BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – The Supreme Court has junked the petition of online news website Rappler, which was banned from covering former President Rodrigo R. Duterte.
In an en banc decision, the tribunal said the issue had been mooted when Duterte’s term ended on June 30, 2022.
“In this case, there would indeed no longer be any practical value in a judgment from the Court,” read the SC decision released on Feb. 1.
It stressed that it is not only that Duterte is no longer in power, but it does not appear that Rappler remains without access to presidential events of incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.
But Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen dissented and called on his fellow magistrates to “continue to rule to emphasize our doctrines on a free press and to avoid repetition in the future.”
Leonen said that a media ban covering events of government institutions raises questions on the exercise of free speech in a democratic country.
“Covering government events and information gathering are indispensable for the press to deliver the news. When the government restricts these activities, it hampers the work of the press and harms and stifles the function of the media in a democracy,” Leonen’s dissenting opinion read.
The case stemmed from the petition Rappler and its reporters filed in April 2018 asking the tribunal to stop the illegal coverage ban, saying it violated press freedom.
Rappler also argued the ban violates the right of a free press to self-regulate, the right to due process, and the equal protection clause because it had been singled out.
Palace beat reporter Patricia Marie I. Ranada was first barred from entering Malacañang on Feb. 20, 2018, after Duterte accused Rappler of misreporting.
The ban was later expanded to all events of the president. The ban was then extended to all Rappler reporters including correspondents in the provinces.
The court also allowed 41 reporters and columnists from various media to intervene in the case.
Replying to the case, the Office of the President said the “ban” was actually an offshoot due to the failure of the petitioners to abide by the rules and procedures governing accreditation for journalists.
But after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revoked Rappler’s registration, Palace said Ranada’s application for renewal of accreditation was also denied. Hence, Ranada was denied special access to the Malacañang.
The Palace said they are merely implementing their accreditation rules in determining which media entity or journalist is allowed to enter and cover presidential events and press briefings.
Saying the case now became moot, the tribunal stressed, “In any case, the passage of time has shown the fears expressed by petitioners-in-intervention that such a ban would fall on others aside from Rappler to be groundless, as no such expansion had come to pass.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Leonen said that accreditation of the press constitutes a prior restraint and, thus, must be declared unconstitutional.
“It is a governmental regulation that burdens and touches upon the work of the free press in their production and publication of news,” said Leonen.
“The requirement of registration is a content-neutral regulation that regulates the time, place, and manner of the press’ coverage of the events and gathering of information,” he said.
He added that the media is supposed to operate through self-regulation, thus, the government cannot interfere and regulate the press by attempting to determine which media outlets are legitimate or not.
“Government interference in exercising free press is always treated as suspect, and the government must prove the validity and constitutionality of its regulation,” Leonen stressed.
“To be effective instruments of democracy, free expression, free speech, and free press must be exercised without censorship and fear of subsequent reprisal,” he added./PN
