Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 Stef Macapagal

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Title
Bayan v. Ermita
GR Nos. 169838,
169881
25 April 2006
Azcuna, J.

169848,

Facts
Bayan, KMU, and several
individuals, after holding rallies
in different occasions, were
violently dispersed by policemen
implementing Batas Pambansa
No. 880 and the policy of
Calibrated
Pre-emptive
Response being followed to
implement the said BP. These
groups and individuals seek to
stop violent dispersals of rallies
under the no permit, no rally
and the CPR policies.

Issue/s
W/N the requirement of a permit
before holding a rally curtails the
right to peacefully assemble and
petition the government for
redress of grievances.

W/N BP 880 is vague and/or

overbroad.

Ruling
NO. BP 880 is not an absolute
ban of public assemblies but a
restriction that simply regulates
the time, place, and manner of
the assemblies. Furthermore, the
permit can only be denied on the
ground of clear and present
danger to public order, public
safety,
public
convenience,
public morals, or public health.
This is a recognized exception to
the exercise of the right even
under the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. However,
because the rule on the
establishment of freedom parks
was not followed, the court
declared that after 30 days from
the finality of the decision, no
prior permit may be required for
the exercise of holding public
assemblies in any public park or
plaza of a city or municipality
until that city or municipality
shall have complied with the
institution of a freedom park. For
without such alternative forum,
to deny the permit would in
effect be to deny the right.
Advance
notices
should,
however, be given to authorities
to ensure proper coordination
and orderly proceedings.

Doctrine
In cases involving liberty, the
scales of justice should weigh
heavily against the government
and in favor of the poor, the
oppressed, the marginalized, and
dispossessed, and the weak.
Indeed, laws and actions that
restrict fundamental rights come
to the courts with a heavy
presumption
against
their
validity. These laws and actions
are subjected to heightened
scrutiny.
Maximum tolerance means the
highest degree of restraint that
the military, police, and other
peace keeping authorities shall
observe during a public assembly
or in the dispersal of the same.

NO. The law is very clear and is

nowhere vague in its provisions.
Public does not have to be
defined. Its ordinary meaning is
well-known.
Not
every

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 Stef Macapagal

expression of opinion is a public

assembly. The law refers to
rally, demonstration, march,
parade, procession, or any other
form of mass or concerted action
held in a public place. So it does
not cover any and all kinds of
gatherings. Neither is the law
overbroad. It regulates the
exercise of the right to peaceful
assembly and petition only to the
extent needed to avoid a clear
and present danger of the
substantive evils Congress has
the right to prevent.

MTRCB v. ABS-CBN
GR No. 155282
17 January 2005
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

In 1991, ABSCBN aired Prostituition, an episode of the TV

program The Inside Story,
depicting some female students
from PWU moonlighting as
prostitutes to enable them to pay
for their tuition fees. When the
episode was shown with the
faade of the PWU building
serving as the background of the
episode, an uproar was caused in
the said schools campus. PWU
filed letter-complaints with the

W/N BP 880 constitutes prior

restraint/censorship.

NO. The content of the speech is

not relevant to the regulation.

W/N the CPR causes a chilling

effect on the exercise by the
people of the right to peaceably
assemble.

YES. In view of the maximum

tolerance mandated by BP 880,
CPR serves no valid purpose if it
means the same thing as
maximum tolerance and is illegal
if it means something else. The
CPR has no place in our legal
firmament and must be struck
down as a darkness that shrouds
freedom. It merely confuses our
people and is used by the police
agents to justify abuses.
YES. The MTRCB has the
power to screen, review, and
examine all television programs,
under PD 1986. The only
exceptions from the MTRCBs
power of review are those
expressly mentioned in Section 7
of the said law.

W/N The Inside Story should

be subject to prior review and
approval before showing.

W/N the MTRCBs power to

review televisions programs
amounts to prior restraint.

There has been no declaration at

all by the framers of the
Constitution that freedom of
expression and the press has a
preferred status.

