WHAT IS CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE

The Clear and Present Danger Rule is one of the tests in order to determine
the limitations of an individual’s freedom of expression in that when the words are
used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the lawmaker has a right
to prevent. If they do, the speaker shall be punished; otherwise, not.

The term clear seems to point to a causal connection with the danger of the
substantive evil arising from the utterance questioned. Present refers to the time
element. It used to be identified with imminent and immediate danger. Therefore,
the danger must not only be probable but very likely inevitable.

In the case of Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections, the High Court held that “at
the very least, free speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to
discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship and
punishment. There is to be no previous restraint on the communication of views or
subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for
damages, or contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present danger of
substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent.”

The case of Cabansag vs. Fernandez et al. further discussed this rule by stating that
the evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be "extremely serious and
the degree of imminence extremely high" before the utterance can be punished.
The danger to be guarded against is the "substantive evil" sought to be prevented.
And this evil is primarily the "disorderly and unfair administration of justice." This
test establishes a definite rule in constitutional law. It provides the criterion as to
what words maybe published. Under this rule, the advocacy of ideas cannot
constitutionally be abridged unless there is a clear and present danger that such
advocacy will harm the administration of justice.