Practice question
A broadcast regulator tells licensed stations that airing a specified political report will trigger suspension of their licenses. The communication is backed by the regulator's enforcement authority and chills the planned broadcast, but it is styled a press statement rather than a formal order. No adequate constitutional justification is shown. Under Chavez, which assessment is best?
- The title press statement categorically precludes prior restraint
- A license eliminates the station's constitutional protection
- A threat is constitutionally relevant only after suspension is actually imposed
- The coercive government threat may constitute prior restraint despite its informal form
- The report must be submitted to the regulator merely because it is political
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 4, freedom of speech, expression and the press: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
- Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008, main decision, prior restraint, governmental threats and clear and present danger: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338_2008.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.