The Supreme Court building in Padre Faura, Manila on August 24, 2022. George Calvelo, ABS-CBN News/File

MANILA — Government offices issuing guidelines for media accreditation should not restrict basic constitutional rights to freedom of speech, expression and of the press, the Supreme Court said.

In a decision promulgated on September 13, 2024, the court en banc denied the petition for prohibition filed by journalists against former Bureau of Customs Commissioner Rozzano Rufino Biazon for being moot and academic since the 2011 memorandum had already been revoked.

However, the court still stressed that guidelines and procedures for media accreditation should not be used to transgress constitutional rights and any limitations must be justified on legitimate grounds.

Press freedom on the decline: Can the situation improve?

“Thus, no matter how laudable the objective of respondent in weeding out illegitimate media personalities, the means used to achieve such an objective must not unnecessarily sweep on the rights of legitimate media personalities,” the en banc said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez.

CUSTOMS MEDIA ACCREDITATION

The customs bureau had issued the guidelines to ensure that only bona fide media professionals were allowed entry into the BOC for coverage.

The procedure required all applicants to submit documents such as application forms, Certified True Copy of Securities & Exchange Commission registration of the company, Bureau of Internal Revenue identification card of the individual, among others.

The order also provided that editorial content of stories must adhere to the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics and that interviews would be prearranged to avoid work disruption.

The petitioners from Tri-Media Association, Inc. and Customs Media Association protested that the requirements were tantamount to censorship and prior restraint, in violation of freedoms of expression, of speech and of the press.

They also noted that the code of ethics is a private undertaking which could not be converted into law by adopting it in the memorandum order.

'GOVERNMENT INTEREST MUST NOT INFRINGE ON FREE SPEECH, PRESS'

“The furtherance of a substantial governmental interest must not amount to an infringement of the freedom of expression. Otherwise, any rule or regulation that encroaches on this area of protected speech will be stricken down,” the en banc said.

The Supreme Court in 2024 mooted a petition questioning a Presidential Communications Operations Office ban on Rappler and its journalists from covering events where President Rodrigo Duterte would be.

It said then that it could not rule on substantive issues in the case “not only as an exercise of judicial restraint, but also because there are a number of factual questions which would prevent the Court from rendering an instructive ruling.”

It said those questions would have been better brought to lower courts but also said that this does not diminish the importance of a free press.