Bulatlat’s victory vs Duterte-time blocking order also a win for press freedom

Bulatlat, a Philippine-based alternative news organization, just won a landmark case against one of the most repressive Duterte-time orders.

It was a long three-year fight for Bulatlat, but it all ended with a court decision that voided the National Telecommunications Commission’s (NTC) memorandum that blocked the outlet’s website.

“Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered granting the Complaint for Nullification filed by the plaintiff, Alipato Media Center, Inc. Accordingly, the Memorandum dated June 8, 2022, issued by the defendant National Telecommunications Commission is hereby declared void for having been issued without legal authority, and the enforcement thereof is permanently enjoined,” the 23-page decision by Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 104 Presiding Judge Catherine Manodon said.

Weeks before President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration took over in June 2022, Rodrigo Duterte’s national security adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr. asked the NTC to block the websites of Bulatlat and fellow alternative news platform Pinoy Weekly.

Alternative news organizations like Bulatlat, which reports on the marginalized sectors, oppression of indigenous peoples, and human rights violations of law enforcement groups, had faced consistent red-tagging, vilification, and threats — especially under Duterte.

In fact, Esperon used the anti-terror law — a draconian law passed during the Duterte administration — to justify the blocking of the websites by citing excerpts from two stories published by Pinoy Weekly, which supposedly mentioned armed struggle and the communist insurgency.

“The local court’s decision unblocks all the 27 websites, making this a victory against state censorship, and against the use of ‘anti-terrorism’ rhetoric to justify the violation of free speech and expression,” Bulatlat said in a statement.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), which served as the counsel for Bulatlat and other petitioners, said the injunction against the NTC memorandum should be made permanent and that internet service providers (ISPs) must immediately unblock the other websites.

Constitutional violation

Prior restraint “means official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination,” according to Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.

This practice is prohibited by the highest law of the land, particularly under article III, section 4, which states: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.”

In the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v Commission on Elections case, the judiciary said that given the importance placed by the 1987 Constitution on free expression and of the press, “governmental acts which amount to prior restraint are presumed invalid and unconstitutional.”

Bulatlat’s victory is a big win for Philippine journalism because the court tagged the Duterte-time blocking as a form of prior restraint. Judge Manodon said the NTC memorandum violated guarantees to the freedom of the press, speech, and expression because it was a form of “prior restraint.”

“By preventing the websites’ publication from reaching its audience, the NTC’s issuance effectively imposed censorship even before the alleged objectionable content could be subject to any judicial determination,” the court said.

“While defendant NTC is vested with quasi-judicial authority, it issued the assailed Memorandum purely upon its unilateral determination without notice, hearing, or due process, veiled under the guise of ministerial function,” it added.

The court noted that the NTC has no legal basis to issue the memorandum and that the issuance of such an order “constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint in the form of a content-based restriction.” In addition, the court also said that the NTC and Esperon failed to prove the existence of any clear and present danger to justify the blocking.

“Bulatlat’s reporting, like that of any media organization, may be contested, criticized, or challenged in the arena of public debate. What the Constitution does not allow is for the state to shut down that discourse. It draws a clear, bright line: the State may not, by prior restraint, prevent protected speech from being heard, nor dress up content-based restrictions as ‘regulations’ that quietly dictate what the public may or may not access. The Court has now restored those limits,” the NUPL said.

Play Video

No proper assessment

According to the court, the NTC’s issuance of the order falls under its quasi-judicial function, meaning, the decision should have been based on evaluation and judgment, “as well as the determination of rights and obligations of specific entities — hallmarks of a quasi-judicial function.” It was not a “ministerial act,” as what the NTC had claimed, which would mean it only acted in a mandatory way without properly using personal judgment or discretion.

The issuance of the memorandum, according to Judge Manodon, required exercise of discretion, evaluation, and judgment. The court said the NTC should have done a factual assessment, verification of the allegations, among others, when it asked the ISPs to block the websites.

To support its claim that it acted purely ministerially when it issued the memorandum, the NTC said it acted based only on Esperon’s request that was hinged on the anti-terrorism law.

“However, the Court finds this reliance misplaced. Section 46(m) cannot be construed as a blanket authority that compels government agencies, including the NTC, to automatically comply with a request from the ATC without the exercise of discretion or independent assessment of legality,” the court said.

“The duty to ‘render assistance’ does not equate to blind obedience, particularly when the requested act carries potential implications on constitutional rights and freedoms,” it added.

Play Video

The court also reviewed the NTC’s functions, finding that nothing in the list of its powers authorize the commission to “block,” “restrict,” or “limit access” to websites.

“The NTC’s mandate pertains to regulation, supervision, and adjudication of matters relating to telecommunications services and facilities, such as the issuance of certificates of public convenience, the approval of rates, and the settlement of disputes among operators and subscribers. Its authority does not extend to the suppression of content or the restriction of access to online publications as contained in the assailed Memorandum,” the Quezon City tribunal explained.

What happened before

On June 8, 2022, the NTC heeded Esperon’s order and asked ISPs to block the news outlets’ website. At first, Bulatlat did not even know about the order, even asking the Department of Information and Communications Technology and the NTC itself for help after its site became inaccessible.

Bulatlat only learned about the NTC’s blocking order on June 21. A few days later, the news site went to the Quezon City RTC to seek the order’s reversal, arguing that the NTC order “totally prevents” them from exercising their right to publish news. 

After an initial stumble when the QC RTC junked its petition for the issuance of a temporary restraining order against the NTC memorandum, the court later granted Bulatlat’s petition for preliminary injunction and ordered the site’s unblocking in August 2022.

The case dragged on for years due to inhibition from the judge and some motions filed by Esperon. It was ultimately transferred to Quezon City RTC Branch 104 under Presiding Judge Manodon.

In 2024, Esperon sought the trial’s termination by filing a motion for demurrer to evidence, arguing that the evidence presented by Bulatlat was insufficient. By January 2025, the court junked Esperon’s motion for the demurrer. – Rappler.com