You are on page 1of 6

CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY.

ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS

SEC. 4. 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.

TWIN MANDATES OF SECTION 4.


1. No LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF EXPRESSION, OR OF THE PRESS,
2. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES AND SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGE

WHAT ARE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF EXPRESSION, OR OF THE PRESS INCLUDES?


- Includes every form of expression whether oral or written, taped or disc recorded. It also includes movies as
well as what is referred to as symbolic speech such as wearing of arm band as a symbol of protest. Peaceful
picketing has also in the meaning of speech.
- Pantomime ther is no speech but there can be expressions, acts that would be expressions of the pantomime.
Action of your body that can be understand by the audience is also speech.

What are the two conditions in the abridgement of freedom of speech, of expressions, and of the press.
- prior restraint
- Subsequent punishment

What is prior restraint mean?


Prior restraint means official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination.(indi pa naiipapublish, in advance-prior) Its most blatant form is a system
of licensing administered by an executive officer. Movie censorship, although not placed on the same level as
press censorship, also belongs to this type of prior restraint. Also similar to the licensing system is judicial
prior restraint which takes the form of an injunction against publication. Equally objectionable as prior
restraint are license taxes measured by gross receipts for the privilege of engaging in the business of
advertising in any newspaper or flat license fees for the privilege of selling religious books.

Is the warning against media against airing of the conversation between the president and other personalities
constitute prior restraint?
- YES. Discuss by the case Chavez vs Gonzales
Chavez vs Gonzales- In the aftermath of the 2004 elections when there was wide talk about election cheating,
one of the topics that hugged the headlines was the alleged telephone conversation between President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo and Election Commissioner Garcillano. The government warning addressed to media against
airing the alleged wiretapped conversation was deemed by the Court to constitute unconstitutional prior restraint
on the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press.

What is subsequent punishment?


The mere prohibition of government interference before words are spoken or published would be an
inadequate protection of the freedom of expression if the government could punish without restraint after
publication. The unrestrained threat of subsequent punishment itself would operate as a very effective prior
restraint. The guarantee of freedom of expression also means a limitation in the power of the state to impose
subsequent punishment .

When is the right of free speech and press collides with the right of the accused to a fair trial. How will the court
dispose of the conflict.?

1 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS


NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM,
GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS

A.M. secretary of justice vs. sandiganbayan


- trial of joseph Estrada before sandiganbayan where the media file a petition for a live coverage to
allow live television coverage of the case and the court said that it is the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees
of the freedom of the press and the right of the people to public information on the other hand the fundamental rights
of the accused . when these rights are raised against one another, jurisprudence tell us that the right of accused must
be preferred to win, in denying the petition, the court said the television coverage of judicial proceeding involves an
inherent denial of due process in the rights of a criminal defendant.

A.M 10-11-5-sc MAGUINDANAO MASACRE CASE.


-a petition for radio and tv coverage was requested in this case . the supreme court said that the
indication of serious risk posed by the live coverage to the accused rights to due process left unexplained to the
Estrada case has left a blow to the exercise to press freedom and the right to public information. While apparent
circumstance that makes the maguindanao massacre different from Estrada case is the impossibility of
accommodating all the interested parties inside the court room because the accused alone are more than 150 people.
Initially the supreme court said, YES, live coverage maybe done in Maguindanao Cases however on reconsideration
the Supreme court did not allow the live coverage as reiterated by Chief Justice Serrano, the members of the press is
allowed inside the courtroom but no live coverage. While the court recognizes the freedom of the press and the right
to public information these rights belongs to the non direct parties of the case, the right of the direct parties should
not be forgotten. In a clash, amongst these competing interest , jurisprudence makes it clear that the balance should
always be weighed in favor of the accused.

AYER PRODUCTIONS V. CAPULONG


- The case involved the production of "The Four Day Revolution," a movie account of the bloodless coup that
toppled the Marcos regime. Juan Ponce Enrile, a principal actor in the historic event, sought to enjoin the use
of his name or of any member of his family. Against Enrile's claim was the producer's assertion of freedom of
expression. The Court had to balance Enrile's claim to the right of privacy against the producer's freedom of
expression. The Court began its disquisition with the assertion that freedom of expression as applicable to
motion pictures.
- The Court said: "A limited intrusion into a person's privacy has long been regarded as permissible where that
person is a public figure and the information sought to be elicited from him or to be published about him
constitute matters of a public character. In this case there is no doubt that the event of the 4-day revolution is
a public character. Enrile is a public figure which meant that he had no right to prevent the publication of the
story of his participation in the event.

