Case Digests On Freedom of Expression

1 Gonzales v.
COMELEC
Gonzales v. COMELEC campaign or propaganda for or against any candidate or party; (f) giving, soliciting,
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 4880 on the grounds that it violates their rights or receiving contribution for election campaign purposes, either directly or
such as freedom of speech, of assembly, to form associations or societies. More so, they indirectly.”
question the forms of election campaigns enumerated in the act.
Facts: Ruling:
1. Congress passed a statute (RA 4880) which was “designed to maintain the purity
1. The Court held that the challenged statute cannot be declared unconstitutional on
and integrity of the electoral process” and “calling a halt to the undesirable practice
several grounds. First, it is premature to challenge the statute’s validity. Second,
of prolonged political campaigns, bringing in their wake serious evils not the least
the required number of votes was not met when the Court deliberated on the
of which is the ever-increasing cost of seeking public office.”
scope of election campaigns or partisan political activities. Precisely, the Court
2. Cabigao was an incumbent council in the 4th district of Manila and the official
declared that RA 4880 could have been narrowly drawn and practices prohibited be
candidate of the Nacionalista Party for the position of Vice Mayor. He was
more precisely delineated to satisfy the constitutional requirements as to a valid
subsequently elected to that position. Meanwhile, Gonzales is a private individual,
limitation under the clear and present danger doctrine.
a registered voter in the City, and a political leader.
2. The primacy, the high estate accorded freedom of expression is a fundamental
3. They claim that the enforcement of RA 4880 would prejudice their basic rights such
postulate of our constitutional system. No law shall be passed abridging the
as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and right to form associations or
freedom of speech or of the press. What does it embrace? At the very least, free
societies for purposes not contrary to law. Specifically, they challenge the validity
speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and
of two new sections included in the Revised Election Code under RA 4880 which
truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment. There is
was approved and took effect on June 17, 1967. The said sections prohibit the too
to be then to previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent
early nomination of candidates and limit the period of election campaign and
liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages or
political activity. More so, after defining the terms “candidates” and “election
contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present danger of substantive
campaign/partisan political activity,” the acts which constitute election campaign
evil that Congress has a right to prevent.
were specified, and that simple expression of opinion and thoughts concerning the
3. The vital need in a constitutional democracy for freedom of expression is
election was not to be considered as part of an election campaign. This prohibition
undeniable whether as a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment, of attaining
was furthered by a proviso which provided that nothing stated in the Act “shall be
the truth, of securing participation by the people in social including political
understood to prevent any person from expressing his views on current political
decision-making, and of maintaining the balance between stability and change.
problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of the candidates for public
The trend as reflected in Philippine and American decisions is to recognize the
office whom he supports.”
broadest scope and assure the widest latitude to this constitutional guaranty. It
4. The acts deemed included in the terms “election campaign” of “partisan political
represents a profound commitment to the principle that debate of public issue
activity” are: (a) forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other
should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open. It is not going too far, according to
groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any
another American decision, to view the function of free speech as inviting dispute.
campaign or propaganda for or against a party or candidate; (b) holding political
It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest,
conventions, caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades or other similar
creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”
assemblies for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or
4. Freedom of speech and of the press thus means something more than the right to
propaganda for or against a candidate; (c) making speeches, announcements or
approve existing political beliefs or economic arrangements, to lend support to
commentaries or holding interviews for or against the election of any party or
official measures, to take refuge in the existing climate of opinion on any matter of
candidate for public office; (d) publishing or distributing campaign literature or
public consequence.
materials; (e) directly or indirectly soliciting votes and/or undertaking any
Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

2 Gonzales v. COMELEC
5. From the language of the specific constitutional provision, it would appear that the 11. Nonetheless, the Constitution limits this particular freedom in the sense that there
right is not susceptible of any limitation. “No law may be passed abridging the could be an abridgment of the right to form associations or societies when their
freedom of speech and of the press.” The realities of life in a complex society purposes are “contrary to law.” It is submitted that the phrase “for purposes not
preclude however a literal interpretation. Freedom of expression is not an contrary to law” is another way of expressing the clear and present danger rule for
absolute. It would be too much to insist that, at all times and under all unless an association or society could be shown to create an imminent danger to
circumstances, it should remain unfettered and unrestrained. There are other public safety, there is no justification for abridging the right to form associations or
societal values that press for recognition. societies.
6. As for freedom of assembly, the Bill of Rights as thus noted prohibits abridgment by 12. In considering whether Republic 4880 is violative of the rights of free speech, free
law of freedom of speech or of the press. The Bill of Rights likewise extends the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, the Court cannot ignore
same protection to the rights of people peaceably to assemble. As pointed in US v. the legislative declaration – that its enactment was in response to a serious
Bustos, this right is a necessary consequence of our republican institution and substantive evil affecting the electoral process, not merely in danger of happening,
complements the right of free speech. but actually in existence, and likely to continue unless curbed or remedied. To
7. Assembly means a right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for consultation asset otherwise would be to close one’s eyes to the realities of the situation. Nor
in respect to public affairs. can we ignore the express legislative purpose apparent in the proviso that “simple
8. To paraphrase the opinion of Justice Rutledge, speaking for the majority in Thomas expressions of opinion and thoughts concerning the elections shall not be
v. Collins, it was not accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom of speech considered as part of an election campaign,” and in the other proviso that “nothing
and of the press were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people herein stated shall be understood to prevent any person from expressing his views
peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. on current political problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of the
All these rights, while not identical, are inseparable. They are cognate rights and candidates for public office whom he supports.” Such limitations qualify the entire
assurance afforded by the clause of this section of the Bill of Rights, wherein they provision restricting the period of an election campaign or partisan political activity.
are contained, applies to all. As in the case of freedom of expression, this right 13. According to the act, “[i]t shall be unlawful for any political party, political
(right of people peaceably to assemble) is not to be limited, much less denied, committee or political group to nominate candidates for any elective public office
except on a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that voted for at large earlier than 150 days immediately preceding an election, and for
Congress has a right to prevent. any other elective public office earlier than 90 days immediately preceding an
9. Our Constitution likewise recognizes the freedom to form association for purposes election.” This provision affects the right of association. Political parties have less
not contrary to law. With or without a constitutional provision of this character, it freedom as to the time during which they nominate candidates; the curtailment is
may be assumed that the freedom to organize or to be a member of any group or not such, however, as to render meaningless such a basic right. Their scope of
society exists. With the explicit provision, whatever doubts there may be on the legitimate activities, save the above cited, is not unduly narrowed. Neither is there
matter are dispelled. Unlike the cases of other guarantees, which are mostly such an infringement of their freedom to assemble. They can do so, but not for
American in origin, this particular freedom has an indigenous cast and could be such purpose. Thus, the Court sustained its validity unanimously.
traced to the Malolos Constitution. 14. On the one hand, it cannot be denied that the limitations thus imposed on the
10. In a sense, however, the stress on this freedom of association should be on its constitutional rights of free speech and press, of assembly, and of associations cut
political significance. If such a right were non-existent, then the likelihood of a one- deeply into their substance. On the other, it cannot be denied either that evils,
party government is more than a possibility. Authoritarianism may become substantial in character, taint the purity of the electoral process. The justification
unavoidable. Political opposition will simply cease to exist; minority groups may be alleged by the proponents of the measures weighs heavily with the members of the
outlawed, constitutional democracy as intended by the Constitution may well Court, though in varying degrees, in the appraisal of the aforesaid restrictions to
become a thing of the past. which such precious freedoms are subjected. They are not unaware of the clear

and present danger that calls for measures that may bear heavily on the exercise of passed the constitutional test is devoid of merit. It only indicates that for the
the cherished rights of expression, of assembly and of association. majority, the prohibition of any speeches, announcements or commentaries, or the
15. The Court, with five justices unable to agree, is of the view that no unconstitutional holding of interviews for or against the election of any party or candidate for public
infringement exists insofar as the formation of organizations, associations, clubs, office and the prohibition of the publication or distribution of campaign literature
committees, or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes or or materials, against the solicitation of votes whether directly or indirectly, or that
undertaking any campaign or propaganda or both for or against a candidate or undertaking of any campaign or propaganda for or against any candidate or party,
party is restricted and that the prohibition against giving, soliciting or receiving is repugnant to a constitutional command. To that extent, the challenged statute
contribution for election purposes, either directly or indirectly, is equally free from prohibits what under the Constitution cannot by any law be abridged.
constitutional infirmity. 20. In terms of the permissible scope of legislation that otherwise could be justified
16. The restriction on freedom of assembly as confined to holding political under the clear and present danger doctrine, it is considered opinion of the
conventions, caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades or other similar majority, though lacking the necessary vote for an adjudication of invalidity, that
assemblies for the purpose of soliciting votes or undertaking any campaign or the challenged statute could have been more narrowly drawn and the practices
propaganda or both for or against a candidate or party, leaving untouched all other prohibited more precisely delineated to satisfy the constitutional requirements as
legitimate exercise of such poses a more difficult question. Nevertheless, the Court to a valid limitation under the clear and present danger doctrine.
rejected the contention that this should be annulled. 21. It is undeniable, therefore, that even though the governmental purpose be
17. The other acts, likewise deemed included in “election campaign” or “partisan legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle
political activity” tax, to the utmost, the judicial predisposition to view with fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved. For
sympathy legislative efforts to regulate election practices deemed inimical because precision of regulation is the touchstone in an area so closely related to our most
of their collision with the preferred right of freedom of expression. From the precious freedoms.
outset, such provisions did occasional divergence of views among the members of 22. It is of the opinion that it would be premature, to say at least, for a judgment of
the Court. Originally, only a minority was for their being adjudged as invalid. It is nullity of any provision found in RA 4880. The need for adjudication arises only if in
not so any more. This is merely to emphasize that the scope of the curtailment to the implementation of the Act, there is in fact an unconstitutional application of its
which freedom of expression may be subjected is not foreclosed by the recognition provisions.
of the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil, the
debasement of the electoral process. Santiago v. Far East Broadcasting
18. The majority of the Court is of the belief that the ban on the solicitation or Santiago, the campaign manager of the Popular Front Sumulong, asked Far East
undertaking of any campaign or propaganda, whether directly or indirectly, by an Broadcasting for the purchase of air time for the broadcast of the political speeches delivered
individual, the making of speeches, announcements or commentaries or holding at the Opera House. However, respondent would only do so if the party submits in advance
interview for or against the election for any party or candidate for public office, or the complete manuscript of the speeches to be delivered.
the publication or distribution of campaign literature or materials, suffers from the
Facts:
corrosion of invalidity. However, to call for a declaration of unconstitutionality, it
lacks one more affirmative vote to that effect.
1. Petitioner (Santiago), being the campaign manager of the political party Popular
19. It is understandable for Congress to believe that without the limitations set forth in
Front Sumulong, asked respondent (Far East Broadcasting) for the purchase of air
the challenged legislation, the laudable purpose of RA 4880 would be frustrated
time for the broadcast of the party’s political speeches at the Opera House on
and nullified. Whatever persuasive force such approach may command failed to
September 3, 1941.
elicit the assert of a majority of the Court. This is not to say that the conclusion
2. However, respondent refused to do so except should the party submit in advance
reached by the minority that the above portions of the statute now assailed has
the complete manuscript of contemplated speeches. Because of this, petitioner