NO. MTRCB did not disapprove

or ban the showing of the
program. Neither did it cancel
ABSCBNs permit. It was

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 Stef Macapagal

MTRCB, alleging that the

episode besmirched the name of
PWU and resulted in the
harassment of some of its female
students.

merely penalized for its failure to

submit to MTRCB The Inside
Story for review and approval.

The
MTRCB
then
fined
ABSCBN
P20k
for
not
submitting the program for prior
review. It was then decreed that
all subsequent programs of The
Inside Story and all other
ABSCBN programs should be
submitted to the MTRCB for
review and approval before
showing.
Borjal v. CA
GR No. 126466
14 January 1999
Bellosillo, J.

The RTC reversed the MTRCB.

Borjal,
the
President
of
PhilSTAR Daily, Inc., and
Soliven, the publisher and
chairman of the Editorial Board
of Philippine Star, were sued by
Francisco
Wenceslao
for
allegedly alluding to him in the
Jaywalker column, wherein he
was portrayed as an extortionist
by using the conference for the
revamp of transportation laws as
a means of getting money from
unwitting
businessmen.
Wenceslao filed a complaint with
the National Press Club for
unethical conduct, and with the
courts for libel. The criminal
case for libel was dismissed by
the Assistant Prosecutor, which
was sustained by the DOJ and by
the Office of the President.
Undeterred, Wenceslao filed a
civil case against Borjal and
Soliven based on the libel subject
of the criminal complaints. The

W/N the Jaywalker articles

constituted
privileged
communications as to exempt the
author from liability.

YES. Privileged communications

must be protective of public
opinion. Fair commentaries on
matters of public interest are
privileged and constitute a valid
defense in an action for libel or
slander. There is no denying that
the questioned articles dealt with
matters of public interest, as the
conference that Wenceslao was
allegedly soliciting funds for had
the object to reinvent and
reshape the transportation laws
of the country. As such, it cannot
but invite close scrutiny by the
media obliged to inform the
public of the legitimacy of the
purpose of the activity and of the
qualifications and integrity of the
personalities behind it.

W/N Wenceslao is a public

figure.

YES. A public figure is a person

who, by his accomplishments,
fame, mode of living, or by
adopting a profession or calling
which gives the public a

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 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.

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 Stef Macapagal

trial court ruled in Wenceslaos

favor. The CA affirmed.

legitimate interest in his doings,

his affairs and his character, has
become a public personage. It
includes anyone who has arrived
at a position where the public
attention is focused upon him as
a person. As Executive Director
and Spokesman of the said
conference,
Wenceslao
consequently assumed the status
of a public figure.
W/N Borjal acted with malice in
the publication of the articles.

NO. Borjal was moved by a

sense of civic duty and prodded
by his responsibility as a
newspaperman to expose and
denounce what he perceived to
be a public deception. Surely, we
cannot begrudge him for that. To
be considered malicious, the
libelous statements must be
shown to have been written or
published with the knowledge
that they are false or in reckless
disregard of whether they are
false or not. The articles in the
instant case can hardly be said to
have
been
written
with
knowledge that these are false or
in reckless disregard of what is
false or not. They were based on
reasonable grounds formed after
the columnist conducted several
personal interviews and after
considering
the
varied
documentary evidence provided
him by his sources.

The privileged character of a

communication destroys the
presumption of malice. Mere
error, inaccuracy, or even falsity
alone does not prove actual
malice. Errors or misstatements
are inevitable in any scheme of
truly free expression and debate.
Consistent with good faith and
reasonable care, the press should
not be held to account, to a point
of suppression, for honest
mistakes or imperfections in the
choice of language. There must
be some room for misstatement
of fact as well as for
misjudgment. Only by giving
them much leeway and tolerance
can they courageously and
effectively function as critical
agencies in our democracy.
A privileged communication may
be either absolutely privileged or
qualifiedly privileged. Absolutely
privileged communications are
those which are not actionable
even if the author has acted in
bad faith. An example is found in
Sec. 11, Art. VI of the 1987
Constitution which exempts a
member of Congress from
liability for any speech or debate
in the Congress or any
Committee thereof. Upon the
other hand, qualifiedly privileged
communications
containing
defamatory imputations are not
actionable unless found to have
been made without good
intention or justifiable motive. To
this genre belong private
communications and fair and
true
report
without
any

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 Stef Macapagal

ABSCBN v. COMELEC
GR No. 133486
28 January 2000
Panganiban, J.

