Section 4.
No law shall be passed abridging the conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay
freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition
the government for redress of grievances.
Rights covered:
1. Speech - oral
2. Expression – in between
3. Press - published
4. Peaceful Assembly
5. Petition
Nature of the freedom of speech, expression and
press: “The right to freely utter, print and publish any
statement without previous censorship of the
government. (U.S. vs. Sotto, 38 Phil. 666).
Importance of expression in a democratic society – no
person has the monopoly of what is true.
- Nobody has the monopoly in the marketplace of
ideas
Preferred rights – (fundamental rights: the test of
police power is not applicable) (no presumption of
validity)
Right to expression seems to be all embracing
covering almost all cases like political speech, self-
expression, advertising.
Freedom of expression is not absolute. There are laws
that regulate this freedom. It is subject to regulation to
protect the community from injurious exercise of said
right, and to the police power of the state on the need
to promote public welfare, public safety, public morals
and national security.
Test on Restrictions:
Restraints on freedom of speech and expression are
evaluated by either or a combination of the three tests:
a) Dangerous Tendency Doctrine: This permits
limitations on speech once a rational connection has
been established between the speech restrained and
the danger contemplated.
(mostly used during American period)
(punishes the tendency, hence easy for the
government to restrict.
This is no longer favored. Used in Umil vs. Ramos
(1991)
Cabansag vs. Fernandez (102 Phil 152) -
b) Balancing of Interest Test: Used as a standard
when the courts need to balance conflicting social
values and individual interests, and requires a
of interest observable in a given type of situation.
“When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of
public order, and the regulation results in an indirect,
conditional, or partial abridgment of speech, the duty
of the courts is to determine which of the two
conflicting interests demands the greater protection
under the particular circumstances presented.
Lagunzad vs. Sotto – Licensing agreement for the
movie entitled “The Moises Padilla Story”, where Mrs.
Sotto was given the right to delete, change and alter
scenes. Licensing Agreement is upheld in order to
protect the right to privacy.
Ayer vs. Capulong
Gonzales vs. Comelec
According to Bernas, balancing of interest was also
applied in contempt cases involving the Supreme
Court, when the inferior courts are involved, the SC
will apply the clear and present danger test.
c. Clear and Present Danger Rule: Speech may be
restrained because there is a substantial danger that
the speech will likely lead to an evil the government
has a right to prevent. This rule requires that the evil
consequences sought to be serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high.
Gonzaga vs. Gonzales 27 SCRA 835
The term “clear” seems to point to a causal connection
with the danger of substantive evil arising from the
utterance questioned; while the present refers to the
time element identified with imminent and immediate
danger.
(there must be some extremely serious threat, not a
mere possibility. It is difficult to satisfy.)
e.g. shouting fire inside the moviehouse.
Purpose of the freedom of SEP?
1. To protect and preserve the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern.
2. To enable every citizen to bring the government
and any person in authority to the bar of public
opinion.
3. To insure free and general discussion of public
matters.
FOUR ASPECTS OF THE FREEDOM OF SEP:
1. Freedom from prior restraint.
2. Freedom from subsequent punishment.
3. Freedom of access to information.
4. Freedom of circulation.
FREEDOM FROM PRIOR RESTRAINT
- Restrictions or conditions in advance of actual
publication or dissemination.
Chavez vs. Gonzales: Prior restraint refers to official
governmental restrictions on the press or other forms
of expression in advance of actual publication or
dissemination. Freedom from prior restraint is largely
freedom from governmental censorship of
publications, whatever the form of censorship, and
regardless of whether it is wielded by the executive,
legislative or judicial branch of the government.
- Examples: prior permit, submission of copy of
speech, submission of clearance before
publication./censorship, closure and injunction.
Ayer vs. Capulong (April 29, 1988) (Enrile case).
- Injunction against showing of “The Four Day
Revolution”
- Freedom is available both to locally-owned and
foreign-owned motion picture companies.
Reverse Presumption – Presumption of Illegality in
cases of prior restraint. Burden of proof is on the
legislature to prove that the law is constitutional.
(Police power exercise usually enjoy presumption of
constitutionality due to separation of power).
Exception to the reverse presumption
1) war times
2) When the regulation is authorized by the
Constitution (NPC vs. Comelec (207 SCRA 1)
– air time and spaces of political
advertisement. Comelec is allowed by the
constitution.)
