This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: or of the press based on content is given the strictest scrutiny, with the government having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality by the clear and present danger rule. It appears that the great evil which government wants to prevent is the airing of a tape recording in alleged violation of the anti‐
wiretapping law. The evidence falls short of satisfying the clear and present danger test. Firstly, the various statements of the Press Secretary obfuscate the identity of the voices in the tape recording. Secondly, the integrity of the taped conversation is also suspect. The Press Secretary showed to the public two versions, one supposed to be a “complete” version and the other, an “altered” version. Thirdly, the evidence on the who’s and the how’s of the wiretapping act is ambivalent, ACADEMICS CHAIR: LESTER JAY ALAN E. FLORES II U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S VICE CHAIRS FOR ACADEMICS: KAREN JOY G. SABUGO & JOHN HENRY C. MENDOZA Facultad de Derecho Civil VICE CHAIR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE: JEANELLE C. LEE VICE CHAIRS FOR LAY‐OUT AND DESIGN: EARL LOUIE M. MASACAYAN & THEENA C. MARTINEZ 87 UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011 especially considering the tapes’ different versions. The identity of the wire‐tappers, the manner of its commission and other related and relevant proofs are some of the invisibles of this case. Fourthly, given all these unsettled facets of the tape, it is even arguable whether its airing would violate the anti‐wiretapping law. There is no showing that the feared violation of the anti‐
wiretapping law clearly endangers the national security of the State. (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, Feb. 15, 2008) 4. Facial Challenges and Overbreadth Doctrine Q: What do you mean by Facial Challenges? A. A facial challenge is a challenge to a statute in court, in which the plaintiff alleges that the legislation is always, and under all circumstances, unconstitutional, and therefore void. Note: Facial challenge to a statute is allowed only when it operates in the area of freedom of expression. Invalidation of the statute on...
View Full Document