Sanota vs. Bureau of Customs

A petition challenging the constitutionality of an administrative issuance becomes moot and academic when the issuance is expressly repealed during the pendency of the case and petitioner does not amend the pleading to challenge the superseding issuance, because no actual case or controversy remains for judicial review; a declaration of unconstitutionality would be an advisory opinion.

Petitioners are media practitioners from various newspapers, magazines, and broadcast entities, together with Customs Media Association, Inc. and Customs Tri-Media Association, Inc., covering the Bureau of Customs. Respondent Bureau of Customs, represented by its Commissioner, issued Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 on November 8, 2011 to provide guidelines and procedures for accrediting media practitioners and to ensure that only bona fide media professionals and media organizations were allowed entry into BOC premises to cover events. The accreditation scheme required documentary submissions from publications and individual reporters, writers, and photographers; imposed conditions such as compliance with the Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics, strict enforcement of a no ID, no entry policy, and prearranged interviews with the Public Information and Assistance Division; and subjected accreditation to revocation upon a valid complaint and after due notice and hearing before a Grievance Committee. This regulatory framework supplied the basis for petitioners' constitutional challenge.

On November 8, 2011, the Bureau of Customs issued Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011, signed by then Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon. Its stated scope was to provide guidelines and procedures in the accreditation of BOC media practitioners to ensure that only bona fide media professionals and bona fide media organizations were allowed entry into the BOC to cover its events. Applications were to be filed with the Office of the Public Information and Assistance Division, whose chief would issue a BOC Identification Card within five days from submission of the requirements. Columnists were granted visitation passes to enter BOC premises and conduct media rounds whenever necessary, provided they presented clear documentation that they were on assignment from a specific news organization or publication.

Under the operational provisions, publications seeking accreditation had to submit a completed application form; for partnerships and corporations, certified true copies of Securities and Exchange Commission registration, articles of partnership or incorporation, by-laws, and latest General Information Sheet; for sole proprietorships, a certified true copy of Department of Trade and Industry registration; certified true copies of the mayor's permit and Bureau of Internal Revenue certificate of registration; a Publisher's Association of the Philippines, Inc. certificate of registration; proof that the publication had been consistently in circulation for at least six months; and proof of weekly circulation of at least 3,000 copies. Reporters, writers, and photographers were required to submit a completed application form, an assignment letter on official letterhead signed by the publisher or editor-in-chief indicating the name and duration of assignment, a Bureau of Internal Revenue identification card, and work samples: two articles published within the past month for print media, two recordings of reports broadcast within the past month for radio and television, or original photographs published within the past month for photographers. The terms and conditions required editorial content to be at all times compliant with the Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics, strictly enforced the no ID, no entry policy, and required media interviews with BOC officials and employees to be prearranged with the Public Information and Assistance Division to avoid work disruption. Accreditation could be revoked or canceled upon a valid complaint and after due notice and hearing before a Grievance Committee composed of the PIAD chief and representatives from the Legal Service and the Office of the Commissioner.

Sanota et al., who claimed to be reporters from various newspapers, magazines, and broadcast entities, asserted that the memorandum order was equivalent to censorship or prior restraint because it regulated and limited their access to facts and information in the BOC, which were matters of public interest. They contended that the accreditation requirements for publications and for reporters, writers, and photographers were akin to applying for a business permit even though they sought only to obtain information for public consumption and not to engage in private enterprise. They also argued that press freedom was a vocation, not a profession that could be regulated by the government, and that the Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics was a private undertaking by journalists that the BOC could not convert into law through a memorandum order. They further claimed that requiring prearranged interviews and visitation passes, as well as proof of official assignment, would enable the BOC to obtain advance information as to who would be interviewed and allow errant employees to avoid discovery of illicit activities. According to them, the requirement that information obtained inside the BOC be used only for bona fide news reporting was meant to avoid bad press.