Nicolas Lewis vs. Comelec (August 14, 2019): It is not
enough to determine whether the challenged act
constitutes some form of restraint on the freedom of
speech. A distinction has to be made whether the
restraint is (1) a content-neutral regulation, i.e., merely
concerned with the incidents of speech, or one that
merely controls the time, place, or manner, and under
well[-]defined standards; or (2) a content-based
restraint or censorship, i.e., the restriction is based on
the subject matter of the utterance or speech. The
cast of the restriction determines the test by which the
challenged act is assayed with.
1) Content-Neutral Regulation – Regulation of this
type are not designed to suppress any particular
message, hence, they are not subject to the
strictest form of judicial scrutiny. Only a substantial
government interest is required for its validity. It is
subject only to an INTERMEDIATE APPROACH.
- Imposed on time, mode, ammer of the expression.
In contrast, content based is imposed on the
content or substance itself.
- It is sufficient to show some legitimate state
interest or the reasonableness of the restriction.
What is intermediate approach? Restrictions will not
only be upheld but will be narrowly-tailored to promote
an important or significant government interest that is
unrelated to the suppression of expressions.
A GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS JUSITIFED IF IT
COMPLIES WITH THE FOLLOWING TEST
(Intermediate Approach):
a. If it is within the constitutional power of the
government.
b. If it furthers an important or substantial
government interest.
c. If the government interest is unrelated to the
suppression of free expression; and,
d. If the incident restrictions on alleged freedom of
speech and expression is no greater than is
essential to the furtherance of that interest.
Nicolas-Lewis vs. Comelec - When the speech
restraints take the form of a content-neutral regulation,
only a substantial governmental interest is required for
its validity. Because regulations of this type are not
designed to suppress any particular message, they
are not subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny
but an intermediate approach-somewhere between
the mere rationality that is required of any other law
and the compelling interest standard applied to
content-based restrictions. The test is called
intermediate because the Court will not merely
rubberstamp the validity of a law but also require that
the restrictions be narrowly-tailored to promote an
important or significant governmental interest that is
unrelated to the suppression of expression. 
Osmena vs. Comelec (288 SCRA 447) – (same facts
with NPC Case) – (the purpose of the law is
regulatory, to balance the opportunity between rich
and poor candidates. There was substantial
government interest justifying the regulation. The
restriction on speech is merely incidental. The
restriction is merely limited as to time and scope. It is
unrelated to the suppression of speech. Media ads do
not partake of the real substantive evil that the state
has a right to prevent.
2) Content-Based Regulation: A government action
that restricts freedom of speech or of the press
based on content is given the strictest scrutiny in
the light of its inherent and invasive impact. Only
when the challenged act has overcome the clear
and present danger test will it pass constitutional
 muster, with the government having the burden of
overcoming the presumed constitutionality.
- Based on substance or content itself.
- Subject to clear and present danger test.
- The interest of the government must be
compelling.
Nicolas-Lewis vs. Comelec - With respect to content-
based restrictions, the government must also show the
type of harm the speech sought to be restrained would
bring about - especially the gravity and the imminence
of the threatened harm - otherwise the prior restraint
will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech based on its
content cannot be justified by hypothetical fears, "but
only by showing a substantive and imminent evil that
has taken the life of a reality already on ground." As
formulated, "the question in every case is whether the
words used are used in such circumstances and are of
such a nature as to create a clear and present danger
that they will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of
proximity and degree."
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff – padlocking of Metropolitan
Mail and We Forum – invalid
Eastern Broadcasting vs. Dans (137 SCRA 647) –
arbitrary closure of radio station – invalid
Viva Productions vs. CA and Hubert Webb, the
injunction issued by the court was declared illegal for
lack of any clear and present danger.
Comelec’s power:
Mutuc vs. Comelec – prohibition against taped jingles
is invalid for being in the nature of censorship.
Sanidad vs. Comelec, 181 SCRA 529) – RA2167 is
void restricting journalists to publish about the
plebiscite. Void for having no justification. Content-
based.
Adiong vs. Comelec, 207 SCRA 712, prohibiting the
public exhibition of propaganda in any place private or
public except the common poster area. Free speech
has a status of preferred freedom. Balancing of
interest between individual freedom on the one hand
and public interest on the other. The posting of decals
and stickers in mobile places does not endanger any
substantial government interest.
