Constitutional Law 2

[December 6, 2019 Assignment: 7:00 to 9:30 p.m.]

(a) Special Announcement:
 No class on Monday (December 2, 2019) but the class on Friday (December 6, 2019) will be
extended for thirty minutes. Consti 2 classes will continue to be every Friday with 3o minute
extension (7:00 to 9:30 p.m.). No more Monday session.
 The video clip production will not be implemented this semester.
(b) Read: Section 4, Article III of the Bill of Rights; pages 230-324, The 1987 Constitution: A
Commentary, by Father Joaquin G. Bernas, S.D., 2009 ed.
(c) Digest the following cases [digests due on December 6, 2019]:

 Is the consent requirement is invalid because it imposes an unconstitutional “prior restraint” on

speech in the nature of a “heckler’s veto”? What is a “heckler’s veto”?
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 735(2000)
 Does Sec. 4(b)3 of the Cybercrime Law violate the freedom of the press in that journalists
would be hindered from accessing the unrestricted user account of a person in the news to
secure information about him that could be published?
 Does Sec. 4(c)1 of the Cybercrime Law violate the freedom of expression since private
communications of sexual character between husband and wife or consenting adults, which
are not regarded as crimes under the penal code, would now be regarded as crimes when done
“for favor” in cyberspace?
 Does Sec. 4(c)3 of the Cybercrime Law which penalizes spam and unsolicited advertisements
violate the freedom of expression?
 Does Sec. 4(a)3 and Sec. 5 of the Cybercrime Law suffer from overbreadth for creating a
chilling and deterrent effect on protected expression?
Disinivs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, Feb. 18, 2014
 Does Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Law, which penalizes online libel --- effectively
trample upon the right to free expression?
Disinivs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, Apr. 22, 2014, MR
 Does the RH Law violate the right to free speech for compelling a person to explain a full
range of family planning methods?
 If it is not a speech regulating statute, can the RH law be “facially challenged”?
Imbongvs.Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
 Does Section 9 (a) of COMELEC ResolutionNo. 9615 on airtime limits go against the
constitutional guaranty of freedom of expression, of speech and of the press?
GMA Network vs.Comelec, G.R. 205357, Sept. 2. 2014
 Does the Comelec order for the removal of the Team Buhay/Team Patay tarpaulin violate
freedom of speech and expression?
Diocese of Bacolod vs.Comelec, G.R. No. 205728, Jan. 21, 2015
 Is Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f) of Comelec Res. No. 9615 which
prohibits the posting of any election campaign material in PUVs and public transport terminals,
repugnant to the free speech clause?What is the “captive-audience doctrine”?
 Is Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f) of Comelec Resolution No. 9615
which prohibits the posting of any election campaign or propaganda material in PUVs and
public transport terminals, justified under the “captive-audience doctrine”?
1-UTAK vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 206020, Apr. 14, 2015
 Were respondents' public pronouncements within their freedom of speech and expression?
Roque vs. AFP Chief of Staff, GR. No. 214986, Feb. 15, 2017
 Is Sec. 36.8 of R.A. 9189, as amended by R.A. 10590, and Sec. 74(II)(8) of Comelec Res. No. 1035
which prohibits partisan political activities abroad violative of the freedom of speech, etc.?
 Is it a content-based or content-neutral regulation?
Loida Nicolas-Lewis vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 223705. August 14, 2019
 Was the news report of Jomer Canlas in the Manila Times well-within the legitimate exercise of
the freedom of the press?
Re: News report of Canlas, A.M. No. 16-03-10-SC. October 15, 2019
(d) Prepare for a short quiz (on Section 4); daily recitation on Sections 3 and 4.