BURGOS VS CHIEF OF STAFF On the basis of two warrants issued by the RTC of QC, the offices of the Metropolitan Mail

and the We Forum were search and printing machines, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the newspapers as well as papers and other literature seized on the ground that they were used in the commission of the crime of subversion. "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers, respectively, were searched, and office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper, were seized. As a consequence of the search and seizure, these premises were padlocked and sealed, with the further result that the printing and publication of said newspapers were discontinued. Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners' freedom to express themselves in print. This state of being is patently anathematic to a democratic framework where a free, alert and even militant press is essential for the political enlightenment and growth of the citizenry. MUTUC vs COMELEC Petitioner, a candidate for the position of delegate to the Constitutional Convention, impugns in his special civil action for prohibition, the act of respondent COMELEC in prohibiting him from using jingles in his mobile units equipped with sound systems and loud speakers, as violative of his constitutional right to free speech. Respondent however contends it has authority to impose such prohibition under section 12(E) of the Constitutional Convention Act (R.A. No. 6132), which makes unlawful the distribution, as electoral propaganda gadgets of “pens, lighters,flashlights, athletic goods or material, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes and the like” the Constitution prohibits an abridgment of free speech or a free press. It has been our constant holding that this preferred freedom calls all the more for the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage. What respondent Commission did, in effect, was to impose censorship on petitioner, an evil against which this constitutional right is directed. Nor could respondent Commission justify its action by the assertion that petitioner, if he would not resort to taped jingle, would be free, either by himself or through others, to use his mobile loudspeakers. Precisely, the constitutional guarantee is not to be emasculated by confining it to a speaker having his say, but not perpetuating what is uttered by him through tape or other mechanical contrivances. If this Court were to sustain respondent Commission, then the effect would hardly be distinguishable from a previous restraint. That cannot be validly done. It would negate indirectly what the Constitution in express terms assures. Respondent Commission's strictures clearly violate, therefore, petitioner's basic freedom of speech and expression. They cannot pass the constitutional test of reasonableness in that

there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite.A. 1989. commentators or announcers. Although Comelec maintains that the questioned provision of Comelec Resolution No. Regarding the contention of the respondent that restriction was not absolute. 2167 has no statutory basis. shall take part in a plebiscite for the ratification of said Organic Act originally scheduled last December 27. on the day before and on the plebiscite day. 2167 is not violative of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press. 2167 on the ground that it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press. . announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite Issue. by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution. 1990 by virtue of Comelec Resolution No. who claims to be a newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER. no mass media columnist. all comprising the Cordillera Autonomous Region. In a petition dated November 20.they go far beyond a reasonable relation to the proper governmental object and are manifestly unreasonable. it is still a restriction on his choice of the forum where he may express his view. however. herein petitioner Pablito V. In fact. SANIDAD vs COMELEC This is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. Mountain Province. — During the plebiscite campaign period. We hold that this form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason. No reason was advanced by respondent to justify such abridgement. which provides: Section 19. 1989 which was. a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras. 2167. The Commission on Elections. to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. 1989. assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167. Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. Ifugao. Republic Act No. said R. Section 4. Sanidad. entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law. oppressive and arbitrary. 6766. while the limitation does not absolutely bar petitioner's freedom of expression. On October 23. Abra and KalingaApayao. Rather it is a valid implementation of the power of the Comelec to supervise and regulate media during election or plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C. promulgated Resolution No. The court ruled Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. 1989. the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras which consist of the provinces of Benguet. Pursuant to said law. commentator. the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881). RULING: Unconstitutional. Therefore. 2226 dated December 27. 6766 and other pertinent election laws. Prohibition on columnists. reset to January 30.

in other words. a complaint was filed by Enrile invoking his right to privacy. Enrile was a "public figure:" Such public . is not a disqualification for availing of freedom of speech and of expression. film or other medium for advertising or commercial exploitation. Furthermore the circumstance that the production of motion picture films is a commercial activity expected to yield monetary profit. Subject matter is one of public interest and concern. Freedom of speech and of expression includes the freedom to film and produce motion pictures and exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to diffuse them through television. The projected motion picture was as yet uncompleted and hence not exhibited to any audience. At all relevant times. or picture. and his movie production company. that petitioners propose to film were taking place. reproduction and/or exhibition of his name. appropriation. the historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. for commercial viewing and for Philippine and international release. There was. The subject thus relates to a highly critical stage in the history of the country. Neither private respondent nor the respondent trial Judge knew what the completed film would precisely look like. Ramos also signified his approval of the intended film production. The proposed motion picture entitled "The Four Day Revolution" was endorsed by the MTRCB as and other government agencies consulted. RULING. during which the momentous events. RTC ordered for the desistance of the movie production and making of any reference to plaintiff or his family and from creating any fictitious character in lieu of plaintiff which nevertheless is based on. and petitioners proceeded to film the projected motion picture. or bears substantial or marked resemblance to Enrile. clearly of public concern. Enrile declared that he will not approve the use. However. petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of Enrile was deleted from the movie script. sometime in 1987. Hence the appeal. no "clear and present danger" of any violation of any right to privacy. or that of any member of his family in any cinema or television production.AYER vs Capulong Petitioner McElroy an Australian film maker. Ayer Productions. envisioned.

