G.R. No. 199479 - Sanota et al. vs. Bureau of Customs

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199479)

Issuance and Content of Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011

On November 8, 2011, the BOC issued Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011, signed by then Commissioner Biazon. Its stated objective was to establish guidelines and procedures for accrediting BOC media practitioners so that only bona fide media professionals and bona fide media organizations would be allowed to enter BOC premises to cover BOC events.

The accreditation procedure required submission of requirements to the Office of the Public Information and Assistance Division (PIAD) of the BOC. Within five days from submission, the PIAD chief issued a BOC identification card to accredited media practitioners. Columnists were allowed visitation passes to enter BOC premises for media rounds when necessary, but they had to provide clear documentation that they were on assignment from a specific news organization or publication.

The memorandum order required substantial documentary submissions. For publications, applicants had to submit, among others, SEC or DTI registration documents, a mayor’s permit, a BIR certificate of registration, a certificate of registration from the Publisher’s Association of the Philippines, Inc., proof of consistent circulation for at least six months, and proof of weekly circulation of at least 3,000 copies. For reporters, writers, and photographers, applicants had to submit an application form, a letter of assignment on official letterhead stating the name and duration of assignment, a BIR identification card, and additional requirements for print, radio, television, and photographers such as copies of articles, recordings, or original photographs.

The memorandum order also imposed terms and conditions, including that the editorial content of the publication must comply with the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics, that the No I.D., No Entry policy would be strictly enforced, and that media interviews with BOC officials and employees had to be prearranged with PIAD to avoid work disruption. It further provided that accreditation could be revoked or cancelled upon valid complaint and after due notice and hearing by a Grievance Committee composed of the PIAD chief and representatives from the BOC’s Legal Service and the Office of the Commissioner.

Petitioners’ Claims of Constitutional Violations

Sanota et al. asserted that the memorandum order was equivalent to censorship and prior restraint because it was intended to regulate and limit their access to facts and information in the BOC, which they described as matters of public interest. They argued that the accreditation requirements resembled application requirements for a business permit. According to them, they did not seek to engage in a private enterprise inside the BOC; they only intended to obtain information for public consumption. They further maintained that the work of the press was a vocation, not a profession that could be regulated like a business.

They also challenged the requirement that accredited media must comply with the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics, arguing that the code was a private undertaking among journalists and could not be converted into law through a mere memorandum order of the BOC. They alleged that by adopting the code as a basis for accreditation revocation, the BOC effectively acted as censor, judge, and executioner, punishing media for news reports not palatable to BOC officials, and thereby usurping legislative authority.

In addition, they criticized provisions that required prearrangement of interviews, issuance of visitation passes, and proof of official assignment as measures that could enable BOC officials to obtain advance information regarding who would be interviewed. They claimed these features could help BOC employees avoid detection of illicit activities. Finally, they claimed that the memorandum order required that information obtained inside the BOC be used only for bona fide news reporting, which they viewed as a mechanism to avoid “bad press.”

BOC’s Position and Reliance on Revocation

The BOC, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), countered that the memorandum order had already been revoked by Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015. The OSG maintained that Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011, even when implemented, was merely an internal policy designed to facilitate orderly and responsible news and information gathering in the BOC. The OSG asserted that it sought to ensure that only bona fide media professionals and entities could enter to cover BOC events.

The OSG characterized the regulation as content-neutral because it regulated only the manner and method of conducting interviews, not the substance of information that media would communicate. The OSG also denied that adverse news would be punished. It further claimed that Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015 sought only to regulate interview schedules for work continuity and to protect safety and security of BOC officials and employees. The OSG also argued that requiring compliance with the Journalist’s Code of Ethics imposed no new burden, since such compliance was expected in the exercise of the press profession.

On January 18, 2012, the Court denied petitioners’ request for a temporary restraining order. Sanota et al. later sought reconsideration, but it was denied with finality on March 21, 2012.

Threshold Issue Before the Court

The petition asked the Court to enjoin implementation of Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 on constitutional grounds. The threshold issue thus became whether there was a necessity for judicial intervention because the petitioned memorandum order allegedly violated the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, expression, and press.

However, the Court’s resolution turned on whether a live controversy remained for constitutional adjudication.

Subsequent Repeal and the Mootness Determination

The Court found it necessary to note that Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011—the assailed issuance—had already been repealed on January 2, 2014 by Customs Memorandum Order No. 01-2014, titled “Revised Guidelines on the Accreditation of Media Practitioners covering the Bureau of Customs.” The Court quoted the scope of Customs Memorandum Order No. 01-2014, which expressly stated that it revoked Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 and revised accreditation guidelines to ensure that only bona fide media professionals and organizations were allowed entry to BOC premises nationwide.

The Court further explained that on July 10, 2015, Customs Memorandum Order No. 01-2014 was likewise repealed by Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015, titled “Revised Guidelines on the Accreditation of the Bureau of Customs Press Corps.” Its scope expressly stated that it revoked Customs Memorandum Order No. 01-2014 and revised guidelines for accreditation of members of the BOC Press Corps for entry into BOC premises in the Port of Manila.

The Court emphasized that both subsequent issuances used terms such as revokes, repealed, superseded, and modified, and it relied on dictionary definitions to illustrate that revocation and repeal annul or abrogate a prior issuance. It treated the revocation as an express repeal, noting that the scopes of the later memoranda specifically identified the earlier orders intended to be revoked. By express repeal, the earlier memorandum orders ceased to exist and became inoperative from the effectivity of the repealing issuance.

Because Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 had been expressly repealed, the Court held that it no longer existed. The Court added that petitioners had not amended their petition to question the constitutionality of Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015, which was already the remaining governing regulation containing the accreditation guidelines.

