P. 1
bill of rights case

bill of rights case

|Views: 11|Likes:
Published by Hal Jordan

More info:

Published by: Hal Jordan on May 25, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





G.R. No. L-64261 December 26, 1984 JOSE BURGOS, SR vs.

THE CHIEF OF STAFF- AFP, ET AL Facts: Assailed in this petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction is the validity of two [2] search warrants issued on December 7, 1982 by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano of the then CFI of Rizal [Quezon City], under which the premises of the "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers, respectively, were searched, and office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper, were seized. Petitioners further pray that a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for the return of the seized articles, and that respondents be enjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence against petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. and the other accused in Criminal Case No. Q- 022782 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, entitled People v. Jose Burgos, Jr. et al. Issue: Was the closure of WE Forum a case of prior restraint? Ruling: Yes. As heretofore stated, the premises searched were the business and printing offices of the "Metropolitan Mail" and the "We Forum newspapers. As a consequence of the search and seizure, these premises were padlocked and sealed, with the further result that the printing and publication of said newspapers were discontinued. Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners' freedom to express themselves in print. This state of being is patently anathematic to a democratic framework where a free, alert and even militant press is essential for the political enlightenment and growth of the citizenry. G.R. No. 168338 February 15, 2008 FRANCISCO CHAVEZ, vs. RAUL M. GONZALES Facts: The case originates from events that occurred a year after the 2004 national and local elections. On June 5, 2005, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told reporters that the opposition was planning to release an audiotape of a mobile phone conversation allegedly between the President of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and a high-ranking official of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) which was audiotaped allegedly through wire-tapping. On June 8, 2005, respondent Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul Gonzales warned reporters that those who had copies of the compact disc (CD) and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act.. In another press briefing, Secretary Gonzales ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to go after media organizations "found to have caused the spread, the playing and the printing of the contents of a tape" of an alleged wiretapped conversation involving the President about fixing votes in the 2004 national elections. Issue: Is the warning to media in not airing the “hello Garci” tapes a case of prior restraint? Ruling: Yes. The Court holds that it is not decisive that the press statements made by respondents were not

The concept of an "act" does not limit itself to acts already converted to a formal order or official circular.reduced in or followed up with formal orders or circulars. Necessarily. for and on behalf of the government in an official capacity is covered by the rule on prior restraint. It appears from the records that the respondents' general charge of "inciting people to commit acts of sedition" arose from the petitioner's shift towards what it stated was the coverage of public events and the airing of programs geared towards public affairs. the non formalization of an act into an official order or circular will result in the easy circumvention of the prohibition on prior restraint. The petitioner was not informed beforehand why administrative action which closed the radio station was taken against it. Any act done. The petitioner contended that it was denied due process when it was closed on the mere allegation that the radio station was used to incite people to sedition. the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media. however. IGLESIA NI KRISTO vs. DANS 137 SCRA 628 Facts: This petition was filed to compel the respondents to allow the reopening of Radio Station DYRE which had been summarily closed on grounds of national security. without hearing. Yet the freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy. Broadcast stations deserve the special protection given to all forms of media by the due process and freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution The cardinal primary requirements in administrative proceedings laid down by this Court in AngTibay v. doctrines and practices often times in comparative studies with other religions. It is sufficient that the press statements were made by respondents while in the exercise of their official functions. The press statements at bar are acts that should be struck down as they constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints on the right to free speech and press. 635) should be followed before a broadcast station may be closed or its operations curtailed. No action was taken by the respondents to entertain a motion seeking the reconsideration of the closure action. violative of the freedom of the press? RULING: Yes. The program presents and propagates petitioner's religious beliefs. Court of Industrial Relations (69 Phil. has a television program entitled "AngIglesiani Cristo" aired on Channel 2 every Saturday and on Channel 13 every Sunday. a duly organized religious organization. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS VS. ISSUE: Was the closure. such as a speech uttered. It alleged that no hearing was held and no proof was submitted to establish a factual basis for the closure. . CA GR 119673 Facts: Petitioner Iglesiani Cristo. The petitioner also raised the issue of freedom of speech. Otherwise. All forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression clause.

