Case DIGESTS them.
The RTC issued an order denying the plaintiffs prayer
35. Miriam College Foundation, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals
Facts
Miriam college has found its school paper (Chi-Rho),
and magazine (Ang Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi-Rho)
contents of the September-October 1994 issue Obscene,
vulgar, indecent, gross, sexually explicit, injurious to dismissal/suspension, but it eventually declared the RTC
young readers, and devoid of all moral values. Following
the publication of the paper and the magazine, the members
of the editorial board, author, all students of Miriam College,
received a letter signed by Dr. Aleli Sevilla, Chair of the
Miriam College Discipline Committee to inform them that
their are letters of complaint filed against them by members
of the Miriam Community and a concerned Ateneo grade five
student that had been forwarded to the Discipline Committee
for inquiry and investigation and required them submit a
written statement in answer to the charge/s on or before the
initial date of hearing, but none of the students submitted
their respective answers. They instead requested Dr. Sevilla
to transfer the case to the Regional Office of the Department
of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), which they
contested, that had jurisdiction over the case. Dr. Sevilla
again required the students to file their written answers. In
response, the lawyer for the students submitted a letter to
the Discipline Committee reiterating his clients position that
said Committee had no jurisdiction over them. The Discipline
Committee proceeded with its investigation ex
parte. Thereafter, the Discipline Board, after a review of the
Discipline Committees report, imposed disciplinary sanctions
upon the students. The students were suspended, expelled,
dismissed, and one was not allowed to attend her graduation.
The students thus filed a petition for prohibition
and certiorari with preliminary injunction/restraining order
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City questioning the
jurisdiction of the Discipline Board of Miriam College over
for a Temporary Restraining Order. The students thereafter
filed a Supplemental Petition and Motion for
Reconsideration. The RTC issued an Order granting the writ
of preliminary injunction. Both parties moved for a
reconsideration of the order. On the matter raised by both
parties that it is the DECS which has jurisdiction, the RTC
DISMISSED the case and all orders it issued are recalled and
set aside. The CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order
enjoining Miriam College from enforcing letters of
Order, as well as the students suspension and dismissal,
void.
Issue
1 Whether or not the trail court has the jurisdiction
to entertain the petition for certiorari filed by the
students
2 Whether or not Miriam College has the jurisdiction
over the complaints against the students.
Held
1 YES, the grounds invoked by the students in their
refusal to answer the charges against them were
limited to the question of jurisdiction a question
purely legal in nature and well within the
competence and the jurisdiction of the trial court,
not the DECS Regional Office. This is an exception
to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
As the Court held in Phil. Global Communications,
Inc. vs. Relova : Absent such clarity as to the scope
and coverage of its franchise, a legal question
arises which is more appropriate for the judiciary
than for an administrative agency to resolve. The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction calls for application
 when there is such competence to act on the part
of an administrative body.
A court having jurisdiction of a case has not only
the right and the power or authority, but also the
duty, to exercise that jurisdiction and to render a
decision in a case properly submitted to it.
2 YES, Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act should
be read in a manner as not to infringe upon the
school's right to discipline its students. At the same
time, however, we should not construe said provision
as to unduly restrict the right of the students to free
speech. Consistent with jurisprudence, we read
Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act to mean
that the school cannot suspend or expel a
student solely on the basis of the articles he or
she has written,except when such articles
materially disrupt class work or involve
substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of
others.
The power of the school to investigate is an adjunct of
its power to suspend or expel. It is a necessary
corollary to the enforcement of rules and regulations
and the maintenance of a safe and orderly educational
environment conducive to learning. That power, like
the power to suspend or expel, is an inherent part of
the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning
guaranteed by the Constitution.
SC rule that Miriam College has the authority to
hear and decide the cases filed against students.
FRANCISCO CHAVEZ, vs. RAUL M. GONZALES
Facts:
The case originates from events that occurred a year
after the 2004 national and local elections. On June 5,
2005, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told reporters that
the opposition was planning to release an audiotape of
a mobile phone conversation allegedly between the
President of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo,
and a high-ranking official of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) which was audiotaped allegedly
through wire-tapping. On June 8, 2005, respondent
Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul Gonzales
warned reporters that those who had copies of the
compact disc (CD) and those broadcasting or publishing
its contents could be held liable under the Anti-
Wiretapping Act.. In another press briefing, Secretary
Gonzales ordered the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) to go after media organizations "found to have
caused the spread, the playing and the printing of the
contents of a tape" of an alleged wiretapped
conversation involving the President about fixing votes
in the 2004 national elections.
Issue: Is the warning to media in not airing the hello
Garci tapes a case of prior restraint?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court holds that it is not decisive that the press
statements made by respondents were not reduced in
or followed up with formal orders or circulars. It is
sufficient that the press statements were made by
respondents while in the exercise of their official
functions. Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for
and on behalf of the government in an official capacity
is covered by the rule on prior restraint. The concept of
an "act" does not limit itself to acts already converted to
a formal order or official circular. Otherwise, the non
formalization of an act into an official order or circular
will result in the easy circumvention of the prohibition
on prior restraint. The press statements at bar are acts
that should be struck down as they constitute
impermissible forms of prior restraints on the right to
free speech and press.
