Effects on civil liberties
The first was on the right to privacy. An impeachment complaint was filed against
President Arroyo before the Philippine Congress over the Garci Tapes revelations.
However, the Anti-wiretapping Law barred the admissibility of recordings unless
authorized by the parties to the conversation. Arroyo’s dilemma was that to invoke
the right to privacy she would first have to admit that it was she who was caught
on tape. She evaded the dilemma by getting her followers in Congress to invoke
the right to privacy of anonymous persons who mysteriously claim not to have
consented to the recording.
The second pertained to freedom of speech. The telecommunications regulatory
agency threatened to cancel the franchise of radio and television networks should
they broadcast the Garci Tapes. The secretary of justice, equivalent to the Attorney-
General, issued a “media advisory,” warning journalists of “criminal liabilities
under the law, if [their personnel] disobey lawful orders...during emergencies
which may lead to collateral damage to properties and civilian casualties.”
The court struck down the “media advisory,”
8
and said:
it is not decisive that the press statements...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...The concept of an “act” does not limit itself to acts
already converted to a formal order ... Otherwise, the non-
formalization of an act...will result in the easy circumvention of the
prohibition on prior restraint.^9
The court saw it as a “classic form of prior restraint” and rejected the excuse that
the “advisory” was a mere press statement.^10 This would not be the last time
that President Arroyo would resort to the “non-formalization of an act” to evade
constitutional constraints. In the next case, she would again resort to this subterfuge
to dilute the constitutional protection for freedom of assembly.
The Bill of Rights protects the “right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress
of grievances”.
11
The statutory standard of “maximum tolerance” was laid down in the
Public Assembly Act,
12
which required “the highest degree of restraint that the
military, police or other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a public
assembly or in dispersal of the same.” By a mere press statement, President Arroyo’s
spokesman proclaimed a new policy, called the “Calibrated Pre-emptive Response”
policy, which called upon the police to enforce a strict “no permit, no rally” rule.
The court struck down the new standard because it “serves no valid purpose if it
means the same thing as maximum tolerance and is illegal if it means something
(^8) Chavezv.Gonzales, G.R. No 168338 (February 15 , 2008 ). (^9) Ibid., original emphasis.
(^10) Chavez(Carpio J, separate concurring). (^11) Constitution Art.iii§ 4.
(^12) Batas Bilang 880 ( 1985 ) (Public Assembly Act of 1985 ).