Pita v.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80806
October 5, 1989
Facts:
In 1983, elements of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group, and the Manila Police,
seized and confiscated from dealers along Manila sidewalks, magazines
believed to be obscene.
Petitioner filed an injunction case against the mayor of manila to enjoin him
from confiscating more copies of his magazine and claimed that this was a
violation of freedom of speech. The court ordered him to show cause. He
then filed an Urgent Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order
against indiscriminate seizure.
Defendant Mayor Bagatsing admitted the confiscation and burning of
obscence reading materials but admitted that these were surrendered by the
stall owners and the establishments were not raided.
The case reached the SC and petitioner contended that the CA erred in
holding that the police officers could without any court warrant or order seize
and confiscate petitioner's magazines on the basis simply of their
determination that they are obscene and that it erred in affirming the
decision of the trial court and, in effect, holding that the trial court could
dismiss the case on its merits without any hearing thereon when what was
submitted to it for resolution was merely the application of petitioner for the
writ of preliminary injunction.
Issue: Was the seizure constitutional?
Held: No. Petition is granted.
Test for obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene,
is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral
influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as
being obscene may fall and whether a picture is obscene or indecent must
depend upon the circumstances of the case, and that ultimately, the
question is to be decided by the "judgment of the aggregate sense of the
community reached by it.
The Court is not convinced that the private respondents have shown the
required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the literature for
which mandatory injunction had been sought below. First of all, they were not
possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be

pornography, and (2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure, by
way of a search warrant.
Social Weather Stations, Inc. vs Commission on Elections
Facts:
Petitioner states that it wishes to conduct an election survey throughout the
period of the elections and release to the media the results of such survey as
well as publish them directly. Petitioner argues that the restriction on the
publication of election survey results constitutes a prior restraint on the
exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to justify
such restraint.
Issue:
Whether or not Section 5.4 of RA 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional
abridgment of freedom of speech, expression, and the press.
Ruling:
Section 5(4) of RA 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of
freedom of speech, expression, and the press. Section (5)4 lays a prior
restraint on freedom of speech, expression, and the press prohibiting the
publication of election survey results affecting candidates within the
prescribed periods of 15 days immediately preceding a national election and
7 days before a local election. Because of the preferred status of the
constitutional rights of speech, expression, and the press, such a measure is
vitiated by a weighty presumption of invalidity. Indeed, any system of prior
restraints of expression comes to the Supreme Court bearing a heavy
presumption
against
its
constitutional
validity.

CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS, General Campaign Manager of Coalesced

Minority
Parties,
petitioner,
vs.
VALERIANO E. FUGOSO, Mayor of City of Manila, respondent
Facts:
Petitioner as general manager of Coalsced Minority party wishes to hold an
assembly at Plaza Miranda to redress their grievances to the government.
However pursuant to revised ordinance of the city sec. 1119 which provides
that the holding of any parade or procession in any streets or public places is
prohibited unless a permit therefor is first secured from the Mayor who shall,
on every such occasion, determine or specify the streets or public places for

the formation, route, and dismissal of such parade or procession. Respondent

denied their application for the permit.
Issue:
Is it right for the Mayor not to grant permit for the assembly pursuant to the
city ordinance.
Held:
The ordinance was subject to two constructions; as to whether it is up to the
mayors discretion to grant or refuse the permit, or the petitioner has the
right to hold an assembly on subject only to the latter's reasonable discretion
to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used for the
purpose, with the view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure
convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to provide
adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder. The court held
the second construction. The first construction would be tantamount to
power to grant or refuse, the administrative code granting police power
regulate the use of the streets to the mayor does not give the power to
prohibit.
CRISPIN MALABANAN, EVELIO JALOS, BEN LUTHER LUCAS, SOTERO
LEONERO,
and
JUNE
LEE,
petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE ANASTACIO D. RAMENTO, in his capacity as the
Director of the National Capital Region of the Ministry of Education,
Culture and Sports
Facts:
Petitioner are students who held an assembly opposing the merging of with
the Institute of Animal science to that of Institute of Agriculture. They were
given permit to do so, specifying that the said place will take place in the
basketball court. However the assembly was done in the second floor lobby
and marched toward the Life Building Science using megaphones causing
disturbance while classes were held. Because of this they were suspended.
Issue:
The specific question to be resolved then is whether on the facts as disclosed
resulting in the disciplinary action and the penalty imposed, there was an
infringement of the right to peaceable assembly and its cognate right of free
speech.
Held:

Although it was clear that the student have violated the permit this does not
warrant suspension for a year. Student did not shed their constitutional right
to free assembly. The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to
accommodate students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain
types of activities. Among those activities is personal intercommunication
among the students. Students rights are not merely inside the classroom.

LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, MERCY DE LEON, TERESITA EUGENIO,

CORAZON GOMEZ, ELENA GUEVARRA, ROSALINA JINGCO, LOIDA
IGNACIO,
and
EMERITA
PIZARRO,
petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND
SPORTS, respondents.
Facts:
Petitioners herein are teachers from various schools of Metro Manila, who
were suspended after participated in a mass action/ illegal strike which acts
constitute grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of Civil
Service Law, Rules and Regulations and reasonable office regulations, refusal
to perform official duty, gross insubordination conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service and absence without official leave They contend that
they were merely expressing their grievances to the government an exercise
of their right to assembly
Issue: Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals grievously erred in
affirming the CSC resolutions finding them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service when their only "offense" was to exercise their
constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for
redress of their grievances.
Held:
Supreme court affirms the decision of the appellate court. What they did
amounted to a strike in every sense of the term, constituting as they did, a
concerted and unauthorized stoppage of or absence from work which it was
said teachers' sworn duty to perform, carried out for essentially economic
reasons to protest and pressure the Government to correct what, among
other grievances, the strikers perceived to be the unjust or prejudicial
implementation of the salary standardization law insofar as they were
concerned, the non-payment or delay in payment of various fringe benefits
and allowances to which they were entitled, and the imposition of additional
teaching loads and longer teaching hours.