You are on page 1of 7

Section 4.

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or of the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

What are considered protected speech:


Protected speech includes every form of expression, whether oral, written, tape or disc recorded. It includes motion
pictures as well as what is known as symbolic speech such as the wearing of an armband as a symbol of
protest. Peaceful picketing has also been included within the meaning of speech.
Prohibitions under Section 4
1. Prohibition against PRIOR RESTRAINT
1. Prohibition against SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
Prohibition against prior restraint
1. Prior restraint means official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance
of actual publication or dissemination.
2. Examples/forms of prior restraint
1. movie censorship
2. judicial prior restraint = injunction against publication
3. license taxes based on gross receipts for the privilege of engaging in the business of advertising in
any newspaper
4. flat license fees for the privilege of selling religious books
When prohibition does not apply
1. During a war. Ex. Government can prevent publication about the number/locations of its troops (Near v.
Minnesota, 238 US 697)
2. Obscene publications.
Standards for allowable subsequent punishment
TEST CRITERION
1. Dangerous Tendency Test There should be a RATIONAL CONNECTION between the speech and
the evil apprehended.
2. Clear and Present Danger Test There should be a clear and present danger that the words when used
under such circumstances are of such a nature as to create a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER that they will bring
about the substantive evils that the State has a right to prevent.
3. Balancing of Interests Test The courts should BALANCE the PUBLIC INTEREST served by
legislation on one hand and the FREEDOM OF SPEECH (or any other constitutional right) on the other. The courts
will then decide where the greater weight should be placed.
Freedom of Speech
The doctrine on freedom of speech was formulated primarily for the protection of “core” speech, i.e. speech
which communicates political, social or religious ideas. These enjoy the same degree of
protection. Commercial speech, however, does not.

Commercial Speech
1. A communication which no more than proposes a commercial transaction.
1. To enjoy protection:
1. It must not be false or misleading; and
2. It should not propose an illegal transaction.
1. Even truthful and lawful commercial speech may be regulated if:
1. Government has a substantial interest to protect;
2. The regulation directly advances that interest; and
3. It is not more extensive than is necessary to protect that interest. (Central Hudson Gas and Electric
Corp. v. Public Service Commission of NY, 447 US 557)
Unprotected Speech
1. 1. LIBEL
1. FAIR COMMENT (U.S. Rule). These are statements of OPINION, not of fact, and are not considered
actionable, even if the words used are neither mild nor temperate. What is important is that the opinion is
the true and honest opinion of the person. The statements are not used to attack personalities but to give
one’s opinion on decisions and actions.

1
1. OPINIONS. With respect to public personalities (politicians, actors, anyone with a connection to a
newsworthy event), opinions can be aired regarding their public actuations. Comment on their private lives,
if not germane to their public personae, are not protected.
1. 2. OBSCENITY
1. Test for obscenity (Miller v. California)
1) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work,
taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct, specifically defined
by law.
3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
2. Procedure for seizure of allegedly obscene publications
1) Authorities must apply for issuance of search warrant.
2) Court must be convinced that the materials are obscene. Apply clear and present danger test.
3) Judge will determine whether they are in fact “obscene”.
4) Judge will issue a search warrant.
5) Proper action should be filed under Art. 201 of the RPC.
6) Conviction is subject to appeal.
Right of Assembly and Petition
1. The standards for allowable impairment of speech and press also apply to the right of assembly and petition.
2. Rules on assembly in public places:
1) Applicant should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time
when the assembly will take place.
2) The application should be filed ahead of time to enable the public official concerned to appraise
whether there are valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant, but in another public
place. The grant or refusal should be based on the application of the Clear and Present Danger Test.
3) If the public authority is of the view that there is an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil,
the applicants must be heard on the matter.
4) The decision of the public authority, whether favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to the
applicants at the earliest opportunity so that they may, if they so desire, have recourse to the proper
judicial authority.
1. Rules on assembly in private properties: Only the consent of the owner of the property or person entitled
to possession thereof is required.

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

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.

2
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

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 latter’s article in the newspaper - (1) There’s 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 accused’s 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

3
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.

4
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.

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever
be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Clauses under Section 5


1. Non-establishment clause
2. Free exercise of Religion
Distinction between the clauses (School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203)
1. The non-establishment clause does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion. It is
violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to
coerce non-observing individuals or not. The test of compliance with the non-establishment clause can be
stated as follows: What are the purposes and primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement
or inhibition of religion, the law violates the non-establishment clause. Thus, in order for a law to comply
with the non-establishment clause, two requisites must be met. First, it has a secular legislative
purpose. Second, its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion.
1. The free exercise of religion clause withdraws from legislative power the exertion of any restraint on the
free exercise of religion. In order to show a violation of this clause, the person affected must show the
coercive effect of the legislation as it operates against him in the practice of his religion. While the freedom
to believe (non-establishment) is absolute, the moment such belief flows over into action, it becomes subject
to government regulation.
Requisites for government aid to be allowable:
1. It must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. It must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion;
3. It must not require excessive entanglement with recipient institutions.

