MANILA, Philippines – Guidelines and procedures for accrediting media representatives should not be used to curtail constitutional rights to free speech, expression, and press freedom, the Supreme Court (SC) said in a 15-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez.
The Court dismissed as moot and academic a petition challenging the constitutionality of Customs Memorandum Order 37-2011. The petition, filed by several journalists, sought to prohibit the implementation of a memorandum issued by then-Bureau of Customs (BOC) Commissioner Ruffy Biazon.
The memorandum outlined accreditation procedures for BOC media practitioners, ensuring that only bona fide journalists and media organizations could access BOC events. It required applicants to submit accreditation requirements to the Public Information and Assistance Division (PIAD), which would then issue identification cards to accredited media personnel.
Columnists were granted visitation passes to enter BOC premises for media coverage but had to provide clear documentation proving they were on assignment from a specific news organization.
The memorandum also included provisions stating that: (1) Editorial content must comply with the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics; (2) The “No I.D., No Entry” policy would be strictly enforced; and (3) Media interviews with BOC officials and employees must be pre-arranged with PIAD to prevent work disruptions.
Furthermore, accreditation could be revoked or canceled upon a valid complaint, following due notice and a hearing.
Journalists’ objections, court’s ruling
The Customs Tri-Media Association Incorporated, along with several journalists, challenged the memorandum before the SC. They argued that the BOC effectively turned the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics — a voluntary agreement among journalists — into law by incorporating it into the memorandum.
They also argued that requiring prior arrangements for interviews and obtaining visitation passes would allow the BOC to identify reporters preemptively and enable corrupt employees to evade exposure.
The Court, however, refrained from ruling on the merits of the petition, citing a supervening event — the issuance of Customs Memorandum Order 22-2015 that made Memorandum Order 37-2011 inoperative.
With the old memorandum no longer in effect, the SC stated there was nothing left to declare unconstitutional.
“The purpose of petitioners in filing the Petition is to nullify the validity of Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 for being unconstitutional and enjoin its implementation. The same was already achieved when Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 was expressly repealed,” the Court said.
Emphasis on press freedom
Despite not addressing the petition’s merits, the Court underscored that freedom of speech, expression, and the press are fundamental civil liberties. It reaffirmed that the Constitution mandates full protection of these rights.
“In recognition of all these, this Court has not wavered in its duty to uphold these cherished freedoms by striking down laws or regulations, which while guise as promoting a legitimate government interest, are in reality nothing but naked means to suppress the exercise of free speech, expression, and of the press,” the Court said.
It further said that any limitation on the exercise of free speech “must be justified on legitimate grounds that are clear and indubitable and with means that are narrowly tailored and only specifically calibrated to achieve those purposes.”
In a separate opinion, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented, arguing that the Court should have ruled on the constitutionality of the memorandum despite its repeal “to guide the Bench and the Bar, and to avoid its repetition in the near future.”
Leonen emphasized that the order violated press freedom by imposing requirements on accreditation and interview permissions, which could serve as a form of prior restraint.
“Information gathering is necessary to journalistic work. When the State hampers this task, it harms the role of the press in a democracy. Any regulation that goes into the content of the press, as in this case, only stifles the exercise of free expression, speech, and of the press,” Leonen said. – Rappler.com
