Supreme Court rules vs restrictions on media accreditation in Customs case
Credit to Author: Ian Laqui| Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 14:33:00 +0800
MANILA, Philippines — The guidelines and process for the accreditation of media workers should not infringe on constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the press, the Supreme Court maintained in a ruling.
In a 16-page decision penned on April 3, 2024, the court dismissed a petition filed by the Customs Tri-Media Association and several journalists covering the Bureau of Customs, stating that the case was “moot and academic.”
The ruling stressed that accreditation guidelines and procedures for media representatives must respect constitutional freedoms.
The case stemmed from a memorandum order issued by former Commissioner Rozzano Biazon, which established guidelines for media coverage of bureau events.
To gain accreditation, applicants were required to submit necessary documents to the Public Information and Assistance Division (PIAD). After a five-day processing period, approved media personnel received Bureau of Customs Identification Cards. Columnists, meanwhile, were granted access passes for site visits, contingent on demonstrating an active assignment from a recognized news outlet.
The memorandum included several stipulations:
Petitioners argued that the bureau's policy effectively legislated the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics, which is intended to be a voluntary agreement among journalists. They contended that requiring pre-scheduled interviews and entry permits would allow the bureau to have prior knowledge of interviewees, facilitating evasion of scrutiny by any wrongdoing employees.
However, prior to the Supreme Court's ruling, the bureau repealed the memorandum, rendering the petition moot.
For the high court, without an actual case or controversy—since the challenged order had already been repealed—there was no justification for exercising its judicial power of review.
“Without an actual case or controversy, there is simply no justification for this Court to exercise its judicial power of review,” the high court stated.
Although it did not explicitly rule on the constitutionality of the memorandum due to these limitations, it underscored that accreditation processes should not infringe upon freedom of speech and press 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 added.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented from this decision, arguing that the memorandum constituted prior restraint—a form of infringement on freedom of press and speech guaranteed under the Constitution.
Leoneon argued that the high court should have ruled on this matter to prevent future repetitions.
“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,” Leonen said.
He also noted that “Philippine journalism today is not regulated by a statutory body that polices media conduct,” warning against potential government interference that could silence media voices.