National Press Club vs. Comelec (207 SCRA 1)
prohibition from selling or giving of print space or
airtime except to comelec was declared valid.
Telebap vs. Comelec (April 21, 1998) – procurement
of airtime free of charge to comelec was declared valid
as the franchise is always subject to alteration,
amendment or repeal by congress.
SWS vs. Comelec (2001), prohibition of publication of
surveys of national position 15 days before election,
and of local position 7 days before election was
declared an invalid prior restraint.
OVERBREADTH Doctrine – invades the area of
protected freedom. When the law sweeps
unnecessarily broadly and invades an area of
protected freedom. The overbreadth doctrine decrees
that a governmental purpose to control or prevent
activities constitutionally subject to state regulations
may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of
protected freedoms.
Vagueness test - The void-for-vagueness doctrine
holds that a law is facially invalid if men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application.
Southern Hemisphere vs. Anti-Terrorism Council
(October 5, 2010) – doctrine of vague for vagueness
and overbreadth.
ABS-CBN vs. Comelec – Exit polls were prohibited as
it might be in conflict with official results. Not valid
regulation. Exit polls are random samples that cannot
be at par with the official result.
Kapunan vs. De Villa – Kapunan was detained due to
his alleged involvement in a coup attempt and
subjected to court-martial. He was prohibited from
making press statement or press con. Said regulation
is valid when military officers are facing court martial
because of the necessity to observe military discipline
to follow orders without questioning. While it is true
that military officers have freedom of expression, they
may not give interviews if facing court-martial.
3) Access to Information
4) Freedom of Circulation
SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT. One may be allowed
to do anything subject to punishment.
3 types:
1. Prosecution (sedition)
2. Damages
3. Contempt
Libel, contempt and obscenity:
Soriano vs. Laguardia (2009) - It has been established
in this jurisdiction that unprotected speech or low-
value expression refers to libelous statements,
obscenity or pornography, false or misleading
advertisement, insulting or fighting words, i.e., those
which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to
incite an immediate breach of peace and expression
endangering national security.
Libel – a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or
a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to
cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who
is dead.
Two possibilities – private person and public person.
When directed against private individual, one is not
entitled to constitutional protection since there is no
advancement of public interest. There is a
presumption of malice.
Presumption of malice will not apply in the following
instances:
1. Private communication made by any person to
another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty.
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith,
without any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative, or other official proceedings, which are not
of a confidential nature, or of any statement, report or
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any act
performed by public officers in the exercise of their
functions.
When directed against public official, Section 4 may
be invoked because official should be open for
criticism to enhance public service. The criticism must
be of his public function and not to his private life. If it
has nothing to do with the public function, freedom of
expression cannot be invoked.
Vasquez vs. CA (September 15, 1989.
Vasquez criticized the barangay captain as a
landgrabber. The SC reversed the conviction of
Vasquez. According to SC, when the public official
charged one with libel related to his function, it is his
burden to prove that the statement is false. The
imputation must be related to the official function. It
must also be proved that the statement was made
maliciously.
How to prove malicious statement:
First, knowledge of the falsity.
Second, reckless disregard of what is true.
Borjal vs. CA (1988) – Public official covers public
figures. One need not be a public official to be a public
figure.
New York Time vs. Solivan – A public figure is who, by
his accomplishment, fame, mode of living, or by
adopting a profession or calling which gives the public
interest in his doings, affairs and his character.
For a public figure, the presumption will be reversed.
CONTEMPT – disrespect directed against the court.
Contempt applies usually when there is a pending
case, but recently, even without pending cases.
SWS vs. Asuncion (1993) – contempt can be imposed
even if there is no pending case to safeguard the
respect of the people for the courts.
In re: Column of Ramon Tulfo: Tulfo accused SC as
“sangkatutak na bobo”. It was declared contumacious.
Freedom of the press is subordinate to the decision,
authority, integrity and independence of the judiciary
and the proper administration of justice.
In Re: Emil Jurado (1995) – Judges were accused of
corruption. Jurado was cited for contempt. He was
found guilty. (Reverse presumption was not applied
even if the persons involved were judges, hence,
public officers).
