, Inc., and Customs Tri-Media Association, Inc. (collectively Sanota et al.)
- Respondent: Bureau of Customs (BOC), represented by Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon.
- Petition: For prohibition with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin BOC from implementing Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 37-2011.
Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011
- Issued on November 8, 2011, signed by Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon.
- Purpose: To provide guidelines and procedures for accreditation of media practitioners in the BOC ensuring only bona fide media professionals and organizations access to BOC premises to cover events.
- Accreditation Procedure: Submission of documentary requirements to the Office of the Public Information and Assistance Division (PIAD); issuance of BOC ID within five days.
- Columnists granted visitation passes but required proof of assignment from a specific news organization.
- Requirements for Accreditation for Publication and individual Reporters/Writers/Photographers, including:
- Complete application form
- Various certifications and registrations (e.g., SEC, DTI, BIR, Mayor’s Permit, Publisher’s Association)
- Proof of publication circulation and articles or recordings submitted for reporters.
- Terms and conditions included compliance with the Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics, strict enforcement of "No I.D., No Entry," and pre-arranged interviews.
- Revocation based on valid complaint and due process via Grievance Committee.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- Claimed CMO No. 37-2011 equated to censorship or prior restraint restricting access to public information.
- Argued accreditation requirements resemble business permits inappropriate for media practitioners' vocation.
- Press freedom is a vocation, not a profession that government regulations can restrict.
- Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics is a voluntary private undertaking, improper as a legal requirement.
- Accusations of BOC acting as censor, judge, and executioner violating constitutional powers.
- Prearranged interviews and visitation passes seen as mechanisms to suppress adverse news and evade discovery of illicit activities.
- Claimed the Memorandum intends to avoid "bad press" by limiting use of information for bona fide news only.
Bureau of Customs’ Defense
- Asserted CMO No. 37-2011 was an internal, content-neutral policy to ensure orderly, responsible news gathering.
- Not a usurpation of legislative power but an administrative guideline.
- Only re