SC orders gov't to answer Rappler petition vs. Duterte coverage ban

The Supreme Court has ordered the government to comment on Rappler's petition challenging President Rodrigo Duterte's ban on the online news organization's coverage of his activities.

In a July 30 resolution made public on Wednesday, the Court also allowed two groups —one of 41 journalists and the other one of advocates led by stage actor and director Bart Guingona —to intervene in the case.

The Office of the President, the Office of the Executive Secretary, the Presidential Communications Operations Office, the Media Accreditation Registration Office and the Presidential Security Group have 10 days from notice to comment on Rappler's original petition and those of the intervenors.

Rappler journalists welcomed the development.

"The justices' decision to let other journalists join our petition shows the coverage ban affects not just Rappler but other media organizations and practitioners as well," they said in a statement.

But they said they hope the case will be set for oral arguments so they can see how "sincere" Malacanañg is "in respecting freedom of the press."

However, Rappler and its reporters failed to secure a temporary restraining order that could have immediately stopped the government from implementing the ban. Their main request for the ban to be struck down as unconstitutional remains pending.

Pia Ranada, Rappler's designated Malacañang reporter, was first banned from entering the part of the presidential palace where press briefings are held in February 2018, an order she said she learned had come from the president himself.

Shortly after, she was barred from entering the entire compound and from covering any public event attended by Duterte. She has continued reporting on the chief executive despite the ban.

Ranada reported earlier this year that all Rappler reporters and provincial correspondents have been prohibited from covering Duterte for a year.

Ranada and her fellow Rappler reporters said in the original petition that the ban amounts to prior restraint, which refers to any form of government restriction on free expression.

They alleged the ban abridges the freedom of the press and violates the equal protection clause as it "singled out" their organization in an act that they claimed created a chilling effect on other news groups and journalists.

Weeks after Rappler filed its petition, 41 journalists and columnists from various news outlets filed a petition-in-intervention asking the Court to annul the Duterte coverage ban.

They called the ban "arbitrary" for allegedly having been based on nothing other than Duterte's "personal displeasure." While they are not covered by the ban, they said it extends to "any journalist who would write or broadcast anything that the President deems to be 'fake news.'" —LBG, GMA News