OBSCENITY –
U.S. vs. Kottinger, 45 Phil. 352 – accused was
acquitted from the charge of offering for sale half-clad
members of non-christian tribes, holding that he had
only presented them in their native attire.
People vs. Go Pin – Accused exhibited nude paintings
and pictures. He was declared as the purpose was
commercial for charging admission fee.
Pita vs. Court of Appeals – the issue of obscenity is a
judicial function.
Gonzales vs. Katigbak – The power of the Board of
Review was upheld. Power to review is only for
classification and not for censorship.
PITA vs. CA. Bagatsing (1989) – The established
basic guidelines are as follows:
a. Whether the average person, applying
contemporary standards, would find the work, taken
as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
b. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a
patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable state law;
c. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
In said case, the acts of Mayor Bagatsing was
declared invalid for failure to observe due process.

Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CA (1996) – (attacking other
religions) – Government as the burden to prove the
validity of its action. In x-rating the program, the Board
failed to apply the clear and present danger rule.
Freedom of religion carries without the right to
disseminate religious information. Restraint can only
be justified by clear and present danger.
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
Assembly – to meet peaceably and discuss or consult
one another on matters of public concen.
Petition – means to address grievances.
PBM Employees Association vs. PBM Steel Mills, the
right to free assembly and petition prevails over
economic rights.
Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals – the education of the
youth occupies a preferred position over – or at the
very least, equated with – the freedom of assembly
and petition.
BP 880 – An Act ensuring Free Exercise By the
People of Their Right Peaceably to Assemble and
Petition the Government and For Other Purposes.
Salient Features:
1. Public Assembly means any rally,
demonstration, march, parade, procession, or any
other form of mass or concerted action held in a public
place for the purpose of presenting a lawful cause; or
expressing an opinion to the general public on any
particular issue; or protesting or influencing any state
of affairs whether political, economic, or social; or
petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
2. The definition shall not include picketing and
other concerted action in strike areas by workers and
employees resulting from a labor dispute as defined
by the Labor Code, etc.
3. Public Place shall include any highway,
boulevard, avenue, road, street, bridge or other
thoroughfare, park, plaza, square, and/or any open
space of public ownership where the people are
allowed access.
4. Maximum tolerance means the highest degree
of restraint that the military, police and other peace
keeping authorities shall observe during a public
assembly or in the dispersal of the same.
5. Permit – written permit is required to hold
public assembly in a public place. No permit is
required for assemblies in freedom park, in private
property, in campus of a government educational
institution. Political rallies are not covered by the Act.
Reyes vs. Bagatsing (1983) – Reyes applied for
permit to rally in front of the gate of US Embassy.
Mayor Bagatsing denied it. SC ruled that Mayor
cannot deny the application. If there is clear and
present danger, he should suggest for another place.
There must be proof of sufficient weight to satisfy clear
and present danger test.
Malabanan vs. Sarmiento (19884) – right to assembly
is not subject to prior restraint. However, the
peaceable character of the assembly could be lost,
however, by an advocacy of disorder under the name
of dissent. If there are violations to the permit, the
penalty incurred should not be disproportionate to the
offense.
Nestle vs. Sanchez (1987) – picket was held in front of
the SC to pressure it to render a favorable decision.
The SC prohibited the holding of rallies in the vicinity
of any and all courts. Also fundamental is the right of
every citizen to have justice administered by the
courts under the protection and form of law free from
outside coercion and interference.
Miriam College Foundation vs. Court of Appeals
(2000) – (Campus Journalism Act) - students may not
be suspended or expelled solely on the basis of the
articles written, except when such article materially
disrupts class, work or involves substantial disorder or
invasion of right of others.
Dela Cruz vs. CA (1999) – Public school teachers
were dismissed from service for joining a mass action.
SC held that the mass action amounted to a strike. No
constitutional right was involved. The acts were
prejudicial to the best interest of the service by staging
protest during school days.
Bayan vs. Ermita (2006) – Constitutionality of BP 880.
It merely regulates the time, place and manner of the
assemblies. This is a content-neutral restriction that
applies to all kinds of assemblies. Lawful cause does
not make it content-based, otherwise the assembly
would not be peaceable.
CPR – in view of the maximum tolerance mandated by
BP 880, CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the
same thing as maximum tolerance, and is illegal if it
means something else. It confuses the people.
“The terms of the application cannot be modified if
there is no clear and present danger.