the determination of the question as to whether or not such vilification. It failed in the case at bar. . Prior restraint on speech. any act that restrains speech is hobbled by the presumption of invalidity and should be greeted with furrowed brows. exaggeration or fabrication falls within or lies outside the boundaries of protected speech or expression is a judicial function which cannot be arrogated by an administrative body such as a Board of Censors. The records show that the decision of the respondent Board. It depicted female students moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. Hence. and some faculty members were interviewed." He submits that a "system of prior restraint may only be validly administered by judges and not left to administrative agencies. including religious speech. Leticia P. cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil which has taken the life of a reality already on ground. "The same submission is made by Mr. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. its act of censorship will be struck down. Both complainants alleged that the episode besmirched the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students. MTRCB vs ABS-CBN GR 155282 Jan 17 2005 Facts: On October 15. 116. The Philippine Women’s University (PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue. Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode. 121 and 128. affirmed by the respondent appellate court. Finally. October and November 1992 petitioner submitted to the respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television the VTR tapes of its TV program Series Nos." an episode of the television (TV) program "The Inside Story" produced and hosted by respondent Legarda.Sometime in the months of September. If it fails to discharge this burden. including religious speech. Dr. The showing of "The Inside Story" caused uproar in the PWU community. ISSUE: Is a prior submission to MTRCB a case of prior restraint? . customers. Justice Mendoza. at 10:45 in the evening. respondent ABS-CBN aired "Prosti-tuition. The Board classified the series as "X" or not for public viewing on the ground that they "offend and constitute an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law. In the course of the program. Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU. and the PWU Parents and Teachers Association filed lettercomplaints3 with petitioner MTRCB. 119. it is also opined by Mr. 1991. is completely bereft of findings of facts to justify the conclusion that the subject video tapes constitute impermissible attacks against another religion. student prostitutes. . 19 It is the burden of the respondent Board to overthrow this presumption. de Guzman." Is a prior submission to MTRCB a case of prior restraint? Deeply ensconced in our fundamental law is its hostility against all prior restraints on speech. pimps. Justice Kapunan that ".

79690-707 October 7. or socio-political editorials. ISSUE: What is the extent of the right to information of the press on covering judicial proceedings? RULING: An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him. Cesar N.25second. sit in the available seats. all television programs. television programs are more accessible to the public than newspapers. by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney Ricardo Romulo. who shall then be totally free to report what they have observed during the proceedings. the overriding consideration is still the paramount right of the accused to due process17 which must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions. where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. 1988 . third. it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come. more than anyone else. 2001 Facts: On 13 March 2001." and fourth. It also approves of media's exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the proceedings to the public and in acquainting the public with the judicial process in action." G. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. news documentaries. an association representing duly franchised and authorized television and radio networks throughout the country. SECRETARY PEREZ VS. Justice Clark thusly pronounced. Sarino in his letter of 05 April 2001 to the Chief Justice and. still later. Nos." are subject to petitioner’s power of review under Section 3 (b) of P. No. 1986 does not violate respondents’ constitutional freedom of expression and of the press. a courtroom should have enough facilities for a reasonable number of the public to observe the proceedings. the KapisananngmgaBroadKasterngPilipinas(KBP). No. SANDIGANBAYAN AM 01-4-03 SC JUNE 29.D. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history. In the constitutional sense. within the courthouse.R. 1986 does not amount to "prior restraint. nevertheless. Court of Appeals . sent a letter requesting the Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. petitioner’s power to review television programs under Section 3(b) of P. including "public affairs programs. No. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in secrete conclaves of long ago.Petitioner MTRCB through the Solicitor General. "while a maximum freedom must be allowed the press in carrying out the important function of informing the public in a democratic society. D. contends inter alia: first.16 The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to public information. D. the liberal regulation of the latter cannot apply to the former. thus. not too small as to render the openness negligible and not too large as to distract the trial participants from their proper functions. Section 3(b) of P. its exercise must necessarily be subject to the maintenance of absolute fairness in the judicial process."2 The request was seconded by Mr. 1986 and pursuant to this Court’s ruling in Iglesiani Cristo vs. conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process.