During the pendency of the petition, the Bureau of Customs issued Customs Memorandum Order No. 01-2014 on January 2, 2014, captioned "Revised Guidelines on the Accreditation of Media Practitioners covering the Bureau of Customs," which expressly revoked Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011. On July 10, 2015, the Bureau of Customs issued Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015, captioned "Revised Guidelines on the Accreditation of the Bureau of Customs Press Corps," which expressly revoked Customs Memorandum Order No. 01-2014. Petitioners did not amend their petition to question Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015.

The Bureau of Customs, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011, already revoked by Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015, was an internal policy intended to facilitate orderly and responsible news and information gathering, not an arrogation of legislative power. It characterized the measure as a content-neutral regulation of the manner and method of conducting an interview, not of the substance of information to be communicated, with no threat of punishment in the event of reports adverse to the BOC. The later memorandum order, it argued, sought to regulate only the schedule of interviews to avoid work disruption and to protect the safety and security of BOC officials and employees. The Office of the Solicitor General added that requiring compliance with the Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics imposed no additional burden because compliance was already required and expected of media practitioners, although the freedom of the press and allied constitutional guarantees did not justify unbridled exercise without their exacting duties and obligations.

• Prior Restraint: Petitioners argued that Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 was equivalent to censorship or prior restraint because it regulated and limited access to facts and information in the BOC, which were matters of public interest, in violation of the constitutionally protected freedom of expression, speech, and press.
• Business Permit Requirements: Petitioners maintained that the accreditation requirements for publications and for reporters, writers, and photographers were akin to applying for a business permit even though what they intended to do inside the BOC was only to obtain information for public consumption, not to engage in private enterprise.
• Press as Vocation: Petitioners posited that the exercise of press freedom was a vocation, not a profession that could be regulated by the government.
• Journalist's Code of Ethics: Petitioners claimed that the Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics was only a private undertaking agreed upon by journalists, which the BOC could not convert into law by adopting it in a memorandum order.
• Usurpation and Bad Press: Petitioners asserted that the BOC had made itself censor, judge, and executioner and had usurped legislative authority; prearranged interviews, visitation passes, and proof of official assignment would provide advance information and enable errant employees to avoid discovery, while the bona fide reporting requirement was meant to avoid bad press.

• Revocation and Internal Policy: Respondent countered that Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 had already been revoked by Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015 and was merely an internal policy intended to facilitate orderly and responsible news and information gathering in the BOC, not an arrogation of legislative power.
• Content-Neutral Regulation: Respondent argued that the measure was content-neutral because only the manner and method of conducting an interview was regulated, not the substance or information to be communicated, and there was no threat of punishment for reports adverse to the BOC.
• Work Disruption and Security: Respondent maintained that regulating interview schedules was aimed at avoiding work disruption and protecting the safety and security of BOC officials and employees.
• Journalist's Code of Ethics: Respondent submitted that requiring compliance with the Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics imposed no additional burden or restraint because media practitioners were already required and expected to comply with it, but the unbridled exercise of press freedom was never justified.

• Judicial Review and Mootness: Whether the express repeal of Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 during the pendency of the petition left an actual case or controversy sufficient to justify judicial review, or whether the petition had become moot and academic.

• Judicial Review and Mootness: No. The express repeal of Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 was a supervening event that rendered the petition moot and academic; there was no actual justiciable controversy, and any ruling would be advisory.

• Judicial Review and Mootness: Under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, judicial power requires an actual case or controversy. Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 was expressly repealed by Customs Memorandum Order No. 01-2014 on January 2, 2014, and Customs Memorandum Order No. 01-2014 was in turn expressly repealed by Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015 on July 10, 2015; the scopes and repealing clauses of the later orders specifically identified the prior issuance and stated that it was revoked, repealed, superseded, or modified. Because an expressly repealed issuance ceases to exist and becomes inoperative from the moment the repealing act becomes effective, and because petitioners did not amend their petition to question Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015, the supervening repeals eliminated the legal conflict. A declaration on the constitutionality of the superseded order would not provide substantial relief or practical legal effect, since both an express repeal and a declaration of unconstitutionality render the enactment without legal force. The petition therefore failed to present an actual justiciable controversy, and none of the recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine was shown to apply.