redundant. to some extent at least. a publication of petitioner Bulletin Publishing Corporation. scandalous.. Private respondents' action was anchored on a feature article written by Jamil Maidan Flores entitled "A Changing of the Guard. If the pleader goes beyond the requirements of the statute and alleges an irrelevant matter which is libelous. personality and reputation in an utterly bad light.." which appeared in the 22 June 1986 issue of Philippine Panorama. (Not a royalty) Defamation RULING: The Court is similarly unable to see anything defamatory in a statement (even if inaccurate) that private respondents' patriarch once lived with an American family. Since the . including an kinds of pleadings.figures were held to have lost. . suing on their own behalf and on behalf of the entire Mindalano clan of Mindanao. he loses his privilege. Bulletin vs Noel Relatives of the late Amir Mindalano. The pleadings should contain but the plain and concise statements of the material facts and not the evidence by which they are to be proved. petitions and motions are absolutely privileged when pertinent and relevant to the subject under inquiry. Gutierrez vs Abila Plaintiff alleged that defendants (lawyer) in the aforesaid answer wilfully. The line of equilibrium in the specific context of the instant case between the constitutional freedom of speech and of expression and the right of privacy. utterances made in the course of juridical proceedings. sham. however false or malicious such utterances may be. impertinent and irrelevant statements which served no purpose than to put his character. may be marked out in terms of a requirement that the proposed motion picture must be fairly truthful and historical in its presentation of events. their right to privacy. filed a Complaint 1 for damages (docketed as Civil Case No. RULING: Well-entrenched in the Philippine and American jurisprudence is the rule that for reasons of public policy. maliciously and malevolently recited false. 8186) before Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court of Marawi City charging petitioners with libel.

even if real. Among the publications seized. Ramon D. retaining and enjoying a reputation "as good as one's character and conduct warrant. 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. publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene. It is easier said than done to say. Auxilliary Services Bureau. automatically equivalent to defamation. elements of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group. as indeed we have laws punishing the author. publishers and sellers of obscene publications. Personal hurt or embarassment or offense. Bagatsing. Recto Avenue. Manila. Ultimately "whether a picture is obscene or indecent must depend upon the circumstances of the case and that the . Private respondents' feelings and sensibilities have obviously been hurt and offended by the reference to Amir Mindalano as a commoner and as having lived for a time with an American family. the statement complained of is not defamatory. INP of the Metropolitan PoliceForce of Manila. improving their language skills and learning something about the culture and mores of the people. The law against defamation protects one's interest in acquiring. that if the pictures here in question were used not exactly for art's sake but rather for commercial purposes. pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials in public at the University belt along C. Once more. Freedom of the press is not without restraint as the state has the right to protect society from pornographic literature that is offensive to public morals. PITA vs CA On December 1 and 3. distributors." Another is whether it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency.M. newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks. seized and confiscated from dealers. in the presence of Mayor Bagatsing and several officers and members of various student organizations.early decades of this century a great many young Filipinos (including Muslim Filipinos) have been going abroad for study and many of them share the experience of staying with a foreign family. and later burned. magazines. However. pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila. 1983. was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita. thepictures are not entitled to any constitutional protection." in the community and it is to community standards-not personal or family standards-that a court must refer in evaluating a publication claimed to be defamatory. from the viewpoint of the average person in our present day community. is not. however. Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Using the Kottinger rule: the test of obscenity is "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene. Western Police District.

net. In the course of the program. Dr. Ruling: "The law gives the Board the power to screen. But the high court said the power to cite people in contempt should be used carefully. customers. at 10:45 in the evening. there was nothing contemptuous in Evardone’s statement. review and examine all ‘television programs. According to the high court. and some faculty members were interviewed. The petition stemmed from a statement by Evardone that retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban would run with the opposition for a Senate seat in the May 2007 polls. It depicted female students moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. The court ruled that Evardone’s remarks did not cast doubt on the integrity of the court. 1991. MTRCB vs ABS-CBN On October 15. According to the petitioners. respondent ABS-CBN aired "Prosti-tuition. Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU. even if it was uttered after the high court junked the government-backed petition for a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution. . Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode. and the PWU Parents and Teachers Association filed letter-complaints3 with petitioner MTRCB.question is to be decided by the "judgment of the aggregate sense of the community reached by it. parent company of INQUIRER. Both complainants alleged that the episode besmirched the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students. The showing of "The Inside Story" caused uproar in the PWU community. and should not be used for retaliation or vindication." an episode of the television (TV) program "The Inside Story" produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. Leticia P. The Philippine Women’s University (PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue. delete Estrada vs Evardone The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition of deposed president Joseph Estrada and the Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP or Force of the Filipino Masses) to cite Eastern Samar Governor Ben Evardone in indirect contempt. Evardone’s statement tainted Panganiban’s integrity and publicly humiliated the justices. They did not submit the episode of the program to MTRCB for review because they are protected by Freedom of speech." The government authorities in the instant case have not shown the required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the literature. de Guzman.’ By the clear terms of the law. the Board has the power to ‘approve. which was why the governor should be sanctioned to preserve the high court’s integrity and to teach him a lesson in good manners and right conduct. student prostitutes. published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. pimps.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful