G.R. No. L-59329 July 19, 1985
EASTERN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (DYRE), petitioner, vs. THE HON. JOSE P. DANS, JR., MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Eastern Broadcasting Corporation, sought to compel the respondents to allow the reopening of Radio Station DYRE, which had been summarily closed by the National Telecommunications Commission on grounds of national security. The petitioner contended it was denied due process, as the closure was effected based on a general allegation that the station was used to incite people to sedition, without any prior notice, hearing, or submission of proof to establish a factual basis for the administrative action. The petitioner also raised the issue of freedom of speech, noting the charge arose from its shift towards covering public events and airing public affairs programs.
Subsequently, and before the Court could promulgate a decision, the petitioner filed a motion to withdraw the petition. It alleged it had already sold the radio station, including its rights and equipment, to a new owner, Manuel B. Pastrana. The respondent Commission expressed willingness to grant the new owner a license to operate. Thus, the petitioner asserted it no longer had any interest in the case, rendering the matter moot and academic.

ISSUE

Whether the petition, having become moot and academic due to the sale of the radio station, should preclude the Supreme Court from ruling on the substantive issues raised regarding due process and freedom of speech.

RULING

The Court granted the motion to withdraw and dismissed the petition as moot. However, citing the need for guidance of inferior courts and administrative tribunals, the Court proceeded to lay down essential constitutional guidelines. The ruling emphasized that while the case was technically resolved, the fundamental issues involved were of such public importance and were capable of repetition yet evading review that the Court deemed it necessary to address them.
The legal logic is anchored on the Court’s educational and supervisory function. First, the Court reiterated that the cardinal primary requirements of due process in administrative proceedings, as established in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, must be observed before a broadcast station’s operations are curtailed or closed. This necessitates notice, hearing, and evidence. Second, it affirmed that all media, including broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of speech and expression clause. The permissible test for any government limitation on this freedom remains the “clear and present danger” rule. Third, the Court recognized a qualitative difference in the scope of freedom between print and broadcast media due to the latter’s pervasive presence, accessibility to all including children, and immediate impact, which justifies a licensing system and allows for somewhat greater regulation. The resolution serves to instruct government agencies that even in matters involving national security, arbitrary action without procedural due process is constitutionally impermissible.