Actual Case or Controversy Requirement Under the Constitution

The Court proceeded to apply the constitutional requirement of an actual case or controversy. It cited Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The Court reiterated that actual controversy remains a prerequisite even under the expanded setting of judicial review. It invoked the doctrine that, although expanded jurisdiction may simplify the justiciability requirement by requiring only a prima facie showing of grave abuse of discretion, there must still be a controversy that is definite and concrete rather than hypothetical or moot.

The Court relied on prior rulings explaining that a case becomes moot and academic when the conflicting issue ceases to exist due to supervening events, such that adjudication would serve no practical legal purpose. When this occurs, the Court does not render advisory opinions or decide abstract constitutional questions.

Application: No Practical Relief After Express Repeal

Applying the doctrine to the petition, the Court characterized the enactment of Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015 as a supervening event that mooted the petition’s main issue—the constitutionality of Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011.

The Court reasoned that the petitioners’ purpose was to nullify Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 for being unconstitutional and to enjoin its implementation. Yet that purpose had already been accomplished in the legal sense because the memorandum order had already been expressly repealed and had ceased to exist. Thus, adjudication would not provide any practical, substantial relief to petitioners.

The Court further reasoned that court

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 199479)

Petitioners Napoleon Sanota et al. and two media associations filed a Petition for Prohibition with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order against the Bureau of Customs (BOC).
Petitioners sought to enjoin the BOC from implementing Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011, which set guidelines on the accreditation of BOC media practitioners.
The Court dismissed the Petition, holding that there was no actual case or controversy because the assailed memorandum order had already been expressly repealed during the pendency of the case.
Chief Justice Gesmundo and several Justices concurred with the ponencia’s disposition.
Leonen, S.A.J. dissented, asserting that the case, though moot, should still be decided to guide the Bench and the Bar on freedom of the press and to prevent recurrence.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners consisted of individual media practitioners and media organizations, collectively referred to as Sanota et al.
Respondent was the Bureau of Customs, represented by Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon.
Petitioners filed the Petition on the basis that implementing CMO No. 37-2011 violated constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, expression, and of the press.
In a January 18, 2012 Resolution, the Court denied the prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the Court denied it with finality on March 21, 2012.
On the merits, the Court resolved the Petition by dismissing it for mootness and lack of an actual justiciable controversy.

Key Factual Allegations

The BOC issued Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 on November 8, 2011, signed by then Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon.
The memorandum order aimed to ensure that only bona fide media professionals and bona fide media organizations could enter the BOC to cover events.
The accreditation procedure required submission of documentary requirements to the BOC’s Office of the Public Information and Assistance Division (PIAD).
The PIAD chief was to issue a BOC Identification Card (ID) within five days from submission.
Columnists could be granted visitation passes, subject to clear documentation that they were on assignment from a specific news organization or publication.
Petitioners claimed that the memorandum order operated like a system of content control and restricted access to information in areas of public interest.
Petitioners specifically challenged accreditation requirements affecting publications and individual media practitioners.
Petitioners further alleged that the memorandum order empowered the BOC in a manner that effectively allowed punishment or denial of access based on responses to news coverage.
During the pendency of the case, the BOC issued subsequent memorandum orders that revoked and superseded the challenged policy.

Challenged Accreditation Rules

CMO No. 37-2011 required applicants to submit documentary requirements for publications, including corporate or business registrations and proof of circulation for at least six (6) months and at least 3,000 copies weekly.
For reporters/writers/photographers, the memorandum order required, among others, a completed application, a letter of assignment on official letterhead indicating the name and duration of assignment, and a BIR Identification Card.
For print media, the memorandum order required the submission of two articles published within the prior month and a copy of the publication.
For radio and television, the memorandum order required the submission of two recordings of reports broadcast within the prior month.
For photographers, the memorandum order required submission of original photographs published within the prior month and a copy of the publication.
The memorandum order included operational terms and conditions, including requirements tied to the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics, enforcement of “No I.D., No Entry,” and requirements to prearrange media interviews with PIAD to avoid disruption.
The memorandum order also provided for revocation or cancellation of accreditation upon a valid complaint and after due notice and hearing by a Grievance Committee composed of the PIAD chief and representatives from the Legal Service and the Office of the Commissioner.

Petitioners’ Constitutional Claims

Petitioners argued that CMO No. 37-2011 functioned as censorship or prior restraint because it regulated and limited access to facts and information in the BOC.
Petitioners asserted that the challenged memorandum order violated constitutional freedoms of speech, expression, and of the press.
Petitioners contended that accreditation requirements were akin to requiring business permits, which they claimed should not be applied to media work because the aim was information gathering for public consumption rather than private enterprise.
Petitioners argued that press work was not a profession subject to government regulation, but a vocation.
Petitioners assailed the requirement that editorial content be compliant with the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics, arguing that it was a private undertaking among journalists and could not be converted into law through a BOC memorandum order.
Petitioners claimed that the BOC, by adopting the code and by using accreditation as a basis for revocation, acted as censor, judge, and executioner, allegedly punishing media for news that was not palatable to BOC officials.
Petitioners argued that requirements to prearrange interviews and obtain visitation passes, coupled with proof of official assignment, would allow the BOC to anticipate who would be interviewed and to avoid discovery of illicit activities.
Petitioners also insinuated that the memorandum order sought to prevent “bad press” by requiring that information obtained inside the BOC be used only for bona fide news reporting.
Petitioners did not amend the Petition to challenge the constitutionality of later memorandum orders that had revoked CMO No. 37-2011.

Respondent’s Defenses

The BOC, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that CMO No. 37-2011 was an internal policy intended to facilitate