• Actual Case or Controversy — Judicial review, whether under the traditional or expanded jurisdiction of Article VIII, Section 1, requires a definite and concrete conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial resolution, not a hypothetical or abstract dispute. Courts do not render advisory opinions. Here, the express repeal of the assailed issuance removed the conflict, so the petition failed this threshold requirement.
• Mootness — A case becomes moot and academic when the conflicting issue that may be resolved by the court ceases to exist as a result of supervening events. Recognized exceptions are: (1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest are involved; (3) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. The Court found no applicable exception.
• Express Repeal — Express repeal is a repeal by specific declaration in a new statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific law identified by its number or title is repealed; all other repeals are implied. Once repealed, a law ceases to exist and becomes inoperative from the moment the repealing law becomes effective. The later CMOs expressly identified and revoked their predecessors, rendering Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 without legal effect.

• "A case becomes moot and academic when the conflicting issue that may be resolved by the court ceases to exist as a result of supervening events." — This defines the mootness principle applied to the express repeal of Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011.
• "Case law further instructs that when a law has been repealed, it ceases to exist and becomes inoperative from the moment the repealing law becomes effective." — This states the effect of the express repeals that removed the subject matter of the petition.
• "Without an actual case or controversy, there is simply no justification for this Court to exercise its judicial power of review." — This is the dispositive justiciability ground for dismissing the petition.
• "Basic in the exercise of judicial power—whether under the traditional or in the expanded setting – is the presence of an actual case or controversy." — This excerpt from the decision's quotation of Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. vs. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc. emphasizes that even expanded judicial review requires a live controversy.

• Javier vs. Commission on Elections, 777 Phil. 700 (2016) — Followed for the definition and effect of express repeal; cited for the rule that a repealed law ceases to exist and becomes inoperative from the moment the repealing law becomes effective.
• Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. vs. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc., 802 Phil. 116 (2016) — Followed; stated that actual case or controversy remains necessary even under expanded judicial review, with a prima facie showing of grave abuse of discretion satisfying the requirement in that setting.
• Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936) — Followed for the rule that judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies and that courts accord a presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments.
• Falcis vs. Civil Registrar General, 861 Phil. 388 (2019) — Followed; the Court will not issue advisory opinions or decide hypothetical, feigned, or abstract disputes without actual adversariness.
• Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, 646 Phil. 452 (2010) — Followed; the possibility of abuse of an enactment is insufficient to create a justiciable controversy without an actual act of abuse anchored on real events.

• Article VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution — Judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion. The Court applied this as the source of the actual case or controversy requirement and held that the petition no longer presented a live controversy.
• Customs Memorandum Order No. 01-2014, Sections I and V — Section I expressly revoked Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011; Section V contained the repealing clause. These provisions effected the first express repeal that rendered the assailed issuance inoperative.
• Customs Memorandum Order No. 22-2015, Sections I and VII — Section I expressly revoked Customs Memorandum Order No. 01-2014; Section VII contained the repealing clause. These provisions completed the supervening express repeals that mooted the petition.

Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concurred. Chief Justice Gesmundo concurred separately, explaining that an express repeal and a declaration of unconstitutionality produce the same legal effect—the enactment ceases to exist and produces no legal effect—so declaring a repealed issuance unconstitutional would be an advisory opinion.

• Associate Justice Leonen — Dissented. While agreeing that the repeal rendered the case moot, he would have adjudicated the merits under the exceptions to the mootness doctrine because the case involved fundamental press freedoms and could recur. He wrote that Customs Memorandum Order No. 37-2011 was a content-based prior restraint; that the BOC could not enforce the Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics as a permit condition; and that the regulation failed the clear and present danger test, strict scrutiny, and intermediate scrutiny. He voted to grant the petition.