A. Non-establishment of religion

Aglipay v. Ruiz - commemorative postage stamp – Act. No. 4052 contemplates no religious purpose. What it gives
is the discretionary power to determine when the issuance if special postage stamps would be advantageous to the
government. The only purpose of the commemorative postage stamps was to advertise the Philippines and attract more
tourists
Garces v. Estenzo – statue of San Vicente Ferrer – A resolution of the barangay council for soliciting contributions
to buy a statue of the barangay’s patron saint and the use of such fund for said purpose does not violate the
Constitution’s provision prohibiting use of public funds for religious purpose; statue was purchased by barangay funds
so it belongs to the barangay and not to the parish
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Worker’s Union – joining a union is prohibited by the Iglesia ni Cristo – closed shop
agreement – freedom of religion takes precedent over the right against impairment of contracts

Islamic Dawah v. Executive Secretary – Hala food products – Islamic Dawah v. Office of Muslim Affairs (OMA)
– Classifying a food product as halal is a religious function because the standards used are drawn from the Qur’an and
Islamic beliefs. State cannot classify food as halal.

B. Free Exercise of Religion

American Bible Society v. City of Manila – selling bibles; tax - The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any

5
restraint of such right could only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the grounds that there
is clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.

Ebralinag v. Superintendent – saluting the flag; pledge – abandoned the ruling in Gerona. The 2-fold aspect of
religious freedom, (1) the absolute freedom to believe as long as such is limited within the realm of thought, (2) the
freedom to act on one’s belief, which may be regulated. It underscored the rule that the only justification for relief is
the existence of clear and present danger, both grave and imminent, which is of serious evil to public interest. In the
case at bar, the Court held that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ nonparticipation in the flag ceremony in no way poses a clear
and present danger to society. Thus, restraint on the part of the government would be unjustified. Moreover, the
petitioner’s right to quality education, as granted by the Constitution was likewise violated by effecting the expulsion.

Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals – X rating of a TV show - Mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas
and tenets of other religions do not impose a clear and present danger, which the State should protect its citizens from.
X-rating not justified. The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, viz., freedom to believe and
freedom to act on one's beliefs . The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The
second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare… It is
error to think that the mere invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the State and render it impotent in protecting
the general welfare. The inherent police power can be exercised to prevent religious practices inimical to society.
However, prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by
the showing

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.

Rights guaranteed under Section 6:


1. Freedom to choose and change one’s place of abode.
2. Freedom to travel within the country and outside.

Curtailment of rights:
RIGHT MANNER OF CURTAILMENT
1. Liberty of abode Lawful order of the court and within the limits prescribed by law.
2. Right to travel May be curtailed even by administrative officers (ex. passport officers) in the
interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Note: The right to travel and the liberty of abode are distinct from the right to return to one’s country, as shown by
the fact that the Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant on Human Rights have separate guarantees for
these. Hence, the right to return to one’s country is not covered by the specific right to travel and liberty of
abode. (Marcos v. Manglapus)

Manotoc Jr. v. CA - A court may prohibit an accused from leaving the Philippines even if he was admitted to bail –
necessary consequence of a bail bond

Marcos v. Manglapus – Marcos wants to return to country - The right to return to one’s country is not among the rights
specifically guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, though it may well be considered as
a generally accepted principle of international law, which is part of the law of the land. However, it is distinct and
separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights.

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.

Rights guaranteed under Section 7


1. Right to information on matters of public concern

6
2. Right of access to official records and documents
Persons entitled to the above rights
Only Filipino citizens.
Discretion of government
The government has discretion with respect to the authority to determine what matters are of public concern and the
authority to determine the manner of access to them.
Recognized restrictions on the right of the people to information:
1. National security matters
2. Intelligence information
3. Trade secrets
4. Banking transactions
5. Diplomatic correspondence
6. Executive sessions
7. Closed door cabinet meetings
8. Supreme Court deliberations

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law, shall not be abridged.
The right to form associations shall not be impaired without due process of law and is thus an aspect of the right of
liberty. It is also an aspect of the freedom of contract. In addition, insofar as the associations may have for their object
the advancement of beliefs and ideas, the freedom of association is an aspect of the freedom of speech and expression,
subject to the same limitation.
The right also covers the right not to join an association.
Government employees have the right to form unions. They also have the right to strike, unless there is a statutory
ban on them.

Section 18. Right against involuntary servitude

Definition of involuntary servitude


It is every condition of enforced or compulsory service of one to another no matter under what form such servitude
may be disguised.
Exceptions:
1. Punishment for a crime for which the party has been duly convicted
2. Personal military or civil service in the interest of national defense
3. Return to work order issued by the DOLE Secretary or the President

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Definition of debt under Section 20
1) Debt refers to a CONTRACTUAL obligation, whether express or implied, resulting in any liability to pay
money. Thus, all other types of obligations are not within the scope of this prohibition.
2) Thus, if an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may result in his subsidiary imprisonment
because his liability is ex delicto and not ex contractu.
3) A FRAUDULENT debt may result in the imprisonment of the debtor if:
1. The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as estafa and
2. The accused has been duly convicted.

You might also like