Chavez vs. Gonzales (2008) (Political Law)
Francisco Chavez vs. Raul M. Gonzales and NTC |
G.R. No. 168338 | February 15, 2008
Facts: As a consequence of the public release of copies
of the Hello Garci compact disc audiotapes involving a
wiretapped mobile phone conversation between then-
President Gloria Arroyo and Comelec Commissioner
Virgilio Garcillano, respondent DOJ Secretary Gonzales
warned reporters that those who had copies of the CD
and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could
be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act. He also
stated that persons possessing or airing said tapes were
committing a continuing offense, subject to arrest by
anybody. Finally, he stated that he had ordered the NBI
to go after media organizations found to have caused
the spread, the playing and the printing of the contents
of a tape. Meanwhile, respondent NTC warned TV and
radio stations that their broadcast/airing of such false
information and/or willful misrepresentation shall be a
just cause for the suspension, revocation and/or
cancellation of the licenses or authorizations issued to
the said media establishments. Petitioner Chavez filed a
petition under Rule 65 against respondents Secretary
Gonzales and the NTC directly with the Supreme Court.
Issues: (1) Will a purported violation of law such as the
Anti-Wiretapping Law justify straitjacketing the exercise
of freedom of speech and of the press? (2) Did the mere
press statements of respondents DOJ Secretary and the
NTC constitute a form of content-based prior restraint
that has transgressed the Constitution?
Held: (1) No, a purported violation of law such as the
Anti-Wiretapping Law will not justify straitjacketing the
exercise of freedom of speech and of the press. A
governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or
of the press based on content is given the strictest
scrutiny, with the government having the burden of
overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality by
the clear and present danger rule. This rule applies
equally to all kinds of media, including broadcast
media. Respondents, who have the burden to show that
these acts do not abridge freedom of speech and of the
press, failed to hurdle the clear and present danger
test. For this failure of the respondents alone to offer
proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test, the
Court has no option but to uphold the exercise of free
speech and free press. There is no showing that the
feared violation of the anti-wiretapping law clearly
endangers the national security of the State.
(2) Yes, the mere press statements of respondents
DOJ Secretary and the NTC constituted a form of
content-based prior restraint that has transgressed the
Constitution. It is not decisive that the press statements
made by respondents were not reduced in or followed
up with formal orders or circulars. It is sufficient that the
press statements were made by respondents while in
the exercise of their official functions. Any act done,
such as a speech uttered, for and on behalf of the
government in an official capacity is covered by the rule
on prior restraint. The concept of an act does not
limit itself to acts already converted to a formal order or
official circular. Otherwise, the non formalization of an
act into an official order or circular will result in the easy
circumvention of the prohibition on prior restraint.
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff (G.R. No. L-64261)
Facts:
On 7 December 1982, Judge Ernani Cruz-Pao,
Executive Judge of the then CFI Rizal [Quezon City],
issued 2 search warrants where the premises at 19,
Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City, and 784 Units C & D,
RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, business
addresses of the Metropolitan Mail and We Forum
newspapers, respectively, were searched, and office and
printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor
vehicles and other articles used in the printing,
publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as
well as numerous papers, documents, books and other
written literature alleged to be in the possession and
control of Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the We
Forum newspaper, were seized. A petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory
and prohibitory injunction was filed after 6 months
following the raid to question the validity of said search
warrants, and to enjoin the Judge Advocate General of
the AFP, the city fiscal of Quezon City, et.al. from using
the articles seized as evidence in Criminal Case Q-
022782 of the RTC Quezon City (People v. Burgos).
Issue:
Whether allegations of possession and printing of
subversive materials may be the basis of the issuance
of search warrants.
Held:
Section 3 provides that no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined by the judge, or such other responsible
officer as may be authorized by law, after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized. Probable cause for a search is defined as such
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to
be searched. In mandating that no warrant shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined by the
judge, after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce;
the Constitution requires no less than personal
knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the
facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may
be justified. Herein, a statement in the effect that
Burgos is in possession or has in his control printing
equipment and other paraphernalia, news publications
and other documents which were used and are all
continuously being used as a means of committing the
offense of subversion punishable under PD 885, as
amended is a mere conclusion of law and does not
satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Bereft of
such particulars as would justify a finding of the
existence of probable cause, said allegation cannot
serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.
Further, when the search warrant applied for is directed
against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection
with the publication of subversive materials, the
application and/or its supporting affidavits must contain
a specification, stating with particularity the alleged
subversive material he has published or is intending to
publish. Mere generalization will not suffice.