questioned the act of respondent in refusing to allow the use of its station for Ruling:
broadcasting the speeches and constitutes unlawful censorship and a violation of
the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution. 1. The right to freedom of speech, and to peacefully assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances, are fundamental personal rights of the
Ruling: people recognized and guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic countries.
But, it is a settled principle growing out of the nature of well-ordered civil societies
1. It is clear from the laws and the regulations adverted to that the respondent had that the exercise of those rights is not absolute for it may be so regulated that it
the right to require the petitioner to submit the manuscript of the speeches which shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor
he intended to broadcast. injurious to the rights of the community or society. The power to regulate the
2. The Court failed to perceive the cogency of such argument. It does not bolster up exercise of such and other constitutional rights is termed the sovereign “police
the case for the petitioner. It impliedly admits that a speech that may endanger power,” which is the power to prescribe regulations, to promote the health,
public safety may be censored and disapproved for broadcasting. How could the morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general welfare of the people.
censor verify the petitioner’s claim that the speeches he intended to broadcast 2. Under Section 1119 of the Revised Ordinances of 1927 of the City of Manila, that
offered no danger to public safety or pubic morality, if the petitioner refused to the holding of athletic games, sports or exercises during the celebration of national
submit the manuscript or even its gist? If the petitioner had complied with holidays in any streets or public places of the city and on the patron saint day of
respondent’s requirement and the respondent had arbitrarily and unreasonably any district may be permitted provided that a permit be issued by the Mayor who
refused to permit said speeches to be broadcasted, he might have reason to shall determine the streets, or public places or portions thereof where said
complain. activities may be held. From the Revised Ordinance of the City, there is no express
and separate provision regulating the holding of public meeting or assembly at any
Primicias v. Fugoso street or public places.
The Coalesced Minority Party applied for a permit for the holding of a public meeting at Plaza 3. As Section 1119 is susceptible to two constructions: one, that the Mayor of the City
Miranda for purposes of petitioning the government for redress to grievances. However, the is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse to grant permit for the
City Mayor, founding his actions on Section 1119 of the Revised Ordinances of 1927, did not holding of a lawful assembly or meeting in the streets and other public places of
issue the permit. the City, and second, that the applicant has the right to a permit which shall be
granted by the Mayor, subject only to the latter’s reasonable discretion to
Facts:
determine or specify the streets or public places to be used for the purpose, the
1. The Coalesced Minority Party applied for a permit for the holding of a public Court believed that it must adopt the second construction. It means that the
meeting at Plaza Miranda on a Sunday afternoon, November 16, 1947, for the ordinance does not confer upon the Mayor the power to refuse to grant the
purpose of petitioning the government for redress to grievances. permit, but only the discretion, in issuing the permit, to determine or specify the
2. However, the Mayor of the City of Manila (Valeriano Fugoso) did not issue the streets or public places where the parade or procession may pass or the meeting
permit. For this purpose, the campaign manager of the party (Cipriano Primicias) be held.
instituted this action for mandamus. 4. The other alternative when adopted because it would mean that the Mayor has the
3. Section 1119 of the Revised Ordinances of 1927 provides the power of the City power to grant or refuse to grant the permit, which would be tantamount to
Mayor of Manila to grant or issue permits for the holding of assembly or meeting, authorizing him to prohibit the use of the streets and other public places for
parade or procession. Moreover, he would be able to determine where to hold holding of meetings, parades or processions. Moreover, said construction would
such activities. render the ordinance invalid and void as it contravenes constitutional limitations.
5. The Mayor reasoned that, in granting the permit, the speeches delivered in the
meeting would undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their

government and in the duly constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches dissemination of information to make more meaningful the equally vital right of
of the peace and a disruption of public order. In reiterating the pronouncements of suffrage.
the US Supreme Court in Whitney v. California, “[f]ear of serious injury cannot 2. What the COMELEC did, in effect, was to impose censorship on petitioner, an evil
alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and against which this constitutional right is directed. Nor could COMELEC justify its
burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of action by the assertion that petitioner, if he would not resort to taped jingle, would
irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable be free, either by himself or through others, to use his mobile loudspeakers.
ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be Precisely, the constitutional guarantee is not to be emasculate by confining it to a
reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent.” 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
Mutuc v. COMELEC Commission, then the effect would hardly be distinguishable from a previous
Mutuc seeks to be a delegate of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. In his campaigns, he restraint. That cannot be validly done. It would negate indirectly what the
used political jingles in his mobile units equipped with sound systems and loud speakers. Constitution in express terms assures.
3. Mutuc was allowed to use political taped jingles.
Facts:
Navarro v. Villegas
1. Amelito Mutuc is a candidate for delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention.
The City Mayor offered the Sunken Gardens, instead of Plaza Miranda, as venue for an
In his making his candidacy known, he used jingles in his mobile units equipped
assembly.
with sound systems and loud speakers.
2. By a telegram sent to him on October 29, 1970, the COMELEC informed Mutuc that Facts:
his certificate of candidacy was given due course, but prohibited him from using
jingles in his mobile units. However, according to Mutuc, the said order is violative 1. The Mayor of the City of Manila (Villegas) expressly stated his willingness to grant
of his constitutional right especially his freedom to speech. permits for peaceful assemblies at Plaza Miranda during Saturdays, Sundays and
3. However, COMELEC contends that the justification for the prohibition was holidays when they would not cause unnecessarily great disruption of the normal
premised on the provision of the Constitutional Convention Act, which made it activities of the community and has further offered Sunken Gardens as an
unlawful for candidates to “purchase, produce, request or distribute sample alternative to Plaza Miranda as the site of demonstration sought to be held that
ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as pens, lighters, fans (of whatever afternoon.
nature), flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, 2. The Mayor believes that a public rally at Plaza Miranda, as to compared to one at
matches, cigarettes and the like whether of domestic or foreign origin.” More so, the Sunken Gardens as he suggested, poses a clearer and more imminent danger of
the contention was that the jingle proposed to be used by petitioner is the public disorders, breaches of the peace, criminal acts, and even bloodshed as an
recorded or taped voice of a singer and therefore a tangible propaganda material, aftermath of such assemblies, and petitioner has manifested that it has no means
under the above statute subject to confiscation. of preventing such disorders.
Ruling: Ruling:
1. In unequivocal language, the Constitution prohibits an abridgment of free speech 1. Every time that such assemblies are announced, the community is placed in such a
or a free press. It has been our constant holding that this preferred freedom calls state of fear and tension that offices are closed early and employees dismissed,
all the more for the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the storefronts boarded up, classes suspended, and transportation disrupted, to the
general detriment of the public.

2. Petitioner has failed to show a clear specific legal duty on the part of Mayor to concern without censorship or punishment. There is to be then no previous
grant petitioners’ application for permit unconditionally. Thus, the Court denied restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel
the writ prayed for by Navarro and dismissed their petition. suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings
unless there be a “clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has
Reyes v. Bagatsing a right to prevent.”
The Anti-Bases Coalition planned to hold a peaceful march and rally. It would start in Luneta 3. Freedom of assembly connotes the right of the people to meet peaceably for
Park and end at the gates of the US Embassy. After the march, a program would follow consultation and discussion of matters of public concern. It is entitled to be
whereby two brief speeches were to be delivered. However, the City Mayor did not act on the accorded the utmost deference and freedom of expression, of a clear and present
request of organization for permit. danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. It is not to be
limited, much less denied, except on a showing, as is the case with freedom of
Facts: expression, of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a
right to prevent.
1. Retired Justice J.B.L. Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition, sought a permit
4. Even prior to the 1935 Constitution, Justice Malcolm had occasion to stress that it is
from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983
a necessary consequence of our republican institutions and complements the right
from 2:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon. The route is from the Luneta, a public park, to
of free speech.
the gates of the US Embassy which is two blocks away. The march would be
5. Reiterating the ruling in Thomas v. Collins, the American Supreme Court held that it
attended by the local and foreign participants of such conference.
was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom of speech and of the
2. A short program would be held after the march. During the program, there would
press were coupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the people peaceably to
be a delivery of two brief speeches. After which, a petition based on the resolution
assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. All these
adopted on the last day by the International Conference for General Disarmament,
rights, while not identical, are inseparable. In every case, therefore, where there is
World Peace and the Removal of All Foreign Military Bases held in Manila, would
a limitation placed on the exercise of the right, the judiciary is called upon to
be presented to a representative of the Embassy or any of its personnel who may
examine the effects of the challenged governmental actuation. The sole
be there so that it may be delivered to the US Ambassador.
justification for a limitation on the exercise of this right, so fundamental to the
3. The Mayor of the City of Manila however intruded by not acting on the request of
maintenance of democratic institutions, is the danger, of a character both grave
the organization for permit. Rather, he suggested with the recommendation of the
and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health, of
police authorities that a permit may be issued for the rally if it would be held at the
other legitimate public interest.
Rizal Coliseum. As such, Reyes, on behalf of the organization, filed a suit for
6. What is guaranteed by the Constitution is peaceable assembly. One may not
mandamus.
advocate disorder in the name of protest, much less preach rebellion under the
Ruling: cloak of dissent. The Constitution frowns on disorder or tumult attending a rally or
assembly. Resort to force is ruled out and outbreaks of violence to be avoided.
1. Reyes’ petition was granted. The utmost calm though is not required. As pointed out in US v. Apurado, “[i]t is
2. The Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate rights to free speech rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of
and peaceful assembly, arising from the denial of a permit. The Constitution is the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on
quite explicit that “[n]o law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of such occasions, feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the greater the grievances and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule,
Government for redress of grievances.” Free speech, like free press, may be will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers.” It
identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public bears repeating that for the constitutional right to be invoked, riotous conduct,

injury to property, and acts of vandalism must be avoided. To give free rein to stressed that on the judiciary – even more so than on the other departments –
one’s destructive urges is to call for condemnation. It is to make a mockery of the rests the grave and delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to
high estate occupied by intellectual liberty is our scheme of values. such preferred rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course,
7. It is settled law that as to public places, especially so as to parks and streets, there dispense with what has been felicitously termed by Justice Holmes “as the
is freedom of access. Nor is their use dependent on who is the applicant for the sovereign prerogative of judgment.” Nonetheless, the presumption must be to
permit, whether an individual or a group. If it were, then the freedom of access incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of suds rights, enjoying as they
becomes discriminatory access, giving rise to an equal protection question. The do precedence and primacy.
principle under American doctrines was given utterance by Chief Justice Hughes in
these words: “The question, if the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly are Cabansag v. Fernandez
to be preserved, is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held but as to Cabansag wrote a letter to the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission seeking for
its purpose; not as to the relations of the speakers, but whether their utterances the fast resolution of his case pending at the CFI of Pangasinan. Fernandez prayed that
transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects.” Cabansag be declared in contempt of court for a line in his letter.
8. There could be danger to public peace and safety if such a gathering were marked
by turbulence. That would deprive it of its peaceful character. Even then, only the Facts:
guilty parties should be held accountable. It is true that the licensing official, here
1. Petitioner (Apolonio Cabansag) sought for the ejectment of Geminiana Fernandez
respondent Mayor, is not devoid of discretion in determining whether or not a
from a parcel of land who, on the other end, filed their answer and a motion to
permit would be granted. While prudence requires that there be a realistic
dismiss. Even though pleadings were submitted, the hearings were suspended
appraisal not of what may possibly occur but of what may probably occur, given all
several times from 1947 to 1952.
the relevant circumstances, still the assumption – especially so where the assembly
2. Upon President Magsaysay’s assumption in office and creation of Presidential
is scheduled for a specific public place – is that the permit must he for the assembly
Complaints and Action Commission (PCAC), Cabansag wrote the PCAC, a letter copy
being held there. The exercise of such a right, in the language of Justice Roberta,
which he furnished the Secretary of Justice and the Executive Judge of the CFI of
speaking for the American Supreme Court, is not to be “abridged on the plea that it
Pangasinan. He claimed that the case which had been long been pending be
may be exercised in some other place.”
decided already. The Secretary of Justice indorsed the said letter to the Clerk of CFI
9. The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing
Pangasinan.
authority of the date, the public place where and the time when it will take place.
3. Counsel for defendants (Atty. Manuel Fernandez) filed a motion before Judge
If it were a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its
Morfe praying that Cabansag be declared in contempt of court for an alleged
legal possession is required. Such application should be filed well ahead in time to
scurrilous remark he made in his letter to the PCAC when he wrote “thru the
enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid
careful manoeuvres of a tactical lawyer.”
objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another public place. It is
an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and Ruling:
present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the view
that there is such an imminent sad grave danger of a substantive evil, the 1. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its
applicants must be heard on the matter. Thereafter, his decision, whether citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect affairs and to petition for a
favourable or adverse, must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. redress of grievances. The First Amendments of the Federal expressly guarantees
Thus, if so minded, they can have recourse to the proper judicial authority. that right against abridgment by Congress. But mention does not argue exclusion
10. Free speech and peaceable assembly, along with other intellectual freedom, are elsewhere. For the right is one that cannot be denied without violating those
highly ranked in our scheme of constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and

