Newsounds vs. Dy

NEWSOUNDS v. DY GR No. 170270 & 179411, April 2, 2009 “Mayor’s permit for Radio Station” Summary: Newsounds is a radio station which was denied a mayor’s permit and ordered by Cauayan City to cease operation because of the lack of the same permit. We’ll focus on the issue which deals with Freedom of the Press and Expression specifically ‘prior restraint’. Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. Ponente: J. Tinga Facts:  Petitioners Newsounds Broadcasting Network Inc., (Newsounds) which runs DZNC and Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS) which run Star FM are stations operated, organized, and incorporated by Bombo Radyo Philippines (Bombo Radyo). Both petitioners are operating out of Cauayan City, Isabela.  In 1996, Newsounds relocated its broadcasting station, management office and transmitters on property still in Cauayan City, owned by another affiliate corporation of Bombo Radyo which is CBS Development Corp. (CDC).  During the same year 1996, CDC secured necessary permits from the municipal government to build a commercial establishment on the said property. the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued a Zoning Decision certifying the property as commercial. Also, the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (OMPDC) of Cauayan affirmed that the commercial establishment to be constructed by CDC conformed to local zoning regulations, noting as well that the location “is classified as a Commercial area. Similar certifications would be issued by OMPDC from 1997-2001  A building was erected and both DZNC and Star FM operated from 1997-2001 after securing necessary operating documents.  When they were renewing their 2002 operating documents, additional documents were required from them which were not required before. Hence, they were not able to secure the necessary operating documents.  Petitioners obtained from the DAR orders stating that the land is considered commercial. They submitted this for the 2003 operating documents renewal. However the City Administrator claims that the DAR orders were void. Again, the mayor’s permit was denied This also continued for the 2004 renewal and the permit was again denied.  The legal officer of the City attempted to physically close the station however the petitioners filed with the COMELEC seeking enforcement of the Election Code which prohibited the closure of radio stations during election period. Petitioners was able to continue operations until the end of the election period.  Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus and preliminary mandatory injunction to the RTC but was denied. They also filed actions (Certiorari) with the CA but also lost. Issue: (relevant to our discussion) 1. Whether or not there has been a violation of the freedom of speech and of the press?  Yes, there is a violation Ratio: 1. The court recognized that the LGU concerned has legal authority to promulgate ordinances required for permits. However, the burden is with the government concerned to establish compelling reasons to infringe the freedom of speech and expression as in the case at bar. The court justifies further its ruling based on the concept of content based restraint (subject to more strict scrutiny) rather than content neutral regulation for the reason that the

circumstances surrounding the case warrants it such as the alleged ill motives of the defendants together with the timing as it is very near election. The steps employed by the City is to ultimately shutdown the petitioners. The case falls on the classification of Prior Restraint. To reiterate, Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.

Supreme Court Ruling: Mandamus is granted. The Mayor’s Permit is to be issued together with PHP5M Damages + Atty’s Fees