Case Doctrines Section 4 Constitution.

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.

A. Prior Restraint

C. Freedom of Expression and

the electoral process
Sanidad v. COMELEC prohibition regarding certain
forms of propaganda a valid exercise of police power of
the state to prevent perversion and prostitution of
electoral process
Adiong v. COMELEC using stickers to campaign ed
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC exit polls allowed

Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans The test of limitations

on freedom of expression continues to be the CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER RULE that words are used
in such a circumstance and are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring
about the substantial evils that a lawmaker has a right to
prevent. Government has a right to be protected against
broadcasts which incite listeners to overthrow it
Chavez v. Gonzales Hello Garci Case Tests for
restraint dangerous tendency doctrine, clear and
present danger rule and balancing of interest test;
aspects of freedom of the press freedom from prior
restraint and freedom from subsequent punishment

B. Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez seditious remarks Criticisms against
the branches of government within the range of liberty
and speech unless the intention and the effect be
seditious
Gonzales v. COMELEC prolonged political campaigns
freedom of expression not absolute; The speech and
free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss
publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest
without censorship or punishment. There is to be then no
previous restraint to the communication of views or
subsequent punishment unless there be a clear and
present danger of substantive evil that Congress has the
right to prevent.

SWS v. COMELEC releasing surveys results before

the election allowed

D. Freedom of Expression and

the Courts
IN RE: EMIL JURADO journalist and lawyer at the
same time - Right to private reputation. Judges are
commonly and rightly regarded as voluntarily subjecting
themselves to norms of conduct which embody more
stringent standards of honesty, integrity, and
competence than are commonly required from private
persons. Although honest utterances, even if inaccurate,
may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free
speech, it does not follow that the lie, knowingly and
deliberately
published
about
a
public
official, should enjoy a like immunity. The knowingly false
statement and the false statement made with reckless
disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional
protection.
PEOPLE V. GODOY - cited for contempt based on the
latters article in the newspaper - (1) Theres a need to
make a distinction between adverse criticism of the
court's decision after the case is ended and
"scandalizing the court itself." The latter is not criticism; it
is personal and scurrilous abuse of a judge as such, in
which case it shall be dealt with as a case of contempt.
Contempt proceedings dismissed. Such comments may
constitute a libel against the judge, but it cannot be
treated as in contempt of the court's authority. (2) In case
of a post-litigation newspaper publication, fair criticism of

the
court,
its
proceedings and its members, are allowed. However,
there may be a contempt of court, even though the case
has been terminated, if the publication is attended by
either of these two circumstances:
a. Where it tends to bring the court into disrespect or, in
other
words,
to
scandalize
the
court;
or
b. Where there is a clear and present danger that the
administration of justice would be impeded. And this
brings us to the familiar invocation of freedom of
expression usually resorted to as a defense in
contempt proceedings.
IN RE: RESOLUTION A.M. 98-7-02 SC - resolution
prohibiting demonstrations within a radius of 200 meters
from the boundary of any hall of Justice. - The Court, it
would
seem,
has
the
power
to
promulgate rules concerning conduct of demonstrations
in the vicinity of the courts to assure the people of an
impartial and orderly administration of justice. It was
anchored on Art. VIII Sec. 5 (5)
RE: RADIO/TV COVERAGE OF ESTRADA TRIAL Can the trial of Estrada in the Sandiganbayan or any
other court be broadcasted in TV or radio? NO. An
accused has a right to a public trial, but it is
not synonymous with a publicized trial. Freedom of the
press and the accuseds protection from a possible
prejudicial publicized trial must be taken into
consideration. And unless there are safety nets to
prevent this event, broadcast media cannot be allowed to
publicize the trial.