political institutions – principles which the 14th Amendment embodies in the or to belittle him… The vehemence of the language used in newspaper publications
general terms of its due process clause. concerning a judge’s decision is not alone the measure of the power to punish for
2. The freedom of the press in itself presupposes an independent judiciary through contempt. The fires which it kindles must constitute an imminent, not merely a
which that freedom may, if necessary, be vindicated. And one of the potent means likely, threat to the administration of justice.” Furthered in Pennekamp v. Florida,
of assuring judges their independence is a free press. “[a]nd in weighing the danger of possible interference with the courts by
3. Two theoretical formulas had been devised in the determination of conflicting newspaper criticism against the right of free speech to determine whether such
rights of similar import in an attempt to draw the proper constitutional boundary criticism may constitutionally be punished as contempt, it was ruled that ‘freedom
between freedom of expression and the independence of the judiciary. These are of public comment should in borderline instances weigh heavily against a possible
“the clear and present danger” rule and the “dangerous tendency” rule. tendency to influence pending cases.’” Thus, the question in every case, according
4. The first as interpreted in a number of cases, means that the evil consequence of to Justice Holmes, is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and
the comment or utterance must be “extremely serious and the degree of are of such a nature to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about
imminence extremely high” before the utterance can be punished. The danger to the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of
be guarded against is the “substantive evil” sought to be prevented. And this evil is proximity and degree.
primarily the “disorderly and unfair administration of justice.” This test establishes 6. The second, which is the “dangerous tendency” rule, has been adopted in cases
a definite rule in constitutional law. It provides the criterion as to what words where extreme difficulty is confronted in determining where the freedom of
maybe published. Under this rule, the advocacy of ideas cannot constitutionally be expression ends and the right of courts to protect their independence begins.
abridged unless there is a clear and present danger that such advocacy will harm There must be a remedy to borderline cases and the basic principle of this rule lies
the administration of justice. The US Supreme Court has made the significant in that the freedom of speech and of the press, as well as the right to petition for
suggestion that this rule “is an appropriate guide in determining the redress of grievance, while guaranteed by the Constitution, are not absolute. As
constitutionality of restriction upon expression where the substantial evil sought to held in Gilbert v. Minnesota, “[t]hey are subject to restrictions and limitations, one
prevented by the restriction is destruction of life or property or invasion of the of them being the protection of the courts against contempt.”
right of privacy.” The Court furthers “clear and present danger of substantive evil 7. As furthered by the US Supreme Court in Gitlow v. New York, the dangerous
as a result of indiscriminate publications regarding judicial proceedings justifies an tendency rule may be epitomized as follows: If the words uttered create a
impairment of the constitutional right of freedom of speech and press only if the dangerous tendency which the State has a right to prevent, then such words are
evils are extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high… A public punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force,
utterance or publication is not to be denied the constitutional protection of violence, or unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated
freedom of speech and press merely because it concerns a judicial proceeding still in general terms. Nor is it necessary that the language used be reasonably
pending in the courts, upon the theory that in such a case, it must be necessarily calculated to incite persons to acts of force, violence or unlawfulness. It is
tend to obstruct the orderly and fair administration of justice. The possibility of sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring
engendering disrespect for the judiciary as a result of the published criticism of a about the substantive evil the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil
judge is not such a substantive evil as will justify impairment of the constitutional which the legislative body seeks to prevent.
right of freedom of speech and press.” 8. It is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and of
5. As declared in Craig v. Harney, the US Supreme Court said that the “[f]reedom of the press, which is secured by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to
speech and press should not be impaired through the exercise of the punish for speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an
contempt of court unless there is no doubt that the utterances in question are a unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of
serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice. A judge may hold in language, and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom.
contempt one who ventures to publish anything that tends to make him unpopular Reasonably limited, it was said by story in the passage cited, this freedom is an

inestimable privilege in a free government; without such limitation, it might 3. In his manifestation, respondent, among others written, mentioned in the
become the scourge of the Republic. “Guardian” that he had granted the permit of the petitioner.
9. The Court saw at once that it was far from Cabansag’s mind to put the court in
ridicule and much less to belittle or degrade it in the eyes of those to whom the Ruling:
letter was addressed for. This is clearly inferable from its context wherein, in
1. As shown both in the manifestation and the answer, this action for mandamus
respectful and courteous language, Cabansag gave vent to his feeling when he said
could have been obviated if only petitioner took the trouble of verifying on
that he “has long since been deprived of his land thru the careful manoeuvres of a
November 23 whether or not a permit had been issued. A party desirous of
tactical lawyer.” Analyzing said utterances, one would see that if they ever criticize,
exercising the right to peaceable assembly should be the one most interested in
“the criticism refers, not to the court, but to opposing counsel whose tactical
ascertaining the action taken on a request for a permit. Necessarily, after a
manoeuvres” has allegedly caused the undue delay of the case. The grievance or
reasonable time or, if the day and time was designated for the decision of the
complaint, if any, is addressed to the stenographers for their apparent indifference
request, such part or his representative should be at the office of the public official
in transcribing their notes.
concerned. If he fails to do so, a copy of the decision reached, whether adverse or
10. The only disturbing effect of the letter which perhaps has been the motivating
favourable, should be sent to the address of petitioner. In that way, there need not
factor of the lodging of the contempt charge is the fact that the letter was sent to
be waste of time and effort not only of the litigants but likewise of a court from
the Office of the President, asking for help because of the precarious predicament
which redress is sought in case of a denial or modification of a request for a permit.
of Cabansag. Such act alone would not be contemptuous. To be so, the danger
2. The petition is dismissed. The Court deems it best to set forth the above to specify
must cause a serious imminent threat to the administration of justice. Nor can the
in more detail, the steps necessary for the judicial protection of constitutional
Court infer that such act has “a dangerous tendency” to belittle the court or
rights with the least delay and inconvenience to the parties and with the greater
undermine the administration of justice for Cabansag merely exercised his
assurance that the factual background on which is dependent the determination of
constitutional right to petition the government for redress of a legitimate
whether or not the clear and present danger standard has been satisfied.
grievance.
People v. Perez
Ruiz v. Gordon
Perez uttered phrases which called for the beheading of Wood in a discussion on political
A prayer rally and parade/march was to be conducted by petitioners. They allege that the
matters.
Mayor of Olongapo City, Gordon, did not act on the matter.
Facts:
Facts:
1. Respondent (Isaac Perez), while holding a discussion with several persons on
1. Petitioner (Ruiz) personally delivered to respondent Mayor of Olongapo City
political matters in Pilar, Sorsogon, uttered the phrases: “Asin an mangna Filipinos
(Richard Gordon) a letter application which sought to request a permit to hold a
na caparejo co, maninigong gumamit nin sundang asin haleon an payo no Wood
prayer-rally at the Rizal Triangle on December 4, 1983 from 1:00 pm to early
huli can saiyang recomendacion sa pag raot can Filipinas (and the Filipinos, like
evening. Ruiz delivered the letter on behalf of the Olongapo Citizen’s Alliance for
myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood’s head for having recommended a bad
National Reconciliation, Justice for Aquino Justice for All, Concerned Citizen for
thing for the Philippines).”
Justice and Peace, Damdamin Bayan na Nagkakaisa and United Nationalist
2. Leonard Wood was the Governor-General during that time, April 1, 1922. For said
Democratic Organization.
phrases, Perez was accused for violating Article 256 of the Penal Code.
2. Aside from the holding of the prayer-rally, the said groups sought to hold a
parade/march from Gordon Avenue to the Rizal Triangle starting at 1:00 pm.
Ruling:

1. It is our course fundamentally true that the provisions of Act No. 292(Treason and Punsalan, justice of peace of Macabebe and Masantol with malfeasance in office.
Sedition Law) must not be interpreted so as to abridge the freedom of speech and Likewise, they ask for Punsalan’s removal.
the right of the people peaceably to assembly and petition the Government for 2. Punsalan was charged for three specific charges which happened to Francisca
redress of grievances. Criticism is permitted to penetrate even to the foundations Polintan, Valentin Sunga and Leoncio Quiambao. They allege that Punsalan used
of Government. Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature his position to benefit from their legal needs like keeping Polintan as a servant for 4
and the Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and days aside from taking her two chickens and twelve gandus.
effect be seditious. But when the intention and effect of the act is seditious, the 3. The case against the justice of peace was dismissed. Thus, Punsalan filed criminal
constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of assembly and charges against defendants for the libellous statements against him.
petition must yield to punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of
constituted authority, the supremacy of the constitution and the laws, and the Ruling:
existence of the State.
1. The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full
2. In the case at bar, the person maligned by the Accused is the Chief Executive of the
discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public
Philippine Islands. His official position, like the presidency of the US and other high
men is necessary for free speech. As held in Howarth v. Barlow, the US Supreme
offices, under a democratic form of government instead of affording immunity
Court declared that “[t]he people are not obliged to speak of the conduct of their
from promiscuous comment, seems rather to invite abusive attacks. But in this
officials in whispers or with bated breath in a free government, but only in a
instance, the attack on the Governor-General passes the furthest bounds of free
despotism.” Moreover, the guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the
speech and common decency. More than a figure of speech was intended. There
right to criticize judicial conduct. The administration of law is a matter of vital
is a seditious tendency of feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to
public concern. Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is a fit subject for
the Government and obedient to the laws. Being the representative of the
proper comment. If the people cannot criticize a justice of peace or a judge the
executive civil authority in the Philippines and of the sovereign power, a seditious
same as any other public officer, public opinion will be effectively muzzled. It is a
attack on the Governor-General is an attack on the rights of the Filipino people and
duty which everyone owes to society or to the State to assist in the investigation of
on American sovereignty.
any alleged misconduct. It is further the duty of all to know of any official
3. As a matter of fact, Section 8 of the same act contemplates the said situation. For
dereliction on the part of the magistrate or the wrongful act of any public officer to
such reasons, Perez has uttered seditious words. He has made a statement and
bring the facts to the notice of those whose duty is to inquire into and punish them.
done an act which tended to instigate others to cabal or meet together for
2. The right to assemble and petition is a necessary consequence of republican
unlawful purposes. He has made a statement and one an act which suggested and
institutions and the complement of the right of free speech. Assembly means a
incited rebellious conspiracies, which tended to stir up the people against the
right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public
lawful authorities, which tended to disturb the peace of the community and the
affairs. Petition means that any person or group of persons can apply without fear
safety or order of the Government.
of penalty to the appropriate branch or office of the government for a redress of
US v. Bustos grievances. The persons assembling and petitioning must assume responsibility for
The justice of peace filed a case against numerous citizens of Pampanga after the latter’s case the charges made.
was dismissed. They were charged for the libellous statements against him. 3. The doctrine of privileged communications rests upon public policy, “which looks to
the free and unfettered administration of justice, through, as an incidental result, it
Facts: may, in some instances, afford an immunity to the evil-disposed and malignant
slanderer.”
1. Numerous citizens of Pampanga assembled, prepared and signed a petition to the 4. Qualified privilege which may be lost by proof of malice. “A communication made
Executive Secretary through Crossfiled & O’Brien charging respondent Roman bona fide upon any subject matter in which the party communicating has an

