You are on page 1of 5

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.

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

" The latter is not criticism. .Adiong v.resolution prohibiting demonstrations within a radius of 200 meters from the boundary of any hall of Justice. GODOY . fair criticism of the court. However. do not enjoy constitutional protection. And this brings us to the familiar invocation of freedom of expression usually resorted to as a defense in contempt proceedings. 98-7-02 SC . PEOPLE V. Such comments may constitute a libel against the judge. Freedom of Expression and the Courts IN RE: EMIL JURADO – journalist and lawyer at the same time . should enjoy a like immunity. Contempt proceedings dismissed. The knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth. but it cannot be treated as in contempt of the court's authority. Where it tends to bring the court into disrespect or. if the publication is attended by either of these two circumstances: a.Right to private reputation. in which case it shall be dealt with as a case of contempt. Judges are commonly and rightly regarded as voluntarily subjecting themselves to norms of conduct which embody more stringent standards of honesty.The Court.M. Where there is a clear and present danger that the administration of justice would be impeded. it would seem. integrity. COMELEC – using stickers to campaign – ed ABS-CBN v. has . it does not follow that the lie. and competence than are commonly required from private persons.cited for contempt based on the latter’s article in the newspaper . may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech. in other words. even though the case has been terminated.(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. (2) In case of a post-litigation newspaper publication. even if inaccurate. IN RE: RESOLUTION A. its proceedings and its members. COMELEC – releasing surveys results before the election – allowed D. Although honest utterances. it is personal and scurrilous abuse of a judge as such. are allowed. knowingly and deliberately published about a public official. to scandalize the court. or b. there may be a contempt of court. COMELEC – exit polls – allowed SWS v.

then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken. and every false imputation is deemed malicious. of any judicial. or other official proceeding which are not of confidential nature. OBSCENITY BORJAL V.graft charges filed against the judge. even if it be true. report. E.Can the trial of Estrada in the Sandiganbayan or any other court be broadcasted in TV or radio? NO. b.(1) Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable.(1) Generally. because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved. except in the following instances: a. . . or of any statement. it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. legislative. moral or social duty. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false. if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. broadcast media cannot be allowed to publicize the trial. Freedom of the press and the accused’s protection from a possible prejudicial publicized trial must be taken into consideration. It was anchored on Art. 5 (5) RE: RADIO/TV COVERAGE OF ESTRADA TRIAL . it is not necessarily actionable. If the comment is an expression of opinion. but it is not synonymous with a publicized trial. as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. An accused has a right to a public trial. OCAMPO V. based on established facts. made in good faith. when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity. every defamatory information is presumed to be malicious. SUN STAR PUBLISHING .—the subject articles are under this exemption. And unless there are safety nets to prevent this event. VIII Sec. nevertheless. UNPROTECTED SPEECH – LIBEL. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal. without any comments or remarks.Borjal published in his editorial column in the Philippine Star about certain anomalous activities of an ―organizer of a conference‖ .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. or speech delivered in said proceedings. COURT OF APPEALS . A fair and true report.

FUGOSO . VILLEGAS . lacks serious literary. or scientific value. regulate the exercise of such rights in a reasonable manner. artistic. by attempting to commit the power of doing so to the mayor or any other officer.Miller test (3 Tests) (a) whether the average person. JBL REYES V. the time. The discretion with which the council is vested is a legal discretion. to be exercised within the limits of the law. taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest. taken as a whole. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. the applicants must be heard on the matter. ASSEMBLY AND PETITION PRIMICIAS V.Sunken Gardens as alternative to Plaza Miranda . (2) In the exercise of police power. as the statute is construed by the state courts.The Mayor cannot be compelled to issue the permit. political. F. the public place where and the time when it will take place. in a patently offensive way. only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required. but cannot suppress them. NAVARRO V. making him in its exercise a petty tyrant. applying contemporary standards’ would find the work.public meeting at Plaza Miranda . (4) . A permit should recognize the right of the applicants to hold their assembly at a public place of their choice. directly or indirectly. . 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. 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. (c) whether the work. and manner of the parade and procession. MAYOR BAGATSING . place. sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. in its discretion.a peaceful march and rally from Luneta park to the gates of the US Embassy. If he is of the view that there is such imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil. (b) whether the work depicts or describes. CA – Pinoy Playboy .(1) The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the date. where. (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. in them issuance of licenses. and not discretion to transcend it or to confer upon any city officer and arbitrary authority. the council may. to a consideration. the licensing authorities are strictly limited.Pita v.(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. (2) If it were a private place.

from their schools during regular school days. The right to free speech must always be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. place. while the court upheld the right of the students to free expression in these cases. in order to participate in mass protest. they still refused to return to work. COURT OF APPEALS – Libog Article . disciplinary action by the school for "conduct by the student.(1) The right of the students to free speech in school premises is not absolute. in class or out of it. COURT OF APPEALS – teachers and mass actions . or type of behavior .Decision of the licensing authority must be transmitted to the applicants at the earliest opportunity. MIRIAM COLLEGE V. That given the return-to-work orders issued by the then DECS Secretary. for which they are responsible. . except when such articles materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.Where public school teachers absent themselves without proper authority. which for any reason .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. JACINTO V. their absence ineluctably results in the nonholding of classes and in the deprivation of students of education.mass actions then staged. they were then suspended and later on dismissed from service. . 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. Thus.whether it stems from time.