Ex Rel. dated 9 February 1988. Borromeo. Raul Gonzalez to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt and/or subjected to administrative sanctions for making certain public statements. which includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself of law. No. 93-7-696-0 February 21.ENRIQUE A. Under the illusion that his trivial acquaintance with the law had given him competence to undertake litigation. persuasively it appears to us. RAUL M. to control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of the Court including lawyers and all other persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court. first and foremost. lawyers even those gifted with superior intellect are enjoined to rein up their tempers. to Cite in Contempt filed by petitioner Enrique A. No. he . Joaquin T. The Motion cited as bases the acts of respondent Gonzalez in: (1) having caused the filing of the information against petitioner in Criminal Case No. GONZALEZ. The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. No. FACTS: The following are the subjects of this Resolution filed by the Petitioner : a Motion. and a Resolution of this Court dated 2 May 1988 requiring respondent Hon. 1995 In Re JOAQUIN T.R. 80578. and (2) issuing certain allegedly contemptuous statements to the media in relation to the proceedings in G. 12570 before the Sandiganbayan.R. dogmatically pontificating on errors supposedly committed by the courts. Facts: The respondent in this case." ISSUE: Are lawyers entitled to the same degree of latitude of freedom of speech towards the Court? RULING: No. Some courts have held. Hence. the Supreme Court has inherent power to punish for contempt. Gonzalez. Only slightly (if at all) less important is the public interest in the capacity of the Court effectively to prevent and control professional misconduct on the part of lawyers who are. Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Moreover. from 1978 to the present. In respect of the latter. BORROMEO. in the assertion of their clients' rights. indispensable participants in the task of rendering justice to every man. 79690-707 and G. While the Court may allow criticism it has In Re: Almacen held: Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. Nos. A. in connection with G. been instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court's constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law. and that a lawyer's right of free expression may have to be more limited than that of a layman.M. who has. Zaldivar against public respondent Special Prosecutor (formerly Tanodbayan) Raul M. 80578. petitioner annexed to his Motion a photocopy of a news article which appeared in the 30 November 1987 issue of the "Philippine Daily Globe. including the Supreme Court. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. The Court begins by referring to the authority to discipline officers of the court and members of the Bar. for some sixteen (16) years now. ZALDIVAR vs.R.

TORO and HATAW!. and bringing them into disrepute and disrespect A. Mauricio within the Constitutional bounds of the freedom of the press? RULING: No. ISSUE: Are lawyers entitled to the same degree of latitude of freedom of speech towards the Court? RULING: No. (complainant). of expression. MAURICIO. Mauricio. as well as his adversaries. FACTS: Foodsphere. oppressors. for insulting lawyers. There can scarcely be any doubt of Borromeo's guilt of contempt. needlessly overloaded the court dockets and sorely tried the patience of the judges and court employees who have had to act on his repetitious and largely unfounded complaints.” filed a Verified Complaint for disbarment before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Expectedly. Inc. Respondent violated Rule 1. founded on nothing more than his personal (and quite erroneous) reading of the Constitution and the law.. Issue: Were the actuations of Atty.versus . Melanio L. JR. (2) violation of lawyer’s oath and (3) disrespect to the courts and to investigating prosecutors. for abusing the processes and rules of the courts. judges and their employees. violators of the Constitution and the laws.C. wasting their time. No.ATTY. and other persons. a corporation engaged in the business of meat processing and manufacture and distribution of canned goods and grocery products under the brand name “CDO. III) and in accordance with the accountability of public officials." The constitutional rights invoked by him afford no justification for repetitious litigation of the same causes and issues. for which he is now being called to account. etc. 7199 July 22. and possibly in aid of his interminable and quite unreasonable resort to judicial proceedings. 4. obstructing and degrading the administration of justice. court employees. he calls judges and lawyers ignorant.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to . including the attorneys appearing for his adversaries. popularly known as “Batas Mauricio” (respondent). In the process. for (1) grossly immoral conduct. obdurately and unreasonably insisting on the application of his own individual version of the rules. Jr. In those publicly circulated writings. pleadings and motions. He stubbornly litigated issues already declared to be without merit. a writer/columnist of tabloids including Balitang Patas BATAS. On the contention that he "was exercising his rights of freedom of speech. rulings which had become final and executory. he has insulted the judges and court officers. gross disrespect to courts and judges and improper conduct directly impeding. he has seen fit to compose and circulate many scurrilous statements against courts. corrupt.has ventured to represent himself in numerous original and review proceedings. 2009 FOODSPHERE. . Art. MELANIO L. judges. rendered adversely to him in many suits and proceedings. INC. for abuse of and interference with judicial rules and processes. and a host of a television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS telecast over UNTV and of a radio program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB. the results have been disastrous. Bagong TIKTIK. and to petition the government for redress of grievances as guaranteed by the Constitution (Sec.