interest or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged, if made to a person Lagunzad v. Soto vda De Gonzales
having a corresponding interest or duty, although it contain criminatory matter The parties entered into a licensing agreement for the filming of “The Moises Padilla Story.”
which without this privilege would be slanderous and actionable.” Even when the Soto vda. de Gonzales is the mother of Moises. Moises’ half-sister objecred to the movie as it
statements are found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their exploited Moises’ life.
truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still
cover the mistake of the individual. Personal injury is not necessary. The privilege Facts:
is not defeated by the mere fact that the communication is made in intemperate
terms. Finally, if a party applies to the wrong person through some natural and 1. Lagunzad and de Gonzales entered into a licensing agreement for the former was
filming “The Moises Padilla Story.” Manuel Lagunzad was a newspaperman and,
honest mistake as to the respective functions of various officials, such an
unintentional error would not take the case out of the privilege. through his MML Productions, began the production of the movie. The movie was
based on the book of Atty. Ernesto Rodriguez, Jr.s “The Long Dank Night in Negros.”
5. A privileged communication should not be subjected to microscopic examination to
discover grounds of malice or falsity. Such excessive scrutiny will defeat the 2. Although the focus on the film on the Moises’ life, there were portions which dealt
with his private and family life including the portrayal in some scenes, of his
protection which the law throws over privileged communications.
6. A petition prepared and signed at an assembly of numerous citizens including mother, Maria Soto Vda. De Gonzales.
3. The movie was scheduled for a premiere showing on October 16, 1961. Thirteen
affidavits by five individuals, charging a justice of peace with malfeasance in office
and asking for his removal, was presented through lawyers to the Executive days prior to it, Moises’ half-sister, Mrs. Nelly Amante, objected to the movie as it
exploited Moises’ life.
Secretary. The Executive Secretary referred the papers to the judge of first
instance of the district. The judge of first instance, after investigation,
Ruling:
recommended to the Governor-General that the justice of the peace filing a motion
for new trial, the judge of first instance ordered the suppression of the charges and 1. The Court neither finds merit in petitioner’s contention that the Licensing
acquitted the justice of the peace. Criminal action was then begun against the Agreement infringes on the constitutional right of freedom of speech and of the
defendants, charging that portions of the petition presented to the Executive press, in that, as a citizen and as a newspaperman, he has a right to express his
Secretary was libellous. On a review of the evidence, the Court finds that express thoughts in film on the public life of Moises Padilla without prior restraint.
malice was not proved by prosecution. Good faith surrounded the action of the 2. The clear and present danger rule was applied. In quoting Gonzales v. COMELEC,
petitioners. Their ends and motives were justifiable. The charges and the petition “[t]he prevailing doctrine is that the clear and present danger rule is such a
were transmitted through reputable attorneys to the proper functionary. The limitation. Another criterion for permissible limitation on freedom of speech and
defendants are not guilty and instead of punishing them for an honest endeavour of the press, which includes such vehicles of the mass media as radio, television
to improve the public service, they should rather be commended for their good and the movies, is the “balancing-of-interests test.” The principle requires a court
citizenship. to take conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests
7. It is true that the particular words set out in the information, if said of a private observable in a given situation or type of situation.
person, might well be considered libellous per se. The charges might also under 3. In the case at bar, the interests observable are the right to privacy asserted by
certain conceivable conditions convict one of a libel of a government official. As a respondent and the right of freedom of expression invoked by petitioner. Taking
general rule, words imputing to a judge or a justice of the peace of dishonesty or into account eh interplay of those interests, we hold that under the particular
corruption or incapacity or misconduct, touching him in his office are actionable. circumstances presented, and considering the obligations assumed in the Licensing
Agreement entered into by petitioner, the validity of such agreement will have to
be upheld particularly because the limits of freedom of expression are reached
when expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern.

Ayer Productions Pty Ltd. V. Capulong monetary profit, is not a disqualification for availing of freedom of speech and of
Ayer Productions Pty Ltd. sought to film the EDSA Revolution. They informed Enrile regarding expression. Indeed, commercial media constitute the bulk of such facilities
the motion picture and he wrote that he would not approve the use, appropriation, available in our country and hence to exclude commercially-owned and operated
reproduction and/ore exhibition of his name or picture or that of any member of his family in media from the exercise of constitutionally protected freedom of speech and of
any cinema. expression can only result in the drastic contraction of such constitutional liberties
in our country.
Facts: 4. The production and filming by petitioners of the projected motion picture does not
constitute an unlawful intrusion upon private respondent’s right of privacy. More
1. Hal McElroy owns the production company, Ayer Productions Pty Ltd. Through this so, the motion picture is not principally about, nor is it focused upon, the man Juan
movie production company, he intended to make a movie that would depict the Ponce Enrile, but it is compelled, if it is to be historical, to refer to the role played
historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA in a six hour mini-series. by Enrile in the precipitating and the constituent events of the change of
2. The proposed motion picture is entitled “The Four Day Revolution,” and was government.
endorsed by the Movie Television Review and Classification Board as well as the 5. The privilege of enlightening the public is not limited to the dissemination of news
other government agencies consulted. General Fidel Ramos also signified his in the scene of current events. It extends also to information or education, or even
approval of the intended film production. Petitioner McElroy had likewise entertainment and amusement, by books, articles, pictures, films and broadcasts
informed Juan Ponce Enrile about the projected motion picture, enclosing a concerning interesting phases of human activity in general, as well as the
synopsis of it. reproduction of the public scene in newsreel and travelogues. In determining
3. Enrile replied that he would not and will not approve of the use, appropriation, where to draw the line, the courts were invited to exercise a species of censorship
reproduction and/or exhibition of his name or picture or that of any member of his over what the public may be permitted to read; and they were understandably
family in any cinema or television production. Because of this, petitioners deleted liberal in allowing the benefit of the doubt.
the name of Enrile in the movie script and proceeded to film the projected motion 6. The line of equilibrium in the specific context of the instant case between the
picture. Despite of the deletion, Enrile still sought to enjoin petitioners from constitutional freedom of speech and of expression and the right of privacy, may
producing the movie, which was later on granted. be marked out in terms of a requirement that the proposed motion picture must
be fairly truthful and historical in its presentation of events. There must, in other
Ruling:
words, be no knowing or reckless disregard of truth in depicting the participation of
1. Petitioners claim that in producing the “The Four Day Revolution,” they are private respondent in the EDSA Revolution. There must be no presentation of the
exercising their freedom of speech and of expression protected under the private life of the unwilling private respondent and certainly no revelation of
Constitution. Private respondent, on the other hand, asserts a right of privacy and intimate or embarrassing personal facts. To the extent that the motion picture
claims that the production and filming of the projected mini-series would limits itself in portraying the participation of private respondent in the EDSA
constitute an unlawful intrusion into his privacy which he is entitled to enjoy. Revolution to those events which are directly and reasonably related to the public
2. The freedom of speech and of expression includes the freedom to film and produce facts of the EDSA Revolution, the intrusion into private respondent’s privacy cannot
motion pictures and to exhibit such motion pictures in theatres or to diffuse them be regarded as unreasonable and actionable. Such portrayal may be carried out
through television. In our day and age, motion pictures are a universally utilized even without a license from private respondent.
vehicle of communication and medium of expression.
3. This freedom is available in our country both to locally-owned and to foreign-
People v. Alarcon
A columnist of the Tribune published the copy of a letter in his article. The letter is about the
owned motion picture companies. Furthermore, the circumstance that the
conviction of 52 tenants of a hacienda.
production of motion picture films is a commercial activity expected to yield

Facts: 2. It is suggested that “even if there had been nothing more pending before the trial
court, this still had jurisdiction to punish the accused for contempt, for the rule that
1. A letter signed by one Luis Taruc was addressed to his Excellency, the President of the publication scandalized the court.” The rule suggested, which has its origin at
the Philippines, and a copy of which, having found its way to a columnist of the common law, is involved in some doubt under modern English law and in the
Tribune, was quoted in an article of the said newspaper in its September 23, 1937 United States, “the weight of authority, however, is clearly to the effect that
issue. comment upon concluded cases is unrestricted under our constitutional guaranty
2. The letter is about the charging and conviction of 52 tenants in Flroridablance, of the liberty of the press.” Other considerations argue against our adoption of the
Pampanga for robbery in band because “they took each a few cavans of palay for suggested holding. As stated, the rule imported into this jurisdiction is that
which they issued the corresponding receipts, from the bodega in the hacienda “newspaper publications tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass, or influence the
where they are working.” The letter furthers that the tenants have the right to courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding constitute criminal
take the palay for their food as the hacienda owner has the obligation to given contempt which is summarily punishable by the courts; that the rule is otherwise
them rations of palay for their maintenance and their families to be paid with their after the case has ended.” In at least two instances, this court has exercised the
share of their crop. power to punish for contempt “on the preservative and not on the vindictive
3. For this purpose, respondent was required to show cause on grounds of contempt principle” (Villavicencio v. Lukban), “on the corrective and not on the retaliatory
of court. idea of punishment” (In re: Lozano and Quevedo). Contempt of court is in the
nature of a criminal offense, and in considering the probate effects of the article
Ruling:
alleged to be contemptuous, every fair and reasonable interference consistent with
the theory of defendants’ innocence will be indulged, and where a reasonable
1. The elements of contempt by newspaper publications are well-defined by the cases
doubt in fact or in law exists as to the guilt of one of the constructive contempt for
adjudicated in this as in other jurisdictions. Newspaper publications tending to
interfering with the due administration of justice, the doubt must be resolved in his
impede, obstruct, embarrass, or influence the courts in administering justice in a
favour and he must be acquitted.
pending suit or proceeding constitutes criminal contempt which is summarily
3. Respondent was acquitted.
punishable by the courts. The rule is otherwise after cause has ended. It must
clearly appear that such publications do impede, interfere with, and embarrass the
In re: Vicente Sotto
administration of justice before the author of the publications should be held for
Atty. Vicente Sotto, a member of the Congress, was frustrated with how the Court interpreted
contempt. What is thus sought to be shielded against the influence of newspaper
the law he authored in a particular case. In his letter, he mentioned that he would file a bill
comments is the all-important duty of the court to administer justice in the
seeking the reorganization of the Court.
decision of a pending case. There is no pending case to speak of when and once
the court has come upon a decision and has lost control either to reconsider or Facts:
amend it. That, the Court believes is the case at bar, for here the Court has a
concession that the letter complained of was published after the CFI of Pampanga 1. Vicente Sotto issued a written statement, published in the Manila Times and other
had decided the aforesaid criminal case for robbery in band, and after that decision daily newspapers of the locality, in connection with the Court’s decision in In re:
had been appealed to the Court of Appeals. The fact that a motion to reconsider Angel Parazo.
its order confiscating the bond of the accused therein was subsequently filed may 2. Sotto is disappointed with how the Court interpreted the Press Freedom Law, of
be admitted; but, the important consideration is that it was then without power to which he is the author, in the case of Angel Parazo. More so, he declared the
reopen or modify the decision which it had rendered upon the merits of the case, incompetency of narrow-mindedness of the majority of the Court’s members. He
and could not have been influenced by the question publication. furthers that the only remedy for the deliberate “narrow-mindedness” is to change
the members of the Court.

Ruling: which the former receives its prerogatives and the latter its jurisdiction. The right
of legitimate publicity must be scrupulously recognized and care taken at all times
1. Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or to avoid impinging upon it. In a clear case where it is necessary, in order to dispose
unsoundness of the decision of the court in a pending case made in good faith may of judicial business unhampered by publications which reasonably tend to impair
be tolerated; because if well-founded it may enlighten the court and contribute to the impartiality of verdicts, or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice, this
the correction of an error if committed but if it is not well-taken and obviously Court will not hesitate to exercise its undoubted power to punish for contempt.
erroneous, it should, in no way, influence the Court in reversing or modifying its This Court must be permitted to proceed with the disposition if its business in an
decision. Had the respondent in the present case limited himself to as statement orderly manner free from outside interference obstructive of its constitutional
that our decision is wrong or that our construction of the intention of the law is not functions. This right will be insisted upon as vital to an impartial court, and, as a
correct, because it is different from what he, as proponent of the original bill, last resort, as an individual exercises the right of self-defense, it will act to preserve
which became a law had intended, his criticism might in that case be tolerated, for its existence as an unprejudiced tribunal.”
it could not in any way influence the final disposition of the Parazo case by the 4. Sotto was found guilty of contempt of Court; thus, fined of Php 1,000.
court; inasmuch as it is of judicial notice that the bill presented by the respondent
was amended by both Houses of Congress, and the clause “unless the Court finds In re: Laureta
that such revelation is demanded by the interest of the State” was added or Ilustre, whose case before the Supreme Court was resolved against her favour, wrote to the
inserted; and that, as the Act was passed by Congress and not by any particular members of the First Division of the Court and threatened them. Furthermore, she filed a
member thereof, the intention of Congress and not that of the respondent must be complaint before the Tanodbayan.
the one to be determined by this Court in applying said act.
2. The respondent does not merely criticize or comment on the decision of the Parazo Facts:
case, which was then and still is pending reconsideration of the Parazo case. He
not only intends to intimidate the members of this Court with the presentation of a 1. Wenceslao Laureta is the counsel of Eva Ilustre. Ilustre wrote to the members of
the First Division of the Supreme Court, namely Justices Narvasa, Herrera, Cruz and
bill in the next Congress reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the
members of Justices from eleven to seven, as to change the members of this Court Feliciano. In her letter, she threatened the members for their minute resolution
which went against her favour.
which decided the Parazo case, who according to his statement, are incompetent
and narrow minded, in order to influence the final decision of said case by this 2. She threatened the members that the entire Filipino population would know the
procedures in the Court and to charge them, which she apparently did so. She filed
Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct the administration of justice. But, the
respondent also attacks the honesty and integrity of this Court for the apparent an affidavit-complaint before the Tanodbayan for having “knowingly and
deliberately rendered with bad faith, an unjust extended Minute Resolution.”
purpose of bringing the Justices of this Court into disrepute and degrading the
administration of justice.
Ruling:
3. It is true that the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and the press must
be protected to its fullest extent, but license or abuse of liberty of the press and of 1. The Court finds Ilustre has transcended the permissible bounds of fair comment
the citizen should not be confused with liberty in its true sense. As important as and criticism to the detriment of the orderly administration of justice in her letters
the maintenance of an unmuzzled press and the free exercise of the right of citizen, addressed to the individual Justices; in the language of the charges she filed before
is the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary. In the words of Justice the Tanodbayan; in her statements, conduct, acts and charges against the Court
Holmes in US v. Sullens, “[t]he administration of justice and the freedom of the and/or the official actions of the Justices; and in her unjustified outburst that she
press, though separate and distinct, are equally sacred, and neither should be can no longer expect justice from the Court. The fact that said letters are not
violated by the other. The press and the courts have correlative rights and duties technically considered pleadings nor the fact that they were submitted after the
and should cooperate to uphold the principles of the Constitution and laws, from