Is the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press absolute? NO. there are exceptions
May these right be lawfully restraint? YES. There must be standard for restraint.
If so what are the requirements for the lawful restraint.?
Dangerous Tendency Rule
Clear and present danger rule
Balancing interest rule

DANGEROUS TENDENCY RULE


speech may be curtailed or punished when it "creates a dangerous tendency which the State has the
right to prevent." The tendency alone for the evil to come about will justify the restraint. All it
requires, for speech to be punishable, is that there be a rational connection between the speech and
the evil apprehended
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE
On Whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature

2 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS


NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM,
GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS

as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress
has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.
In dangerous tendency rule if the speech is uttered in such a way that there is a tendency to bring
about the evil sought to be prevented then speech may be curtailed. Under the clear and present
danger rule there must be a clear and present danger of the evil before the right to speech, of
expression, or of the press to be curtailed.
BALANCING INTEREST RULE
Courts have the duty to balance the evil sought to be prevented as against the rights. If general
welfare is the reason for the curtailment of speech then speech maybe prevented.
- It gives the court the duty to balance the conflicting interest sasabihin ng court kung papayagan ba
natin to ano ang mangyayari. it will allow the demonstration . if we curtail the demonstration the right
to free speech will suffer . in that case who loses. All of this thing the court must consider that is why
it is balancing of interest of demonstration. All interests will be scrutinized by the court.

Gr 205728 Diocese of Bacolod vs COMELEC


issue whether the comelec has the competence to limit the expression by the citizen who are not candidates
during elections.
Facts eto yung sa diocese of Bacolod naglagay ng tarpaulin dalawang tarpaulin yung team patay at team
buhay. Team patay are those who voted for RH Bill and team buhay for those who did not vote for RH Bill.
Apparently they are catholic church through the diocese of Bacolod. Regulation of speech in the context of
electronic campaign made by person who are not candidate or who do not speak as a member of a political
party which are taken as a whole principally advocacy as social issue the public as considered during election
are unconstitutional.

Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to support their position that they had the power
to regulate the tarpaulin. However, the Court held that all of these provisions pertain to candidates and
political parties. Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they belong to any political party. COMELEC does
not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of the preferred right to freedom of expression exercised by
a non-candidate in this case.

Under this rule, the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive, extremely serious and
the degree of imminence extremely high. Only when the challenged act has overcome the clear and present
danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the government having the burden of overcoming the
presumed unconstitutionality.

Even with the clear and present danger test, respondents failed to justify the regulation. There is no
compelling and substantial state interest endangered by the posting of the tarpaulin as to justify curtailment
of the right of freedom of expression. There is no reason for the state to minimize the right of non-candidate
petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private property. The size of the tarpaulin does not affect anyone
elses constitutional rights.

Freedom of speech has never been understood to be an absolute right. Some forms of speech are not protected by
constitution.

What are the forms of speech not protected by the constitution?


Libel
Obscenity

3 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS


NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM,
GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS

LIBEL- is defined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code. A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or
of a vice or a defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
ELEMENTS
The allegation of discreditable act or condition concerning another.
Publication of the charge
Identity of the person defamed
Existence of malice

When is speech libelous?


When the imputation is public
When it is malicious
When is imputation is on considered public?
The imputation is public when the defamatory statement is made known to someone other
than the person to whom is written. When third person is concern it is already publish.
When is speech/statement considered malicious?
It is malicious when the author of the imputation is prompted by evil or spite or speech not in
response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been
defamed.
OBSCENITY something offensive to chastity decency or delicacy.

If the speech is not malicious even if defamatory it is privileged. The rule on privileged communication is that a
communication made in good faith on any subject matter in which the communicator has an interest, or concerning
which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding interest, although it contains
incriminatory matter which, without the privilege, would be libelous and actionable.

Alonzo vs. CA
Every defamatory imputation 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 cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social
duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or
other official proceedings 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 function.

Are Pleadings filed in court privileged?