the petitioner believes that with the ban on radio. respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and its products.R. televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO. the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients. television and print political advertisements. For despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishing. 1992 BLO UMPAR ADIONG vs. the petitioner states that as of February 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Finally. 1992 elections. which mandates: A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. taking advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his interest – to obtain funds for his BATAS Foundation and seek sponsorships and advertisements for the tabloids and his television program. the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party or witness. valid and constitutional? . 1992 elections now assails the COMELEC's Resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and stickers in "mobile" places like cars and other moving vehicles. At the same time. being a neophyte in the field of politics stands to suffer grave and irreparable injury with this prohibition. However. he engaged in deceitful conduct by. (Underscoring supplied) G. obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. respondent violated Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility. such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language.” In Saberon v. inter alia. unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. On many occasions. illuminating but not offensive. The posting of decals and stickers on cars and other moving vehicles would be his last medium to inform the electorate that he is a senatorial candidate in the May 11. For. immoral or deceitful conduct. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Facts: Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong. a senatorial candidate in the May 11. as the IBP found. In addition. He also violated Rule 13. a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must be dignified. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession." Issue: Is the COMELEC Resolution prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers except on COMELEC authorized posting areas. he. 1992 (the date of the petition) he has not received any notice from any of the Election Registrars in the entire country as to the location of the supposed "Comelec Poster Areas. 103956 March 31. According to him such prohibition is violative of Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 11(a) of Republic Act No. dishonest.refrain from engaging in unlawful. which mandates lawyers to “uphold the Constitution. Larong the Court held: To be sure. 6646. No. convincing but not derogatory. while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage.

Third. There is no public interest substantial enough to warrant the kind of restriction involved in this case. The questioned prohibition premised on the statute and as couched in the resolution is also void for overbreadth. section 1 in relation to Article IX (c) Section 4 of the Constitution. any financial considerations behind the regulation are of marginal significance. is not impaired by posting decals and stickers on cars and other private vehicles. the constitutional objective to give a rich candidate and a poor candidate equal opportunity to inform the electorate as regards their candidacies. Act 6646 is so encompassing and invasive that it prohibits the posting or display of election propaganda in any place. The COMELEC's prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" places whether public or private except in designated areas provided for by the COMELEC itself is null and void on constitutional grounds. Article III). whether public or private. Compared to the paramount interest of the State in guaranteeing freedom of expression. 4. The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the Constitution (Sec. mandated by Article II. Section 11 of Rep. In sum. Section 26 and Article XIII.Ruling: No. the prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" places whether public or private except in the authorized areas designated by the COMELEC becomes censorship which cannot be justified by the Constitution: . except in the common poster areas sanctioned by COMELEC.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->