main petition had been finally resolved does not detract from the gravity of the
contempt committed. The constitutional right of freedom of speech or right to
privacy cannot be used as a shield for contemptuous acts against the Court.
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan
Gonzales filed a motion for reconsideration. He was found guilty of contempt of court and of
gross misconduct as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.
Ruling:
1. The “clear and present danger” doctrine invoked by respondent’s counsel is not a
magic incantation which dissolves all problems and dispenses with analysis and
judgment in the testing of the legitimacy of claims to free speech, and which
compels a court to exonerate a defendant the moment the doctrine is invoked,
absent proof of impending apocalypse. The clear and present danger doctrine has
been an accepted method for making out the appropriate limits of freedom of
speech and of assembly in certain contexts. It is not, however, the only test which
has been recognized and applied by courts.
2. Under either the “clear and present danger” test or the “balancing-of-interest
test,” the Court believes that the statements here made by Gonzales are of such a
nature and were made in such a manner and under such circumstances, as to
transcend the permissible limits of free speech. It is important to point out that
the “substantive evil” which the Supreme Court has a right and duty to prevent
does not, in the instant case, relate to threats of physical disorder or overt violence
or similar disruptions of public order. What is here at stake is the authority of the
Supreme Court to confront and prevent a “substantive evil” consisting not only of
the obstruction of a free and fair hearing of a particular case but also the avoidance
of the broader evil of the degradation of the judicial system of a country and the
destruction of the standards of professional conduct required from members of the
bar and officers of the court. The “substantive evil” here involved, in other words,
is not as palpable as a threat to public disorder or rioting, but is certainly no less
deleterious and more far reaching in its implications for society.

US v. Kottinger to sexual impurity, and has the same meaning as is given at common law in
Kottinger was charged for keeping for sale in the raided store of Camera Supply Co. of prosecutions for obscene libel.
obscene and indecent pictures. The pictures revealed six different postures of non-Christian 4. The pictures portraying the inhabitants of the country in native dress and as they
inhabitants of the Philippines. appear and can be seen in the regions in which they live, are not obscene or
indecent within the meaning of the Libel Law. The pictures in question merely
Facts: depict persons as they actually live, without attempted presentation of persons in
unusual postures or dress. The aggregate judgment of the Philippine community,
1. The premises of Camera Supply Co. at 110 Escolta, Manila was raided and the moral sense of all the people in the Philippines, would not be shocked by
subsequent to said raid, post-cards were used as evidence against the manager of photographs of this type. The court is convinced that the post-card pictures in this
the company (J.J. Kottinger). case cannot be characterized as offensive to chastity, or foul or filthy.
2. Kottinger was charged for keeping for sale in the store of obscene and indecent
pictures in violation of Section 12 of Act No. 277. Act No. 277 is the Philippine Libel Gonzales v. Katigbak
Law. Section 12 made obscene or indecent publications as misdemeanours. The The Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television, upon condition that certain parts be
pictures reveal six different postures of non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippines, changed and removed, classified the motion picture “Kapit sa Patalim” as “for adults only.”
including the “Bontoc Woman,” “Moros,” and “Kalinga Girls,” among others.
Facts:
Ruling:
1. The motion picture “Kapit sa Patalim” was classified “For Adults Only.” As such, the
1. The word “obscene” and the term “obscenity” may be defined as meaning president of the Malaya Films (Jose Antonio Gonzales) questioned the scope of the
something offensive to chastity, decency, or delicacy. “Indecency” is an act against power of the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television and how it should
good behaviour and a just delicacy. The test ordinarily followed by the courts in be exercised. The chairman of the said board is Maria Kalaw Katigbak and Gen.
determining whether a particular publication or other thing is obscene within the Wilfredo Estrada as its vice-chairman.
meaning of the statutes, is whether the tendency of the matter charged as 2. In classifying the said movie as “For Adults Only,” there must be made certain
obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral changes and deletions enumerated. For this purpose, a petition for certiorari was
influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being filed.
obscene may fall. Another test of obscenity is that which shocks the ordinary and
common sense of men as an indecency. Ruling:
2. The Philippine statute does not attempt to define obscenity or indecent pictures,
writings, papers or books. But the words “obscene or indecent” at themselves 1. Motion pictures are important both as a medium for the communication of ideas
descriptive. They are words in common use and every person of average and the expression of the artistic impulse. Their effects on the perception by our
intelligence understands their meaning. Indeed, beyond the evidence furnished by people of issues and public officials or public figures as well as the prevailing
the pictures themselves, there is but little scope for bearing on the issue of cultural traits are considerable. Nor as pointed out in Burstyn v. Wilson is the
obscenity or indecency. Whether a picture is obscene or indecent must depend importance of motion pictures as an organ of public opinion lessened by the fact
upon the circumstances of the case. that they are designed to entertain as well as to inform. There is no clear dividing
3. “Obscene” as used in the Federal Statutes making it a criminal offense to place in line between what involves knowledge and what affords pleasure. If such
the mails any obscene, lewd, or lascivious publication, according to the US Supreme distinction were sustained, there is a diminution of the basic right to free
Court and lesser Federal courts, signifies that form of immorality which has relation expression.

2. Press freedom, as stated in the opinion of the Court in Reyes v. Bagatsing, may be 7. The petition was dismissed because the enough number of votes was not
identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public mustered.
concern without censorship or punishment. This is not to say that such freedom, as
is the freedom of speech, absolute. It can be limited if there be a clear and present People v. Go Pin
danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. Go Pin held an exhibition of what was alleged to be indecent and/or immoral pictures in a
3. Censorship or previous restraint certainly is not all there is to free speech or free recreational center.
press. As early as 1909, in the case of US v. Sedano, a prosecution for libel, the
Supreme Court already made clear that freedom of the press consists in the right to Facts:
print what one chooses without any previous license.
1. Go Pin, a Chinese citizen, exhibited at the Globe Arcade in Manila, a recreational
4. It is the opinion of the Court that to avoid an unconstitutional taint on its creation,
center, a large number of one-real 16 mm films about 100 feet in length each,
the power of respondent Board is limited to the classification of films. It can, to
which are allegedly indecent and/or immoral. He pleaded not guilty at first but
safeguard other constitutional objections, determine what motion pictures are for
when allowed to change his plea, he did so.
general patronage and what may require either parental guidance or be limited to
adults only. That is to abide by the principle that freedom of expression is the rule Ruling:
and restrictions the exemption. The power to exercise prior restraint is not to be
presumed, rather the presumption is against its validity. 1. Paintings and pictures of women in the nude, including sculptures of the at kind are
5. The test to determine whether freedom of expression may be limited is the clear offensive to morals where they are made and shown not for the sake of art but
and present danger of an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to profit would commercial purposes, that is, when gain and profit would appear to
prevent. Such danger must not only be clear but also present. There should be no be the main, if not the exclusive consideration in their exhibition, and the case of
doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. The art only of secondary or minor importance.
causal connection must be evident. Also, there must be reasonable apprehension 2. If such pictures, sculptures and paintings are shown in art exhibits and art galleries
about its imminence. The time element cannot be ignored. Nor does it suffice if for the cause of art, to be viewed and appreciated by people interested in art,
such danger be only probable. There is the require of its being well-nigh (almost) there would be no offense committed. However, the pictures here in question
inevitable. The basic postulate is that where the movies, theatrical productions, were used not exactly for art’s sake but rather for commercial purposes. In other
radio scripts, television programs, and other such media of expression are words, the supposed artistic qualities of said pictures were being commercialized
concerned – included that they are in freedom of expression – censorship, so that the cause of art was of secondary or minor importance. Gain and profit
especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only under the clearest would appear to have been the main, if not the exclusive consideration in their
proof of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public safety, public exhibition; and it would not be surprising if the persons who went to see those
morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest. There is merit to the pictures and paid entrance fees for the privilege of doing so, were not exactly
observation of Justice Douglas that “every writer, actor, or producer, no matter artists and persons interested in art and who generally go to art exhibitions and
what medium of expression he may use, should be freed from the censor.” galleries to satisfy and improve their artistic tastes, but rather people desirous of
6. It is the consensus of this Court that where television is concerned: a less liberal satisfying their morbid curiosity and taste, and lust, and for love for excitement,
approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures where the including the youth who because of their immaturity are not in a position to resist
patrons have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. and shield themselves from the ill and perverting effects of these pictures.
Children then likely will be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown. 3. The decision is affirmed.
It cannot be denied that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an
attitude of caring for the welfare of the young.

Dela Cruz v. Ela or the happening of untoward incidents, they deemed it necessary to prohibit the
Members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses applied for a permit from the Mayor of Sta. Cruz, use of that kiosk by any religious denomination as a place of meeting of its
Zambales in order to hold a public meeting with a kiosk at the public plaza. It was granted by members. This was the policy adopted by respondent for sometime previous to
the Mayor however specified that they hold the meeting at the north-western part of the the request made by the petitioners.
plaza.
US v. Apurado
Facts: Several individuals compelled the members of the municipal council to dismiss several
officials and replace them with the people they had recommended.
1. Members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sought to hold a public meeting at the public
plaza of Sta. Cruz, Zambales, together with the kiosk on such date and time. As Facts:
such, they applied for a permit from the respondent Mayor (Norberto Ela).
2. In his answer, Ela stated that he had not refused the request of the petitioners to 1. A large number of individuals assembled about the building of San Carlos,
hold a religious meeting at the public plaza as he gave them permission to use the Occidental Negros, crowded into the council chamber and demanded the dismissal
north-western part of the plaza on the said date (July 27, 1952). However, the from office of the municipal treasurer, the municipal secretary and the chief of
members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses declined to avail of it. As such, petitioners police, and the substitution in their places of new officials who were suggested by
brought an action to compel Ela to issue a permit. the spokesman of the party. This was done upon the opening of the session by the
municipal council.
Ruling: 2. The council, even though the persons who took part in the movement where
wholly unarmed except that a few carried canes, acceded to their wishes and drew
1. The right to freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble, though guaranteed by up a formal document setting out the reasons for its actions, which was signed by
our Constitution, is not absolute, for it may be regulated in order that it may not be the councillors present. Moreover, the crowd was fairly orderly and well-behaved
“injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor injurious to the except in so far as their pressing into the council chamber during a session of that
rights of the community or society,” and this power may be exercised under the body. The cause of such movement was that the members of the movement
police power of the State. believed that said officials whom they want dismissed have outspoken allegiance to
2. It is true that there is no law nor ordinance which expressly confers upon one of the factions into which the town was at that time divided.
respondents the power to regulate the use of the public plaza, together with this 3. Apurado, together with several individuals, was convicted of the crime of sedition.
kiosk, for the purposes for which it was established, but such power may be
exercised under his broad powers as chief executive in connection with his duty “to Ruling:
issue orders relating to the police or to public safety” within the municipality
(Section 2194(c) of the Revised Administrative Code). And it may even be said that 1. It is rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly
the above regulation has been adopted as an implementation of the constitutional of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on
provision which prohibits any public property to be used, directly or indirectly, by such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the
any religious denomination. greater the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule,
3. The power exercised by the respondent cannot be considered as capricious or will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. But
arbitrary considering the peculiar circumstances of this case. It appears that the if the prosecution be permitted to seize upon every instance of such disorderly
public plaza, particularly the kiosk, is located at a short distance from the Roman conduct by individual members of a crowd as an excuse to characterize the
Catholic Church. The proximity of said church to the kiosk has caused some assembly as a seditious and tumultuous rising against the authorities, then the right
concern on the part of the authorities that to avoid disturbance of peace and order, to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances would become a delusion and

