MEDIA LAWS AND ETHICS
PH-P204 between the
A. Basic Terminologies
1. Media – are the communication outlets or tools used to store and deliver
information or data.
1.1 Kinds of Media:
- Printed
- Broadcast
- New Age (e.g. vlogs)
- Narrow Cast (e.g. films and cinemas)
2. Law – rule of conduct that are just and obligatory which were promulgated
by competent authority, for the common of servants and benefit of all.
3. Ethics – is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending,
and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
I. INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOLS
A. Pacta Sunt Servanda – Latin term translated to as “agreements must be
kept”
It is a principle under public international law that agreements
entered between two parties, being a signatory therein, shall be enforced.
Situation 1: Philippines entered an agreement with United States of
America. Under the agreement, both States shall render aid in military
exercises. Philippines was ambushed by a third-party State. Applying pacta
sunt servanda, United States of America shall render aid in outwitting the
enemies as based on the agreement since, “agreements must be kept”.
Without the help of this principle, it must be noted that no international law
must be enforced.
Situation 2: Abaya v. Ebdane, G.R. No. 167919, February
14, 2007.
There was a Loan Agreement entered between Philippines and Japan
aimed at promoting our country’s economic stabilization and development
efforts.
The petitioners insist that Loan Agreement No.
JBIC and the Philippine Government is neither a treaty, an international nor
an executive agreement that would bar the application of RA 9184. They
point out that to be considered a treaty, an international or an executive
agreement, the parties must be two sovereigns or States whereas in the case
of Loan Agreement No. PH-P204, the parties are the Philippine Government
and the JBIC, a banking agency of Japan, which has a separate juridical
personality from the Japanese Government.
The public respondents defended and further characterize foreign
loan agreements, including Loan Agreement No. PH-P204, as executive
agreements and, as such, should be observed pursuant to the fundamental
principle in international law of pacta sunt servanda, citing Section 20 of
Article VIl of the Constitution as giving the President the authority to
contract foreign loans.
The Supreme Court held that, under the fundamental principle of
international law of pacta sunt servanda, which is, in fact, embodied in
Section 4 of RA 9184 as it provides that "[a]ny treaty or international or
executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the
Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed." Hence, the Loan
Agreement entered between two parties is considered as a treaty. Further, It
is stated that "treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols,
declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of
notes" all refer to "international instruments binding at international law.
"67 It is further explained that Although these instruments differ from each
other by title, they have common features and international law has applied
basically the same rules to all these instruments. These rules are the result of
long practice among the States, which have accepted them as binding norms
in their mutual relations. Therefore, they are regarded as international
customary law. Applying the concept of pacta sunt servanda, that
agreements must be kept.
B. Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.
C. Doctrine of Incorporation – a principle under international law that,
rules of international law, form part of the law of the land as a municipal law
without further legislative action be made.
NOTE: In the Philippines, Doctrine of Incorporation is
stated in Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.
This constitutional provision enunciates the doctrine of
incorporation which mandates that the Philippines is
bound by generally accepted principles of international
law which automatically form part of Philippine law by
operation of the Constitution.
Situation 1: Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465,
January 18, 2000.
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal
tribunals are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a
conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the
constitution or statute of a local state. Efforts should be done to harmonize
them. In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a
choice has to be made between a rule of international law and municipal law,
jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal
courts. The doctrine of incorporation decrees that rules of international law
are given equal standing, but are not superior to, national legislative
enactments.
On the issue on Whether or not respondent’s entitlement to notice
and hearing during the evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a
breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the RP-US
Extradition Treaty, the Supreme Court held that whether or not respondent’s
entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine
Government under the RP-US Extradition Treaty.
D. UN Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone
document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with
different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, it set
out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected.
D.1 Section 3, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people
and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and
the integrity of the national territory.
NOTE: It is clear in this provision that civilian authority is
supreme over the military. Also, it provided the prime
duty of the military. Hence, the only goal of the military is
to protect the people and the State, but not being supreme
over the people by way of mandating and governing them.
Applying both provisions using pacta sunt servanda and the
Doctrine of Incorporation, as Philippines takes pride in its role as pioneers
during the formulation and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, its constituents shall be entitled with human rights. Since Philippines
is a member of the agreement, then whatever that was stated on the
agreement must be kept being a signatory of it.
