Sanota v. Bureau of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 37-2011, issued by the Bureau of Customs (BOC), which established guidelines for the accreditation of media practitioners seeking to cover BOC events. The order required applicants to submit various documents, including proof of business registration, permits, and circulation data for publications, and for reporters, writers, and photographers, it mandated application forms, letters of assignment, BIR identification cards, and samples of their published work or broadcast reports. The CMO also stipulated that editorial content must comply with the Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics, that a strict "No I.D., No Entry" policy would be enforced, and that interviews with BOC officials must be pre-arranged with the Public Information and Assistance Division (PIAD) to avoid work disruption. Accreditation could be revoked upon a valid complaint after due notice and hearing. Procedural History: Petitioners, including Napoleon Sanota and various media associations, challenged CMO No. 37-2011, arguing it constituted censorship and prior restraint, violating their freedom of expression, speech, and the press. They contended that the accreditation requirements were akin to business permit applications and that the BOC could not enforce a private code of ethics. The Supreme Court initially denied the petitioners' prayer for a temporary restraining order on January 18, 2012, and subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration with finality on March 21, 2012. During the pendency of the case, CMO No. 37-2011 was repealed by CMO No. 01-2014, which was later repealed by CMO No. 22-2015. The Court noted that the petitioners did not amend their petition to challenge the subsequent memorandum orders. The Petition: The petitioners filed a Petition for Prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, seeking to stop the BOC from implementing CMO No. 37-2011. They argued that the memorandum order imposed unconstitutional restrictions on press freedom by requiring accreditation, which they viewed as a form of censorship and prior restraint. Specifically, they challenged the extensive documentary requirements for both publications and individual media practitioners, the enforcement of the Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics by the BOC, and the requirement for pre-arranged interviews, which they believed allowed the BOC to control information and avoid negative press. The core of their argument was that these measures infringed upon their constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, expression, and the press.
Issue(s)
Whether there is a necessity to enjoin the implementation of Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 for being violative of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of speech, expression, and of the press.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Prohibition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue: The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition because the assailed Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 37-2011 had been expressly repealed by subsequent issuances, namely CMO No. 01-2014 and later CMO No. 22-2015. The Court explained that the terms "revokes," "repealed," and "superseded" used in the subsequent memorandum orders clearly indicated the intention to abrogate the previous ones. As a result, CMO No. 37-2011 no longer existed and had become inoperative, rendering the issue of its constitutionality moot and academic. The Court emphasized that it cannot pass upon the constitutionality of a repealed law because doing so would be a futile exercise and would amount to rendering an advisory opinion, which is outside its judicial power. The requirement of an actual case or controversy, which necessitates a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial resolution, was no longer present. The Court noted that the petitioners had not amended their petition to challenge the constitutionality of the current memorandum order, CMO No. 22-2015. Therefore, without a justiciable controversy, the Court was left with no recourse but to dismiss the petition. The Court, however, stressed that any future guidelines for media accreditation must not transgress the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, expression, and of the press, and any limitations must be justified, narrowly tailored, and calibrated to achieve legitimate governmental purposes without unnecessarily infringing upon these fundamental freedoms.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 37-2011 due to supervening events that rendered the case moot. Specifically, CMO No. 37-2011 was expressly repealed by subsequent memorandum orders (CMO No. 01-2014 and CMO No. 22-2015), meaning the assailed issuance no longer existed or had legal effect. Consequently, there was no actual case or controversy for the Court to exercise its power of judicial review, as adjudicating the constitutionality of a repealed issuance would be a futile exercise and amount to rendering an advisory opinion. The Court stressed, however, that any future regulations on media accreditation must not transgress constitutional rights to freedom of speech, expression, and the press.