a snare and the attempt to exercise it on the most righteous occasion and in the Ruling:
most peaceable manner would expose all those who took part therein to the
severest and most unmerited punishment, if the purposes which they sought to 1. It is true that petitioners held the rally at a place other than that specified in the
attain did not happen to be pleasing to the prosecuting authorities. If instances of permit and continued it longer than the time allowed. Undeniably too, they did
disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the guilty individuals should be sought disturb the classes and caused the work of the non-academic personnel to be left
out and punished therefore, but the utmost discretion must be exercised in undone. Such undesirable consequence could have been avoided by their holding
drawing the line between disorderly and seditious conduct and between an the assembly in the basketball court as indicated in the permit. Nonetheless,
essentially peaceable assembly and a tumultuous uprising. suspending them for one year is out of proportion to their misdeed.
2. The evidence does not establish the guilt of the accused. 2. As declared by the Court in Reyes v. Bagatsing, the invocation of the right to
freedom of peaceable assembly carries with it the implication that the right to free
Malabanan v. Ramento speech has likewise been disregarded. Both are embraced in the concept of
Student leaders at the Gregorio Araneta University, after holding the meeting, marched freedom of expression which is identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and
towards the Life Science building using megaphones and giving utterance to language truthfully, any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment and
severely critical of the school authorities. Classes were disturbed while the non-academic which “is not to be limited, much less denied, except on a showing of a clear and
personnel’s work was interrupted. present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent.”
3. Petitioners are entitled to invoke their rights to peaceable assembly and free
Facts: speech. They enjoy like the rest of the citizens, the freedom to express their views
and communicate their thoughts to those disposed to listen in gatherings such as in
1. Petitioners organized a meeting, being officers of the Supreme Student Council of this case. They do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
Gregorio Araneta University Foundation. They were granted the permit to hold a expression at the schoolhouse gate. While, therefore, the authority of educational
meeting from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 27, 1982 at the Veterinary institutions over the conduct of students must be recognized, it cannot go so far as
Medicine and Animal Science basketball court. However, they held the general to be violative of constitutional safeguards. On a more specific level, there is
assembly at the second floor lobby of the VMAS, contrary to what is stated in the persuasive force to this formulation in Tinker v. Des Moines Community School
permit. District: “The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate
2. During the gathering, they manifested their opposition to the proposed merger of students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities.
the Institute of Animal Science with the Institute of Agriculture, in a vehement and Among those activities is personal intercommunication among the students. This is
vigorous language. not only an inevitable part of the process. A student’s rights do not embrace
3. After the assembly, at around 10:30 a.m., they marched toward the Life Science merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria or on the playing field, or
building and continued their rally, using megaphones and giving utterance to on campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on
language severely critical of the University authorities. As a result, classes were controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without ‘materially
disturbed aside from the work of non-academic employees within hearing distance. and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the
4. The petitioners were placed under preventive suspension for their failure to explain operation of the school’ and without colliding with the rights of others. But
the holding of an illegal assembly in front of the Life Science building. conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason – whether it
5. Respondent, the Director of NCR of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, stems from time, place or type of behaviour – materially disrupts classwork or
found the petitioners guilty of the charge of having violated paragraph 146(c) of involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is not immunized by
the Manual for Private Schools, more specifically their holding of an illegal the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.”
assembly which was characterized by the violation of the permit granted resulting 4. If in the course of such demonstration with an enthusiastic audience goading them
in the disturbance of classes and oral defamation. on, utterances, extremely critical, at times even vitriolic, were let loose, that is

quite understandable. Student leaders are hardly the timid, diffident types. They 1. In the aforementioned Malabanan v. Ramento decision, the Court held that “[a]s is
are likely to be assertive and dogmatic. They would be ineffective if during a rally quite clear from the opinion in Reyes v. Bagatsing, the invocation of the right to
they speak in the guarded and judicious language of the academe. At any rate, freedom of peaceable assembly carries with it the implication that the right to free
even a sympathetic audience is not disposed to accord full credence to their fiery speech has likewise been disregarded. Both are embraced in the concept of
exhortations. They take into account the excitement of the occasion, the freedom of expression, which is identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and
propensity of speakers to exaggerate, the exuberance of youth. truthfully, any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment and
5. The rights to peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed students of which is not limited, much less denied, except on a showing of a clear and present
educational institutions. Necessarily, their exercise to discuss matters affecting danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent.” An equally
their welfare or involving public interest is not to be subjected to previous restraint relevant excerpt from the opinion therein follows that “[p]etitioners invoke their
or subsequent punishment unless there be a showing of a clear and present danger rights to peaceable assembly and free speech, they are entitled to do so. they
to a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. As a corollary, the enjoy like the rest of the citizens the freedom to express their views and
utmost leeway and scope is accorded the content of the placards displayed or communicate their thought to those disposed to listed in gatherings such as was
utterances made. The peaceable character of an assembly could be lost, however, held in this case. They do not, to borrow from the opinion of Justice Fortas in
by an advocacy of disorder under the name of dissent, whatever grievances that Tinker v. Des Moines Community School District, shed their constitutional rights to
may be aired being susceptible to correction through the ways of the law. If the freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
assembly is to be held in school premises, permit must be sought from its school 2. Petitioners have a valid cause for complaint if the exercise of the constitutional
authorities, who are devoid of the power to deny such request arbitrarily or rights to free speech and peaceable assembly was visited by their expulsion from
unreasonably. In granting such permit, there may be conditions as to the time and respondent College.
place of the assembly to avoid disruption of classes or stoppage of work of the non- 3. The academic freedom enjoyed by “institutions of higher learning” includes the
academic personnel. Even if, however, there be violations of its terms, the penalty right to set academic standards to determine under what circumstances failing
incurred should not be disproportionate to the offense. grades suffice for the expulsion of students. Once it has done so, however, that
6. Petitioners cannot be totally absolved for the events. There was violation of the standard should be followed meticulously. It cannot be utilized to discriminate
terms of the permit. Accordingly, they could be disciplined. against those students who exercise their constitutional rights to peaceable
assembly and free speech. If it does so, then there is a legitimate grievance by the
Villar v. TIP students thus prejudiced, their right to the equal protection clause being
The facts are similar with Malabanan v. Ramento. However, the petitioners have incurred disregarded.
failing grades thus were disallowed to enrol.
PBM Employment Association v. PBM
Facts: In airing their concerns regarding the excesses of the Pasig police, employees of the Philippine
Blooming Mills decided to stage a mass demonstration at the Malacañang. The Company
1. Petitioners had engaged in some assembly. For this purpose, they were barred
feared of losses to be incurred from 6 am to 2 pm.
from enrolling.
2. Aside from the assembly, the failed subjects of the petitioners were considered in Facts:
their being barred from enrolling.
1. Petitioners decided to stage a mass demonstration at the Malacañang in protest of
Ruling: the alleged abuses of the Pasig police.
2. Said demonstration would be participated in by the workers in the first shift (from
6 am to 2 pm) as well as those in the regular second and third shift (from 7 am to 4

pm and from 8 am to 5 pm, respectively), and that they informed the respondent be an efficacious shield against the tyranny of officials, of majorities, of the
company, Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. of their proposed demonstration. influential and powerful, and of oligarchs – political, economic or otherwise.
5. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly
Ruling: occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of
our civil and political institutions; and such priority “gives these liberties the
1. The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security
sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.” The superiority of
“against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the
these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a mere
erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no
reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its
patience with general principles.” In the pithy language of Justice Jackson, the
object or purpose – that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor
purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw “certain subjects from the vicissitudes of
oppressive – would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property
political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials,
rights. On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights
and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s rights to
requires a more stringent criterion namely existence of a grave and immediate
life, liberty and property to free speech, or free press, freedom of worship and
danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.
assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they
6. The freedoms of speech and of the press, as declared in New York Times v. Sullivan,
depend on the outcome of no elections.” Laski proclaimed that “the happiness of
as well as of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances are
the individual, not the well-being of the State, was the criterion by which its
absolute when directed against public officials or “when exercised in relation to our
behaviour was to be judged. Is interest, not its power, set the limits to the
right to choose the men and women by whom we shall be governed.”
authority it was entitled to exercise.”
7. The demonstration held by petitioners before the Malacañang was against alleged
2. The freedoms of expressions and of assembly as well as the right to petition are
abuses of some Pasig policemen, not against their employer; said demonstration
included among the immunities reserved by the sovereign people, in the rhetorical
was purely and completely an exercise of their freedom of expression in general
aphorism of Justice Holmes, to protect the ideas that we abhor or hate more than
and of their right of assembly and petition for redress of grievances in particular
the ideas we cherish; or as Socrates insinuated, not only to protect the minority
before the appropriate governmental agency, the Chief Executive, again the police
who want to talk, but also to benefit the majority who refuse to listen. And as
officers of the municipality of Pasig. They exercise their civil and political rights for
Justice Douglas cogently stresses it, the liberties of one are not safe unless the
their mutual aid protection from what they believe were police excesses. As a
liberties of all are protected.
matter of fact, it was the duty of PBM Co. to protect petitioners from the
3. The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights
harassment of local police officers. It was to the interest of PBM to rally to the
but also political rights essential to man’s enjoyment of his life, to his happiness
defense of, and take up the cudgels for, its employees so that they can report to
and to his full and complete fulfillment. Thru these freedoms, the citizens can
work free from harassment, vexation or peril and as consequence perform more
participate not merely in the periodic establishment of the government through
efficiently their respective tasks, enhance its productivity as well as profits. Herein
their suffrage but also in the administration of public affairs as well as in the
the employer did not even offer to intercede for its employees with the local
discipline of abusive public officers. The citizen is accorded these rights so that he
police.
can appeal to the appropriate governmental officers or agencies for redress and
8. In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression as well as their right of
protection as well as for the imposition of the lawful sanctions on erring public
assembly and of petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the
officers and employees
employees and laborers of PBM were fighting for their very survival, utilizing only
4. Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are
the weapons afforded them by the Constitution – the untrammelled enjoyment of
imprescriptible. If human rights are extinguished by the passage of time, then the
their basic human rights. The pretension of the employer that it would suffer loss
Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to limit the power of government and ceases to

or damage by reason of the absence of its employees from 6 am to 2 pm, is a plea agreement (between employer and labor organization) shall not cover members of
for the preservation merely of their property rights. any religious sect which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor
9. To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as organization.
evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective 3. Being a member of a religious sect which prohibits affiliation of its members with
bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the any labor organization, Victoriano tendered his resignation to the Union in 1962.
demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the compass of the collective However, no action was taken by the Union; thus, petitioner reiterated his
bargaining agreement, is a “potent means of inhibiting speech” and therefore resignation 12 years later. The Union, on the other end, wrote a formal letter to
inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free the Company asking for the separation of Victoriano from service as he was
expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition. resigning from the Union as a member.
10. It has been likewise established that a violation of a constitutional right divests the 4. The management in turn notified Victoriano and his counsel that unless they
court of jurisdiction; and as a consequence, its judgment is null and void and (Victoriano) could achieve a satisfactory arrangement with the Union, the Company
confers no rights. Relief from a criminal conviction secured at the sacrifice of would be constrained to dismiss him from service.
constitutional liberties, may be obtained through habeas corpus proceedings even
long after the finality of the judgment. Thus, habeas corpus is the remedy to obtain Ruling:
the release of an individual, who is convicted by final judgment through a forced
1. Both the Constitution and RA 875 recognize freedom of association. Section 1(6) of
confession, which violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination; or who
the Article III of the 1935 Constitution as well as Section 7 of Article IV of the 1973
is denied the right to present evidence in his defense as a deprivation of his liberty
Constitution, provide that the right to form associations or societies for purposes
without due process of law, even after the accused has already served sentence for
not contrary to law shall not be abridged. Section 3 of RA 875 provides that
22 years.
employees shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and to
The enactment of RA 3350 which directed that the agreement between employer and labor engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
organization is not binding to members of religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their mutual aid or protection.
members to any such organization. In order to remain with the Company, according to the 2. What the constitution and the Industrial Peace Act recognize and guarantee is the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, the employee should likewise be a member of the Union. “right” to form or join associations. Notwithstanding the different theories
propounded by the different schools of jurisprudence regarding the nature and
Facts: content of a “right,” it can be safely said that whatever theory one subscribes to, a
right comprehends at least two broad notions, namely: first, liberty or freedom,
1. Benjamin Victoriano was a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo and was employed by i.e., the absence of legal restraint, whereby an employee may act for himself
Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. since 1958. He was a member of the Workers’ Union, without being prevented by law; and second, power, whereby an employee may, as
whose collective bargaining agreement with the company provided that he pleases, join or refrain from joining an association. It is therefore, the employee
“[m]embership in the Union shall be required as a condition of employment for all who should decide for himself whether he should join or not an association; and
permanent employees.” should choose to join, he himself makes up his mind as to which association he
2. Republic Act 3350 was enacted on June 18, 1961. It introduced amendment to would join; and even after he has joined, he still retains the liberty and the power
Section 4[4(a)] of RA 875. Said section of RA 875 did not preclude the employer to leave and cancel his membership with said organization at any time.
from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of 3. It is clear that the right to join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any
employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative union. Inasmuch as what both the Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act have
of the employees. However, due to the amendment introduced by RA 3350, such recognized, and guaranteed to the employee, is the “right” to join associations of