The prevailing rule is that parties, counsels and witnesses are exempted from liability in libel
or slander, for words otherwise defamatory published in the course of judicial proceeding,
provided, the statement are relevant to the case.( armovit vs. judge Purisima)
Pleading are privileged but to be so, they must be relevant to the matter under investigation.
(Gutierrez vs. Abila) There was also reiteration of the rule that privileged communication
yields to proof of malice and that pleadings in court, to be privileged, must be relevant to the
case.
Borjal vs. CA. The concept of privileged communications is implicit in the freedom of the
press. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid
defense in an action for libel or slander. The rule on privileged commentaries on matters of
public interest applies to it. The privilege applies not only to criticism of public officials but
extends to the criticism of a great variety of subjects, and includes matters of public concern,
public men, and candidates for office

4 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS


NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM,
GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS

People vs. del Rosario define who is injured in cases of libel. In criminal law, in the
commission of the crime, it is the state who is injured, in libel it is not the disturbance of
public order coxed by defamatory language but its tendency to injure the person defamed.
And it has been held that the evil which the law on libel seeks to punish is not the disturbance
of public order caused by defamatory language but "its tendency ... to injure the person
defamed, regardless of its effect upon the public."

Three object of criticism in life of public figure.


His public and official acts.
His mental, moral and physical fitness for office.
His strictly private life.

When the object of criticism is his strictly private life, defamatory imputations are not constitutionally
protected expression. True criticism, therefore, of a person's fitness for office is always fair and, therefore, privileged;
false criticism is not privileged if malicious, that is, when used as a cloak for assaults on a person's private life. Hence,
good faith is always a valid defense in a suit for defamatory imputations against a person's moral, mental or physical
fitness for office.

Policarpio v. Manila Times Publishing Co.- It goes without saying that newspapers must enjoy a certain degree of
discretion in determining the manner in which a given event should be presented to the public, and the importance to
be attached thereto as a news item, and that its presentation in a sensational manner is not per se illegal.
Newspapers may publish news items relative to judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings, which are not of a
confidential nature, because the public is entitled to know the truth with respect to such proceedings, which, being
official and non-confidential, are open to public consumption. But to enjoy immunity, a publication containing
derogatory information must be not only true but, also, fair, and it must be made in good faith and without comments
or remarks.

Feremin vs. People. public figures are not unprotected. Although a wide latitude is given to critical utterances made
against public officials in the performance of their official duties, or against public figures on matters of public interest,
such criticism does not automatically fall within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech. If the utterances are
false, malicious or unrelated to a public officer's performance of his duties or irrelevant to matters of public interest
involving public figures, the same may give rise to criminal and civil liability. While personalities in the entertainment
business, media people, including gossip and intrigue writers and commentators, do not have the unbridled license to
malign their honor and dignity by indiscriminately airing fabricated and malicious comments.

SECOND PART OF SECTION 4, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. (it can be curtail)

STANDARDS FOR ALLOWING RESTRAINT OR REGULATION.


Dangerous Tendency Rule
Clear and present danger rule
Balancing interest rule

US. v. Apurado which involved a spontaneous gathering of some five hundred men to demand the ouster of certain
municipal officials. No permit was involved. But the significant point was that, in a
prosecution for sedition, the Court, invoking the right of assembly and petition, was willing to allow for a certain
amount of disorder. (page 311 of bernas book)

5 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS


NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM,
GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS

Evangelista v. Earnshaw - must be considered that the respondent mayor, whose sworn duty it is "to see that
nothing should occur which would tend to provoke or excite the people to disturb the peace of the community or the
safety or order of the Government," did only the right thing under the circumstances....
Instead of being condemned or criticized, the respondent mayor should be praised and commended for having taken a
prompt, courageous, and firm stand towards the said Communist Party of the Philippines before the latter could do
more damage by its revolutionary propaganda, and by the seditious speeches and utterances of its members.(page
312)

Primicias v. Fugoso - In rejecting the Mayor's contention, the Court said that the right of the
applicant to a permit was subject only to the Mayor's "reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or
public places to be used for the purpose, with a 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." It rejected the notion that "comfort and convenience in
the use of streets or parks [was] the standard of official action."(page 313)

Which rule is more in keeping with the spirit of the constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful
assembly, and petition?
o Not answered. WHY?

6 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS


NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM,
GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN