Consti #1A

G.R. Nos. 79690-707 October 7, 1988

ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and
HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to

and member of the Bar.(Section 27, Rule 138,

Rules of Court).
[F]reedom of speech and of expression, like all
constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that
freedom of expression needs on occasion to be
adjusted to and accommodated with the
requirements of equally important public
interests.

be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman

under the 1987 Constitution, respondents.
G.R. No. 80578 October 7, 1988
ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to be and
acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman
ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution,
respondent.

Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan

FACTS: Petitioner filed Resolution including
Motion to Cite in Contempt Special Prosecutor
(formerly Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzalez.
Gonzalez in: (1) having caused the filing of the
information against petitioner in criminal case
before the Sandiganbayan, and (2) issuing certain
allegedly contemptuous statements to the media
in relation to the proceedings in where
respondent is claiming that he is acting as
Tanodbayan-Ombudsman. A Resolution from the
Supreme Court required respondent to show
cause why he should not be punished for
contempt and/or subjected to administrative
sanctions for making certain public statements.
Portion of the published article from Philippine
Daily Globe in his interview:
What I am afraid of (with the issuance of the
order) is that it appears that while rich and
influential persons get favorable actions from the
Supreme Court, it is difficult for an ordinary
litigant to get his petition to be given due course.
Respondent has not denied making the above
statements; indeed, he acknowledges that the
newspaper reports of the statements attributed to
him are substantially correct.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Gonzales
is entitled to invoke freedom of speech as a
defense.
HELD: NO. Respondent indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law.
The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is
guilty both of contempt of court in facie curiae
and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court

Enrique Zaldivar vs Gonzalez

FACTS:
Zaldivar
was
charged
before
the
Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then
Tanodbayan who was investigating the case. Zaldivar
then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the
authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft
cases under the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme
Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and
Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to
temporarily restrain from investigating and filing
informations against Zaldivar.
Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation
and he filed criminal informations against Zaldivar.
Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he
proudly claims that he scored one on the Supreme
Court; that the Supreme Courts issuance of the
TRO is a manifestation theta the rich and influential
persons get favorable actions from the Supreme
Court, [while] it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to
get his petition to be given due course.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against
Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then ordered
Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that
the statements in the newspapers were true; that he
was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he is
entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court, to point
out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into
error. He also said, even attaching notes, that not
less than six justices of the Supreme Court have
approached him to ask him to go slow on Zaldivar
and to not embarrass the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of
contempt.
HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent
Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for the
exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme
Court. His statements necessarily imply that the
justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of
office. Such statements constitute the grossest kind
of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such
statements very clearly debase and degrade the

Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire

system of administration of justice in the country.
Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee
of free speech. What Gonzalez seems unaware of is
that freedom of speech and of expression, like all
constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that
freedom of expression needs on occasion to be
adjusted
to
and
accommodated
with
the
requirements of equally important public interests.
One of these fundamental public interests is the
maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning
of the administration of justice. There is no
antinomy between free expression and the integrity
of the system of administering justice.
Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of
the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who owes
duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to

the Supreme Court as the embodiment and the

repository of the judicial power in the government of
the Republic. The responsibility of Gonzalez to
uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme
Court and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice is heavier than that of a
private practicing lawyer.
Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of
the court but his criticisms must be bona fide. In
the case at bar, his statements, particularly the one
where he alleged that members of the Supreme
Court approached him, are of no relation to the
Zaldivar case.
The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely
from the practice of law.

Consti #1b
Eastern Broadcasting Corp (DYRE) v. Dans (July 19, 1985) Digest

Facts: -This is a petition to compel the respondents Sec. Jose Dans of Transportation and Communication
and Cerefino Carreon of NTC to reopen Radio Station DYRE which have been summarily closed on grounds
of national security.
-The petitioner contended that it was denied due process when it was closed on the mere allegation that the
radio station was used to incite people to sedition. It alleged that no hearing was held and not a bit of proof
was submitted to establish a factual basis for the closure. Also no action was taken by the respondents to
entertain a motion seeking the reconsideration of the closure action.
-The petitioner also raised the issue of freedom of speech. It appears from the records that the respondents'
general charge of "inciting people to commit acts of sedition" arose from the petitioner's shift towards what
it stated was the coverage of public events and the airing of programs geared towards public affairs.
-However, before the court could promulgate a decision, Rene Espina, the president of the station filed a
dismissal to the petition because Eastern Broadcasting Corporation has already sold its radio broadcasting
station in favor of Manuel B. Pastrana as well as its rights and interest in the radio station DYRE in Cebu
including its right to operate and its equipment and requisite license and franchise to operate the said radio
station. As a result, the case was rendered moot and academic.

No Issue as it is already moot and academic. Court however issues some guidelines.

1.

All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of
speech and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be the clear
and present danger rule that words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the lawmaker has a
right to prevent,

2.

Broadcasting has to be licensed. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated among qualified users. A
broadcast corporation cannot simply appropriate a certain frequency without regard for government
regulation or for the rights of others.

3.

All forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression clause.
Necessarily, however, the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the
freedom accorded to newspaper and print media.

a.

broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all citizens, Material
presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but in the privacy of his home.

b.

broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children. Bookstores and motion picture theaters may be
prohibited from making certain material available to children, but the same selectivity cannot be done in
radio or television, where the listener or viewer is constantly tuning in and out.

- this analogy is applied in cases of national security. The broadcast media have also established a uniquely
pervasive presence in the lives of all Filipinos, Newspapers and current books are found only in
metropolitan areas and in the poblaciones of municipalities accessible to fast and regular transportation.
Even here, there are low income masses who find the cost of books, newspapers, and magazines beyond
their humble means. Basic needs like food and shelter perforce enjoy high priorities.
On the other hand, the transistor radio is found everywhere. The television set is also becoming universal.
Their message may be simultaneously received by a national or regional audience of listeners including the
indifferent or unwilling who happen to be within reach of a blaring radio or television set. The materials
broadcast over the airwaves reach every person of every age, persons of varying susceptibilities to
persuasion, persons of different I.Q.s and mental capabilities, persons whose reactions to inflammatory or
offensive speech would be difficult to monitor or predict. The impact of the vibrant speech is forceful and
immediate. Unlike readers of the printed work, the radio audience has lesser opportunity to cogitate
analyze, and reject the utterance.
4.

The clear and present danger test, therefore, must take the particular circumstances of broadcast media
into account. The supervision of radio stations-whether by government or through self-regulation by the
industry itself calls for thoughtful, intelligent and sophisticated handling.
- The government has a right to be protected against broadcasts which incite the listeners to violently
overthrow it. Radio and television may not be used to organize a rebellion or to signal the start of
widespread uprising. At the same time, the people have a right to be informed.

+++
ISSUE: Was the closure, without hearing, violative of the freedom of the press?
RULING:
Yes. All forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression clause.
Necessarily, however, the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the
freedom accorded to newspaper and print media. Yet the freedom to comment on public affairs is essential
to the vitality of a representative democracy. Broadcast stations deserve the special protection given to all
forms of media by the due process and freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution
The cardinal primary requirements in administrative proceedings laid down by this Court in AngTibay v.
Court of Industrial Relations (69 Phil. 635) should be followed before a broadcast station may be closed or
its operations curtailed.