his choice, it would be absurd to say that the law also imposes, in the same breath, maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the IBP and
upon the employee the duty to join associations. The law does not enjoin an to pay the corresponding dues.
employee to sign up any association.
4. The right to refrain from joining labor organizations recognized by Section 3 of the Ruling:
Industrial Peace Act is limited. The legal protection granted to such right to refrain
1. An “Integrated Bar” is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must belong, as
from joining is withdrawn by operation of law, where a labor union and an
distinguished from bar associations by individual lawyers themselves, membership
employer have agreed on a closed shop, by virtue of which the employer may
in which is voluntary. Integration of the Bar is essentially a process by which every
employ only member of the collective bargaining union, and the employees must
member of the Bar is afforded an opportunity to do his share in carrying out the
continue to be members of the union for the duration of the contract in order to
objectives of the Bar as well as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities.
keep their jobs.
Organized by or under the direction of the State, an integrated Bar is an official
5. What the exception provides is that members of said religious sects cannot be
national body of which all lawyers are required to be members. They are,
compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have closed shop
therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar,
agreements with employers; that in spite of any closed shop agreement, members
including the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective
of said religious sects cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs
discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a code of professional
on the sole ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining union. It
ethics or professional responsibility breach of which constitutes sufficient reason
is clear, therefore, that the assailed Act, far from infringing the constitutional
for investigation by the Bar and, upon proper cause appearing, a recommendation
provision on freedom of association, upholds and reinforces it. It does not prohibit
for discipline or disbarment of the offending member.
the members of said religious sects from affiliating with labor unions. It still leaves
2. The State, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with and regulate
to said members the liberty and the power to affiliate, or not to affiliate, with labor
personal liberty, property and occupations. Persons and property may be
unions. If, notwithstanding their religious beliefs, the members of said religious
subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the general prosperity and
sects prefer to sign up with the labor union, they can do so. if in deference and
welfare of the State for, as the Latin maxim goes, “Salus populi est suprema lex.”
fealty to their religious faith, they refuse to sign up, they can do so; the law does
The public welfare is the supreme law. To this fundamental principle of
not coerce them to join; neither does the law prohibit them from joining; and
government the rights of individuals are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without
neither may the employer or labor union compel them to join. RA 3350 does not
which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made to prevail over authority
violate the constitutional provision on freedom of association.
because then society will fall into anarchy. It is an undoubted power of the State to
In re: Edillon restrain some individuals from all freedom, and all individuals from some freedom.
Atty. Edillon did not want to pay the membership dues. He questioned the so-called 3. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his
infringement of the integration of the Integrated Bar on right to association. constitutional freedom to associate. Integration does not make a lawyer a member
of any group of which he is not already a member. He became a member of the
Facts: Bar when he passed the Bar Examinations. All that integration actually does is to
provide an official national organizations for the well-defined but unorganized and
1. Respondent, Atty. Marcial Edillon, stubbornly refused to pay his membership dues incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member.
to the IBP despite the due notice of the Board of Governors of the IBP which 4. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to
recommended to the SC the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys. attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to
2. Edillon contends that membership and the obligation to pay membership dues vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is
infringe his constitutional right because he is compelled, as a precondition to the payment of annual dues. The SC, in order to further the State’s legitimate
interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require that the

cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and 5. The power to regulate is not synonymous with the power to prohibit. Stated
beneficiaries of the regulatory program – the lawyers. differently, the power to make regulations does not carry with it the power to
prohibit. To the extent that newspapers and others who have no direct or tangible
Subido v. Ozaeta interest in the records are obstructed from making an examination thereof, a part,
Petitioner wanted the Register of Deeds of Manila, in compliance to Justice Circular No. 128, indeed the larger part of the public, is thereby excluded from the right granted by
to furnish him a list of real estates sold to aliens and registered with the Register of Deeds of law. Such prohibition is at war with the requirement that the books and records of
Manila. registered lands shall be open to the public. “Public” is a comprehensive, all-
inclusive term. Properly construed, it embraces every person. From the language
Facts: of section 56 of Act No. 496, as amended, the regulations which the Register of
Deeds or the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or the Secretary of
1. Petitioner, the editor of the Manila Post, prays that an order issue “commanding
Justice is empowered to promulgate are confined to prescribing the manner and
the respondents to furnish to petitioner the list of real estates sold to aliens and
hours of examination to the end that damage to, or loss of, the records may be
registered with the Register of Deeds of Manila since the promulgation of Justice
avoided, that undue interference with the duties of the custodian of the books and
Circular No. 128 or to allow the petitioner or his duly accredited representatives to
documents and other employees may be prevented, that the right of other persons
examine all records in the respondents’ custody relative to said transaction.
entitled to make inspection may be insured and the like.
2. Said request was first denied by the Register of Deeds and by the Secretary of
6. When it is clear that the purpose of the examination is unlawful, it is not duty
Justice, on appeal.
under the law of registration officers to concern themselves with the motives,
Ruling: reasons, and objects of the person seeking access to the records. It is not their
prerogative to see to it that the information which the records contain is not
1. The petition in part is grounded on the liberty of the press. The Court however flaunted before public gaze, or that scandal is not made of it. If it be wrong to
believes that this constitutional right is not in any way involved. The refusal by the publish the contents of the records, it is the legislature and not the officials having
respondents does not constitute a restriction upon or censorship of publication. It the custody thereof which is called upon to devise a remedy. As to moral or
only affects facilities of publication, and the respondents are correct in saying that material injury which the publication might inflict on the parties, that is the
freedom of information or freedom to obtain information for publication is not publisher’s responsibility and lookout.
guaranteed by the Constitution. 7. Newspapers have a better-established right of access to records of titles by reason
2. The right to examine or inspect public records is purely a question of statutory of their relations to the public than abstractors or insurers of title. Whether by
construction. design or otherwise, newspapers perform a mission which does not enter into the
3. The right of inspection of title records is a subject of express statutory regulation in calculation of the business of abstracting titles conducted purely for private gain.
the Philippines. Section 56 of Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 3300, provides Newspapers publish information for the benefit of the public while abstractors do
that “all records relating to registered lands in the office of the Register of Deeds so for the benefit of a limited class of investors and purchasers of real estate only.
shall be open to the public subject to such reasonable regulations as may be It is through the medium of newspapers that the public is informed of how public
prescribed by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office with the approval of servants conduct their business. The public through newspapers have the
the Secretary of Justice.” The Chief of the General Land Registration Office does legitimate right to know the transactions in real estate which they believe have
not seem to have adopted any regulations in pursuance of this provision. been registered in violation of the Constitution. The publication of these matters is
4. The Register of Deeds has inherent power to control his office and the records certainly not only legitimate and lawful but necessary in a country where, under
under his custody and has some discretion to exercise as to the manner in which the Constitution, the people should rule.
persons desiring to inspect, examine, or copy the records may exercise their rights.

8. Petition was granted commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner or his role of free exchange of information in a democracy. There can be no realistic
accredited representatives to examine, extract, abstract, or make memoranda of perception by the public of the nation’s problems, nor a meaningful democratic
the records of sales of real properties to aliens subject to such restriction and decision-making if they are denied access to information of general interest.
limitation as may be deemed necessary not incompatible with this decision. Information is needed to enable the members of society to cope with the
exigencies of the times. As has been aptly observed, “[m]aintaining the flow of
Baldoza v. Dimaano such information depends on protection for both its acquisition and its
To know the peace and order situation of the municipality, employees of the Municipal Mayor dissemination since, if either process is interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases.”
of Taal wanted to examine the criminal docket records of the municipal court. However, it 4. Restriction on access to certain records may be imposed by law. Thus, access
was refused by the judge. As such, he was charged of abuse of authority. restrictions imposed to control civil insurrection have been permitted upon a
showing of immediate and impending danger that renders ordinary means of
Facts: control inadequate to maintain order.
5. The case against respondent was dismissed.
1. The employees of the Municipal Mayor of Taal wanted to examine the criminal
docket records of the municipal court to secure data in connection with their
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission
contemplated report on the peace and order situation of the municipality.
Legaspi requested information regarding the civil service eligibilities of two sanitarians in the
However, it was not approved by the respondent municipal judge.
Health Department of Cebu City. However, the CSC initially denied said request.
2. The said municipal trial court judge was charged with abuse of authority in refusing
to allow employees to access the records of the Municipal Trial Court. Facts:
Ruling: 1. Legaspi requested for information on the civil service eligibilities of certain persons
(Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas) employed as sanitarians in the Health
1. In a democracy, the public has a legitimate interest in matters of social and political
Department of Cebu City. They were, according to petitioner, represented
significance; hence, the people’s right of free access to public records is predicated
themselves as civil service eligibles who passed the civil service examinations for
on their right to acquire information on matters of public concern.
sanitarians. But, his request was denied.
2. Mandamus would lie to compel a public official to allow an interested party access
2. For this purpose, a special civil action for mandamus was instituted.
to the records in his custody. Thus, predicating the right to examine public records
on statutory provisions and to a certain degree by general principles of democratic Ruling:
institutions, this Court stated that while the Register of Deeds has discretion to
determine the manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine or copy the 1. The new provision reads that “[t]he right of the people to information on matters
records in his office may exercise their rights, such power does not carry with it the of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents,
authority to prohibit. and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
3. Public’s right of access to public records is not merely predicated on statutory right government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded
but on the constitutional right of the press to have access to information as the the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.” These
essence of press freedom. The New Constitution now expressly recognizes that the constitutional provisions are self-executing. They supply the rules which the right
people are entitled to information on matters of public concern and thus are to information may be enjoyed by guaranteeing the right and mandating the duty
expressly granted to access to official records, as well as documents of official acts, to afford access to sources of information. Hence, the fundamental right therein
or transactions, or decisions, subject to such limitations imposed by law. The recognized may be asserted by the people upon the ratification of the Constitution
incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental without need for any ancillary act of the Legislature. What may be provided for by

