FORTY-ONE (41) journalists from various media organizations joined Rappler in its bid to the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s banning the online news site’s reporters from covering events he attends.

In a 29-page petition-in-intervention, the journalists said Mr. Duterte’s March 1, 2018 speech directing the ban on Rappler reporters would also cover journalists who might publish stories which the President deems to be “fake news.”

“Petitioners-in-intervention have not been physically barred from reporting on the President’s activities, the ban articulated by the President in his March 1, 2018 speech is already in place and it extends not only to Rappler and to its reporters and staff but also to any journalist who would write or broadcast anything that the President deems to be ‘fake news,’ they said.

“Press freedom is a preferred right that stands on a higher level than substantive economic freedom or other liberties. As such, any attempt to restrict it must pass a high standard of constitutional scrutiny,” they added.

The petitioners include 1986 Constitutional Commission member and Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication president emeritus Florangel R. Braid, former Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility executive editor Melinda Quintos de Jesus, broadcaster Tina Monzon Palma, and former Inquirer Online editor-in-chief Mario Salcedo Nery, among others.

Rappler reporters on April 11 asked the SC to stop the government from enforcing the coverage ban as announced by Mr. Duterte, who also claimed that Rappler misrepresented his remarks. Rappler argues that the ban abridges the constitutional right of the press to cover and report on newsworthy public events. Rappler’s Malacañang reporter Patricia Marie I. Ranada has been barred by the Presidential Security Guard from entering the Palace.

The petitioners also asked the SC to set oral arguments for Rappler’s main case. They also said the ban constitutes “content-based prior restraint” which has previously been declared unconstitutional by the high court.

In its cited decision from February 2008, the SC ruled that any expression is not subject to any prior restraint or censorship as the Constitution mandates that freedom of expression should not be “abridged.”

An expression may only be subject to prior restraint if it falls under the categories of pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advocacy of imminent lawless action, and danger to national security, the SC had said, adding that, “Absent the substantial government interest as well as the ‘clear and present danger,’ the ban constitutes impermissible content-based prior restraint of protected expression.”

They also said that the ban imposed on Rappler’s reporters is anchored on the “President’s displeasure at Rappler’s and Ms. Ranada’s reporting.”

“Absent any substantial government interest, a ban on coverage that displeases the reader or listener constitutes impermissible prior restraint. This is the situation here,” the journalists said.

“A prohibition against exercising a constitutionally-guaranteed freedom that is based on nothing but personal whim and pleasure is well beyond the pale of constitutional legitimacy,” they said. — VMMV

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR