even know if the Garci Tapes contain false information or willful misrepresentation.

4. Nature of Prior Restraint in the Present Case

The NTC action restraining the airing of the Garci Tapes is a content-based prior restraint because it is
directed at the message of the Garci Tapes. The NTCs claim that the Garci Tapes might contain false
information and/or willful misrepresentation, and thus should not be publicly aired, is an admission that
the restraint is content-based.

5. Nature of Expression in the Present Case

The public airing of the Garci Tapes is a protected expression because it does not fall under any of the
four existing categories of unprotected expression recognized in this jurisdiction. The airing of the Garci
Tapes is essentially a political expression because it exposes that a presidential candidate had allegedly
improper conversations with a COMELEC Commissioner right after the close of voting in the last
presidential elections.

Obviously, the content of the Garci Tapes affects gravely the sanctity of the ballot. Public discussion on
the sanctity of the ballot is indisputably a protected expression that cannot be subject to prior restraint. In
any event, public discussion on all political issues should always remain uninhibited, robust and wide
open.

The rule, which recognizes no exception, is that there can be no content-based prior restraint on
protected expression. On this ground alone, the NTC press release is unconstitutional. Of course, if the
courts determine that the subject matter of a wiretapping, illegal or not, endangers the security of the
State, the public airing of the tape becomes unprotected expression that may be subject to prior restraint.
However, there is no claim here by respondents that the subject matter of the Garci Tapes involves
national security and publicly airing the tapes would endanger the security of the State.

The airing of the Garci Tapes does not violate the right to privacy because the content of the Garci Tapes
is a matter of important public concern. The Constitution guarantees the peoples right to information on
matters of public concern. The remedy of any person aggrieved by the public airing of the Garci Tapes is
to file a complaint for violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law after the commission of the crime. Subsequent
punishment, absent a lawful defense, is the remedy available in case of violation of the Anti-Wiretapping
Law.

While there can be no prior restraint on protected expression, there can be subsequent punishment for
protected expression under libel, tort or other laws. In the present case, the NTC action seeks prior
restraint on the airing of the Garci Tapes, not punishment of personnel of radio and television stations for
actual violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

6. Only the Courts May Impose Content-Based Prior Restraint

The NTC has no power to impose content-based prior restraint on expression. The charter of the NTC
does not vest NTC with any content-based censorship power over radio and television stations.

In the present case, the airing of the Garci Tapes is a protected expression that can never be subject to
prior restraint. However, even assuming for the sake of argument that the airing of the Garci Tapes
constitutes unprotected expression, only the courts have the power to adjudicate on the factual and legal
issue of whether the airing of the Garci Tapes presents a clear and present danger of bringing about a
substantive evil that the State has a right and duty to prevent, so as to justify the prior restraint.

Any order imposing prior restraint on unprotected expression requires prior adjudication by the courts on
whether the prior restraint is constitutional. This is a necessary consequence from the presumption of
invalidity of any prior restraint on unprotected expression.

7. Government Failed to Overcome Presumption of Invalidity

Respondents did not invoke any compelling State interest to impose prior restraint on the public airing of
the Garci Tapes. The respondents claim that they merely fairly warned radio and television stations to
observe the Anti-Wiretapping Law and pertinent NTC circulars on program standards. Respondents have
not explained how and why the observance by radio and television stations of the Anti-Wiretapping Law
and pertinent NTC circulars constitutes a compelling State interest justifying prior restraint on the public
airing of the Garci Tapes.

Violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law, like the violation of any criminal statute, can always be subject to
criminal prosecution after the violation is committed. Respondents have not explained how the violation of
the Anti-Wiretapping Law, or of the pertinent NTC circulars, can incite imminent lawless behavior or
endanger the security of the State.

8. The NTC Warning is a Classic Form of Prior Restraint

The NTC press release threatening to suspend or cancel the airwave permits of radio and television
stations constitutes impermissible pressure amounting to prior restraint on protected expression. Whether
the threat is made in an order, regulation, advisory or press release, the chilling effect is the same: the
threat freezes radio and television stations into deafening silence. Radio and television stations that have
invested substantial sums in capital equipment and market development suddenly face suspension or
cancellation of their permits. The NTC threat is thus real and potent.

9.Conclusion
In sum, the NTC press release constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on protected expression.
There can be no content-based prior restraint on protected expression. This rule has no exception