the Legislature are reasonable conditions and limitations upon the access to be agency discretion. The constitutional duty, not being discretionary, its
afforded which must, of necessity, be consistent with the declared State policy of performance may be compelled by a writ of Mandamus in a proper case.
full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest. However, it 6. But the constitutional guarantee to information on matters of public concern is not
cannot be overemphasized that whatever limitation may be prescribed by the absolute. It does not open every door to any and all information. Under the
Legislature, the right and the duty under Article III, Section 7 have become constitution, access to official records, papers, etc. are subject to limitations as may
operative and enforceable by virtue of the adoption of the New Charter. be provided by law. The law may therefore exempt certain types of information
2. In recognizing the people’s right to be informed, both the 1973 Constitution and from public scrutiny, such as those affecting national security. It follows that, in
the New Charter, expressly mandate the duty of the State and its agents to afford every case, the availability of access to a particular public record must be
access to official records, documents, papers and in addition, government research circumscribed by the nature of the information sought, i.e., (a) being of public
data used as basis for policy development, subject to such limitations as may be concern or one that involves public interest, and (b) not being exempted by law
provided by law. The guarantee has been further enhanced in the New from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.
Constitution with the adoption of a policy of full public disclosure, this time, which 7. The threshold question is, therefore, whether or not the information sought is of
reads: “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and public interest or public concern. This question is first addressed to the
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public government agency having custody of the desired information. However, as
interest.” already discussed, this does not give the agency concerned any discretion to grant
3. Government agencies are without discretion in refusing disclosure of, or access to, or deny access. In case of denial of access, the government agency has the burden
information of public concern. This is not to lose sight of the reasonable of showing that the information requested is not of public concern or, if it is of
regulations which may be imposed by said agencies in custody of public records on public concern, that the same has been exempted by law from the operation of the
the manner in which the right to information may be exercised by the public. guarantee. To hold otherwise will serve to dilute the constitutional right. As aptly
4. The Court is emphatic in the statement that the authority to regulate the manner observed, the government is in an advantageous position to marshal and interpret
of examining public records does not carry with it the power to prohibit. A arguments against release. To safeguard the constitutional right, every denial of
distinction has to be made between the discretion to refuse outright the disclosure access by the government agency concerned is subject to review by the courts, and
of or access to a particular information and the authority to regulate the manner in in the proper case, access may be compelled by a writ of Mandamus.
which the access is sought to be afforded. The first is a limitation upon the 8. In determining whether or not a particular information is of public concern there is
availability of access to the information sought, which only the Legislature may no rigid test which can be applied. “Public concern” like “public interest” is a term
impose. The second pertains to the government agency charged with the custody that eludes exact definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects
of public records. Its authority to regulate access is to be exercised solely to the which the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives,
end that damage to, or loss of, public records may be avoided, undue interference or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen.
with the duties of said agencies may be prevented, and more importantly, that the In the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine in a case by case basis whether
exercise of the same constitutional right by other persons shall be assured. the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the public.
5. While the manner of examining public records may be subject to reasonable 9. The information sought by the petitioner in this case is the truth of the claim of
regulation by the government agency in custody thereof, the duty to disclose the certain government employees that they are civil service eligible for the positions
information of public concern, and to afford access to public records cannot be to which they were appointed. The constitution expressly declares as a State policy
discretionary on the part of said agencies. Certainly, its performance cannot be that “[a]ppointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and
made contingent upon the discretion of such agencies. Otherwise, the enjoyment fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and except as to positions which are
of the constitutional right may be rendered nugatory by any whimsical exercise of policy determining, primarily confidential or highly technical, by competitive
examination.”

10. But, it is not enough that the information sought is of public interest. For and of the press. Far from it, the right to information goes hand-in-hand with the
Mandamus to lie in a given case, the information must not be among the species constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It
exempted by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee. is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-
11. The civil service eligibility of a sanitarian being of public concern, and in the making as well in checking abuse in government.
absence of express limitations under the law upon access to the register of civil 3. Like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. The
service eligibles for said position, the duty of the respondent Commission to people’s right to information is limited to “matters of public concern,” and is
confirm or deny the civil service eligibility of any person occupying the position further “subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.” Similarly, the
becomes imperative. State’s policy of full disclosure is limited to transactions involving public interest,”
and is “subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law.”
Valmonte v. Belmonte 4. When the information requested from the government intrudes into the privacy of
Valmonte, through a letter, requested the GSIS to furnish him a list of the names of the a citizen, a potential conflict between the rights to information and to privacy may
opposition members of the Batasang Pambansa who were able to secure a loan of Php 2 arise. The right to privacy belongs to the individual in his private capacity, and not
million. to public and governmental agencies like the GSIS. A corporation has no right to
privacy since the entire basis of the right to privacy is injury to the feelings and
Facts: sensibilities of the party and a corporation would have no such ground for relief.
Neither can the GSIS through its general manager, the respondent, invoke the right
1. Valmonte wrote to Belmonte, who is the GSIS General Manager at that time,
to privacy of its borrowers. The right is purely personal in nature.
requesting the latter to furnish the list of names of the opposition members of the
5. The government, whether carrying out its sovereign attributes or running some
Batasang Pambansa who were able to secure a clean loan of Php 2 million each on
business, discharges the same function of service to the people. Consequently,
guaranty of Imelda Marcos.
that the GSIS, in granting the loans, was exercising a proprietary function would not
2. However, the Deputy General Counsel of the GSIS replied that they cannot respond
justify the exclusion of the transactions from the coverage and scope of the right of
positively to his request.
the right to information.
Ruling: 6. The consideration in guaranteeing access to information on matters of public
concern does not however, accord to citizen the right to compel custodian of public
1. The cornerstone of this republican system of government is delegation of power by records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire
the people to the State. In this system, governmental agencies and institutions such information.
operate within the limits of the authority conferred by the people. Denied access 7. The petition was granted.
to information on the inner working of government, the citizenry can become prey
to the whims and caprices of those to whom the power had been delegated. The Badoy Jr. v. COMELEC
postulate of public office as a public trust, institutionalized in the Constitution to Badoy, who is a candidate for the Constitutional Convention for the lone district of North
protect the people from abuse of governmental power, would certainly be mere Cotabato, prayed that Section 12(f) of the Constitutional Convention Act be declared
empty words if access to such information of public concern is denied, except unconstitutional for it abridged the freedom of expression of individuals.
under limitations prescribed by implementing legislation adopted pursuant to the
Facts:
Constitution.
2. The right to information is an essential premise of a meaningful right to speech and
1. Anacleto Badoy, Jr. is a candidate for delegate tot eh Constitutional Convention for
expression. But this is not to say that the right to information is merely an adjunct
the lone district of North Cotabato.
of and therefore restricted in application by the exercise of the freedoms of speech

2. He prays that the Section 12(f) of RA 6132 (Constitutional Convention Act) be his stirring rhetorical denunciation of the suppression of truth as he appealed for
declared unconstitutional for in so far as it prohibits the printing and publication of the “liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all
such comments and articles, which are not paid, unless the names of all candidates liberties.” The same was stressed by Justice Murphy when he delineated the
are mentioned with equal prominence. He purports that said provision unduly contours as well as facets of the freedom of expression as the “freedom to publish
abridges the freedom of expression of an individual whether candidate or not. publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or
fear of subsequent punishment.”
Ruling: 5. The candidate, to enjoy the freedom, therefore has the concomitant duty to
campaign for himself truthfully according to his conscience. If he is not truthful, he
1. Freedom of expression is not immune to regulation by the State in the exercise of
forfeits the freedom. His freedom of expression is not and should not be limited to
its police power. The validity of the abridgment is gauged by the extent of its
his own personal right to know the truth of the claims of the other candidates.
inroad into the domain of the liberty of speech and of the press, when subjected to
6. Petitions were denied.
the applicable clear and present danger rule or the balancing of interests tests. If
the restriction on the invaded is so narrow that the basic liberty remains, then the PCIB v. PHILNABANK Employees Association
limitation is constitutional. The PHILNABANK Employees Association had used placards in their demonstration against
2. The evident purpose of the limitation in Section 12(f) of RA 6132 on the freedom of the incompetence of the bank’s management. The petitioners found the cards to be causing
the candidate or his sympathizer to spend his own money for his candidacy alone dishonour because it read that their bad accounts were transferred to the PNB.
and not for the furtherance of the candidacy of his opponents. It is to give the poor
candidates a fighting chance in the election. While it is true that the mere mention Facts:
of the poor opponent in the same advertisement or paid articles does not by itself
alone engender perfect equality of chances, at least the chance of the poor 1. PHILNABANK Employees, in denouncing the lack of business foresight,
candidate for victory is improved because thereby his name will be exposed to the incompetence, mismanagement, arbitrary and despotic acts of the management to
reading public in the same article as that of the wealthy candidate. heed the legal and legitimate demands, put up placards along the PNB building in
3. Section 12(f) of RA 6132. Prohibiting the publication of paid comments or paid Escolta, Manila. The placards read: PCIB Bad Accounts transferred to PNB-NIDC?
articles without mentioning the names of all the other candidates with equal 2. According to petitioner, these placards were causing dishonour, discredit or
prominence, is not unconstitutional as unduly abridging the freedom of expression contempt of a juridical person.
of an individual. Against the background of the several facilities accorded by the
Ruling:
law for all candidates, rich and poor alike, and the prohibitions as well as penal
sanctions to insure the sanctity of the ballot against desecration and the equality of
1. The labor union made use of its constitutional right to picket. From the time of
chances among the candidates, the restriction on the freedom of expression of the
Mortera v. CIR, a 1947 decision, this Court has been committed to the view that
candidate or any other individual prescribed in Section 12(f) is so narrow as not to
peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution.
affect the substance and vitality of his freedom of expression itself.
The latest case in point where such a principle was reaffirmed expressly is
4. Under the guarantee of free expression, the candidate who pays for a comment or
Associated Labor Union v. Gomez, a 1980 decision. There is no mention of the
an article has the duty not only to inform the electorate about his qualifications
other placards but it is not unlikely that to bolster its claim, mention was likewise
and proposals for constitutional reforms, but also to inform truthfully the public
made and in bold letter at that of such alleged failing of its management.
who his opponents are, so that the public or particularly the electorate can
2. It is a fact of industrial life, both in the Philippines as in the United States, that in
determine the truth and merit of his claims vis-à-vis those of the other candidates.
the continuing confrontation between labor and management, it is far from likely
Otherwise, the candidate will be guilty of gross and unpardonable deceit on the
that the language employed would be both courteous and polite. Such being the
people. This duty on the part of the candidate was underscored by John Milton in

case, there is no affront either to reason or to the law in the complaint for libel weekly circulation was over 20,000, with the result that the tax applied only to 13
being dismissed. In pricing reliance on the constitutional right of freedom of out of 124 publishers in Louisiana. These large papers were critical of Sen. Long
expression, this Court once again makes manifest its adherence to the principle who controlled the state legislature which enacted the license tax. The censorial
first announced by Justice Malcolm in US v. Bustos. In no uncertain terms, it made motivation for the law was thus evident.
clear that the judiciary, in deciding suits for libel, must ascertain whether or not the 4. In Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, the tax was
alleged offending words may be embraced by the guarantees of free speech and found to be discriminatory because although it could have been made liable for the
free press. sales tax or in lieu thereof, for the use tax on the privilege of using, storing, or
3. Decision is affirmed. consuming tangible goods, the press was not. Instead the press was exempted
from both taxes. It was however later made to pay a special use tax on the cost of
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance paper and ink which made these items “the only items subject to the use tax that
The Expanded Value-Added Tax Law was challenged by several petitions. The Philippine Press were component of goods to be sold at retail.” The US SC held that the differential
Institute contends that the law discriminates against the press after the law removed the treatment of the press suggests that the goal of regulation is not related to
exemption of the press from the VAT while maintained those granted to others. suppression of expression, and such goal is presumptively unconstitutional. It
would therefore appear that even a law that favors the press is constitutionally
Facts: suspect.
5. The VAT is different. It is not a license tax. It is not a tax on the exercise of a
1. Several motions were filed in order to have RA 7716 declared unconstitutional. RA
privilege; much less a constitutional right. It is imposed on the sale, barter, lease or
7716 is known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law.
exchange of goods or properties or the sale or exchange of services and the lease
2. It is contended by the Philippine Press Institute that by removing the exemption of
of properties purely for revenue purposes. To subject the press to its payment is
the press from the VAT while maintaining those granted to others, the law
not to burden the exercise of its right any more than to make the press pay income
discriminates against the press. At any rate, it is averred, “even non-discriminatory
tax or subject it to general regulation is not to violate its freedom under the
taxation of constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional.”
Constitution.
Ruling:
1. As a general proposition, the press is not exempt from the taxing power of the
State and that what the constitutional guarantee of free press prohibits are laws
which single out the press or target a group belonging to the press for special
treatment or which in any way discriminate against the press on the basis of the
content of the publication, and RA 7716 is none of these.
2. It would suffice to say that since the law granted the press a privilege, the law could
take back the privilege anytime without offense to the constitution. The reason is
simple: by granting exemptions, the State does not forever waive the exercise of its
sovereign prerogative. Indeed, in withdrawing the exemption, the law merely
subjects the press to the same tax burden to which other businesses have long ago
been subject.
3. The license tax in Grosjean v. American Press Co. was found to be discriminatory
because it was laid on the gross advertising receipts only of newspapers whose

Case Digests On Freedom of Expression

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digests On Freedom of Expression

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Gonzales v.

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

Case Digests on Freedom of Expression • Mark Justin Mooc

You might also like