COMELEC passed a resolution

issuing a restraining order on
ABSCBN from conducting exit
polls after the 1998 elections,
upon the belief that such project
might conflict with the official
COMELEC count, as well as the
unofficial quick count of the
Namfrel. ABSCBN prayed for a
TRO against the COMELEC
resolution, which was granted by
the court. The exit polls were
then actually conducted and
reported by the media without
any difficulty or problem.

W/N the freedoms of speech and

of the press also protect the
holding of exit polls and the
dissemination of data derived
therefrom.

YES. The freedoms of speech

and of the press should be upheld
when what is sought to be
curtailed is the dissemination of
information meant to add
meaning to the equally vital right
of suffrage. When faced with
borderline situations in which the
freedom of a candidate to speak
or the freedom of the electorate
to know is invoked against
actions allegedly made to assure
clean and free elections, this
Court shall lean in favor of
freedom. For in the ultimate
analysis, the freedom of the
citizen and the States power to
regulate
should
not
be
antagonistic. There can be no
free and honest elections if, in
the efforts to maintain them, the
freedom to speak and the right to
know are unduly curtailed.

W/N the COMELECs absolute

ban on exit polling is valid.

NO. The assailed COMELEC

resolution is too broad, since its
application without qualification
as to whether the polling is
disruptive or not. Concededly,
the Omnibus Election Code
prohibits disruptive behavior
around the voting centers. There
is no showing, however, that exit
polls or the means to interview
voters cause chaos in voting
centers. Neither has any evidence
been presented proving that the
presence of exit poll reporters
near an election precinct tends to
create disorder or confuse the
voters.

comments or remarks.
Doctrinally, the Court has always
ruled in favor of the freedom of
expression, and any restriction is
treated an exemption. Any act
that restrains speech should be
greeted with furrowed brows. A
government
regulation
is
sufficiently justified if:
1. It is within the
constitutional power of
the government;
2. It furthers an important
or
substantial
government interest;
3. The
government
interest is unrelated to
the suppression of free
expression;
4. The
incidental
restriction on alleged
First
Amendment
freedoms is no greater
than is essential to the
furtherance of that
interest.
Even though the governments
purposes are legitimate and
substantial, they cannot be
pursued by means that broadly
stifle
fundamental
personal
liberties, when the end can be
more narrowly achieved.

Dissent: Kapunan, J.

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 Stef Macapagal

Osmena v. COMELEC
GR No. 132231
31 March 1998
Mendoza, J.

Emilio Osmena and Pablo

Garcia, candidates for public
office in the 1998 elections, seek
to invalidate provision of RA
6646 (Electoral Reform Law of
1987), which prohibits mass
media from selling or giving free
of charge print space or air time
for campaign or other political
purposes,
except
to
the
COMELEC. They contend that
the ban has not only failed to
level the playing field, but
actually worked to the grave
disadvantage of the poor
candidates by depriving them of
a medium which they can afford
to pay while their affluent rivals
can always resort to other means
of reaching voters.

W/N the ad ban is constitutional.

The clear-and-present danger test

is not a sovereign remedy for all
free speech problems. It was
originally formulated for the
criminal law and only later
appropriated for free speech
cases. To apply the said test to
regulatory measures would be
like using a sledgehammer to
drive a nail when a regular
hammer is all that is needed.
YES. There is actually no
suppression of political ads but
only a regulation of time and
manner of advertising. The term
political ad ban is actually
misleading, as although the
provision prohibits the sale or
donation of print space and air
time to political candidates, it
mandates the COMELEC to
procure and itself allocate to the
candidates space and time in the
media. In this case, there is no
total ban on political ads, much
less restriction on the content of
the speech.