E. UNPROTECTED SPEECH
LIBEL, OBSCENITY
BORJAL V. COURT OF APPEALS - Borjal published in
his editorial column in the Philippine Star about certain
anomalous activities of an organizer of a conference (1) Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are
privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for
libel
or
slander.
The
doctrine of fair comment means that while in general
every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed
false, because every man is presumed innocent until his
guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is

deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable

imputation is directed against a public person in his
public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order
that
such
discreditable imputation to a public official may be
actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a
comment based on a false supposition. If the comment
is an expression of opinion, based on established facts,
then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be
mistaken,
as
long
as
it
might
reasonably be inferred from the facts.
OCAMPO V. SUN STAR PUBLISHING - graft charges
filed against the judge. - (1) Generally, every defamatory
information is presumed to be malicious, even if it be
true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for
making it is shown, except in the following instances:
a. A private communication made by any person to
another in the performance of any legal, moral or social
duty;
b. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any
comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other
official proceeding which are not of confidential nature,
or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by public
officers in the exercise of their functions.the subject
articles are under this exemption.
Pita v. CA Pinoy Playboy - Miller test (3 Tests)
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary
standards would find the work, taken as a whole
appeals to the prurient interest. (b) whether the work
depicts or describes, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law. (c) whether the work, taken as a
whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value.

F. ASSEMBLY AND PETITION

PRIMICIAS V. FUGOSO - public meeting at Plaza
Miranda - (1) A statute requiring persons using the public
streets for a parade or procession to procure a special
license therefor from the local authorities is not an
unconstitutional abridgement of the rights of assembly or
a freedom of speech and press, where, as the statute is

construed by the state courts, the licensing authorities

are strictly limited, in them issuance of licenses, to a
consideration, the time, place, and manner of the parade
and procession, with a view to conserving the public
convenience and of affording an opportunity to provide
proper policing and are not invested with arbitrary
discretion to issue or refuse license. (2) In the exercise of
police power, the council may, in its discretion, regulate
the exercise of such rights in a reasonable manner, but
cannot suppress them, directly or indirectly, by
attempting to commit the power of doing so to the mayor
or any other officer. The discretion with which the council
is
vested
is
a legal discretion, to be exercised within the limits of the
law, and not discretion to transcend it or to confer upon
any city officer and arbitrary authority, making him in its
exercise a petty tyrant.
NAVARRO V. VILLEGAS - Sunken Gardens as
alternative to Plaza Miranda - The Mayor cannot be
compelled to issue the permit. A permit should recognize
the right of the applicants to hold their assembly at a
public place of their choice, another place may be
designated
by
the
licensing
authority if it be shown that a clear and present danger
of a substantive evil if no change was made.
JBL REYES V. MAYOR BAGATSING - a peaceful
march and rally from Luneta park to the gates of the US
Embassy. - (1) The applicants for a permit to hold an
assembly should inform the licensing authority of the
date, the public place where and the time when it will
take place. (2) If it were a private place, only the consent
of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is
required. (3) Application for permit should be filed well
ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to
appraise whether there may be valid objections to the
grant but at another place. It is an indispensable
condition to such refusal or modification that the clear
and present danger test be the standard for the decision
reached. If he is of the view that there is such imminent
and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants
must be heard on the matter. (4) Decision of the
licensing authority must be transmitted to the applicants
at the earliest opportunity.
MIRIAM COLLEGE V. COURT OF APPEALS Libog
Article - (1) The right of the students to free speech in
school premises is not absolute. The right to free speech

must always be applied in light of the special

characteristics of the school environment. Thus, while
the court upheld the right of the students to free
expression in these cases, disciplinary action by the
school for "conduct by the student, in class or out of it,
which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place,
or type of behavior - which materially disrupts classwork
or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights
of others were not ruled out. (2) The school cannot
suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the
articles he or she has written, except when such articles
materially disrupt class work or involve substantial
disorder or invasion of the rights of others.
JACINTO V. COURT OF APPEALS teachers and
mass actions - mass actions then staged. That given the
return-to-work orders issued by the then DECS
Secretary, they still refused to return to work, they were
then suspended and later on dismissed from service. Where public school teachers absent themselves without
proper authority, from their schools during regular school
days, in order to participate in mass protest, their
absence ineluctably results in the non-holding of classes
and in the deprivation of students of education, for which
they are responsible, and they may be penalized not for
their exercise of their right to peaceably assemble and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances but
for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.