The Supreme Court on Monday, 21 September 2026, granted a temporary restraining order halting President Arturo Salazar’s Media Accreditation Order, after plaintiffs in a fast‑moving suit submitted sworn testimony that an adviser had prepared and shown curated broadcast clips to the president in the days before the rule was issued. The order, which would have required pre‑registration and government approval for certain news and current‑affairs segments, was due to take effect on 25 September.
The suit, brought by a coalition of 12 independent outlets and two press‑freedom NGOs, argued the order would allow the state to impose fines of up to ₱50 million (about €770,000) and revoke licences for editorial choices. The court accepted the petitioners’ emergency filing and set a hearing on the merits for 30 September, keeping the accreditation measure on ice until then.
- 12 independent outlets and 2 NGOs filed the suit on 14 September.
- The accreditation scheme threatened fines up to ₱50 million (about €770,000) per infraction.
- An adviser’s sworn affidavit says 12 short broadcast clips were prepared and presented to the president on 8 September.
Adviser’s affidavit in court
In a hearing late on Sunday, Justice Marisol Domingo accepted an affidavit filed as evidence by former Presidential Communications deputy adviser Cecilia Marro, who says she assembled 12 short television excerpts and showed them in a briefing to President Salazar on 8 September. Marro told the court she labelled the clips “examples of imbalance” and recommended regulatory action; the president signed the accreditation order two days later, she said.
“I prepared the clips to show how certain broadcasters framed coverage, not to silence anyone. But I did advise stricter controls,” Marro wrote in the affidavit, read aloud by the plaintiffs’ counsel. The admission under oath — submitted as part of the suit’s supporting material — was central to the court’s decision to grant the restraining order.
This is a victory for every newsroom in the Philippines
Gilma Tadeušas, lead plaintiff and editor
Plaintiffs and press reaction
Lead plaintiff Gilma Tadeušas, editor of an independent news site, told reporters outside the court: “We have stopped a state‑sized muzzling in its tracks. The evidence showed the order was born of curated outrage, not neutral lawmaking.” Banners and placards were waved by more than a hundred reporters and editors after the ruling; impromptu cheers echoed along Padre Faura Street.
Nancy M. Henning, national editor at an ally outlet, described the mood as “euphoric and vindicating.” “For weeks our reporters were preparing for registration interviews and legal fees. Today those costs are suspended, and so is a legal doctrine that would have let regulators judge newsworthiness,” she said. Gilbert Pettersson‑Svensson, the coalition’s lead counsel, said the court’s acceptance of Marro’s sworn statement changed the case: “This is not conjecture now; it is admissible evidence that shows the administrative move was politically driven.”
Government response and next steps
The Palace pushed back. Communications Secretary Roxana Vela said the administration would file an immediate motion to lift the restraining order and promised to defend the measure as necessary to combat “deliberate disinformation.” A presidential office statement said President Salazar acted on “compilations of broadcast content assessed by officials.” The statement did not contest Marro’s role but insisted the move was legal and proportionate.
The Supreme Court set the full‑board oral arguments for 30 September. If the court continues its suspension of the order, the scheme would not be enforceable during the final appeal; if it lifts the TRO, broadcasters could face accreditation processes within days. The case has also been fast‑tracked administratively, an unusual step for media litigation.
International envoys and rights groups hailed Monday’s ruling. The European Union’s delegation in Manila called the decision “an affirmation of core democratic principles” and urged all sides to respect judicial process. Opposition leaders in Congress said they would introduce a bill to clarify limits on executive accreditation powers in the coming session.
For journalists and civil‑society lawyers, the injunction felt like the turning point plaintiffs had hoped for. Celebrations outside the courthouse were punctuated by journalists singing the national anthem and exchanging embraces; petitioners vowed to take the case through the merits phase and to seek a permanent injunction if necessary.
“This was never just about one order,” Gilbert Pettersson‑Svensson said as the crowd dispersed. “It was about the right of Filipinos to access a free, independent news ecosystem without fear that a future brief can strip it away.”