D.2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Arts 1, 2, 8, 9)
Art. 1 – All human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience
and should act towards one another in a spirit of
brotherhood.
Art. 2 - Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms
set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind,
such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on
the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international
status of the country or territory to which a person belongs,
whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or
under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Art. 8 - Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the
 fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by
law.
Art. 9 - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest,
detention or exile.
Situation 1: Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-4254,
September 26, 1951
Facts: Boris Mejoff petition for habeas corpus. Boris is an alien of
Russian descent who was brought to the Philippines from Shanghai as a
secret operative by the Japanese forces during the Japanese occupation. He
was arrested as a Japanese spy by the US Army Counter Intelligence Corps
and was later handed to the Commonwealth Government. The People’s Court
ordered for his release. But, the deportation board found that he has no travel
documents so they passed the case to the Board of Commissioners of
Immigration. The board ordered his deportation back to Russia.
He was under custody in Cebu Jail to await the arrival of Russian
vessels. 2 Russian vessels arrived that year but refused to take him as their
masters did not allow them arguing that they had no authority. He was kept
under temporary detention while arrangements were being made. The Court
warned that "under established precedents, too long a detention may justify
the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." 2 years passed and they still haven't
found a way to deport him.
Issue: Should Boris, an alien illegally in the Philippines, be released?
Held: Yes. The protection against deprivation of liberty without due
process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land
is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy
aliens, regardless of nationality. Whether an alien who entered the country in
violation of its immigration laws may be detained for as long as the
Government is unable to deport him, is a point we need not decide. The
petitioner's entry into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by
the armed and belligerent forces of a de facto government whose decrees
were law during the occupation.
The Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of Nation." This includes the “Universal
Declaration of Human Rights". "All human beings are born free and equal in
degree and rights" (Art. 1); that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and
freedom set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality or
social origin, property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2): that "Everyone has the
right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law"
(Art. 8); that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile"
(Art. 9); etc.
D.3 Freedom of opinion and of expression
Right of the people to freely express their own thoughts,
ideas, beliefs on a particular manner without being restrained.
However, people must be responsible of their actions and must know
their limitations when it comes to expressing their own statements.
SITUATION: In a previously decided administrative case
by the Supreme Court, there was a union of teachers who
conducted a strike for various dates in redress of their
grievances. Here, their employment was terminated
although the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
ordered them to return to work which the teachers failed
to do so. The union was arguing that it is a violation of
their constitutional right. It was held there is nothing
wrong in redressing grievances, however they should still
consider that they should not leave their posts since
students will lose their right to education.
Art. 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
NOTE: Is to be considered as a fundamental right as
prescribed under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
E. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
 This Covenant was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976. By May of
2012, the Covenant had been ratified by 167 states.
The Covenant elaborates further the civil and political rights and
freedoms listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
E.1 Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in
barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and
the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of
speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been
proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have
recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and
oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly
relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter
reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity
and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and
women and have determined to promote social progress and better
standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-
operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal
respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of
the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore,
The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end
that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and
education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their
universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the
peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of
territories under their jurisdiction.
E.2 Article 19
Art. 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Situation 1: People v. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, September 24,
2002
Facts: Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United
States Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine
Government Note Verbale an extradition request of Mark B. Jimenez, also
known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents,
the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of
justice (SOJ) for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential
Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the Extradition Law. Govt. of the
United States v. Jimenez then sought and was granted a TRO to prohibit the
DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition which was later
on assailed by the SOJ. The Court initially dismissed the petition, but later on
reverse its decision when it filed its Motion for Reconsideration and held that
private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the
evaluation stage of the extradition process.
On May 18, 2001, the Government of the United States of America,
represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC, the appropriate
Petition for Extradition. In order to prevent
the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his
immediate arrest pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069. Govt. of the United
States v. Respondent Jimenez then filed an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte
Motion, praying for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. The RTC granted the
Motion of Jimenez and set a date for hearing. When the arrest warrant was
issued, he was granted bail for his temporary liberty in the amount of one
million pesos in cash.
Issue: Whether an extraditee is entitled to notice and hearing before
issuance of warrant of arrest.
Held: No. On the basis of the Extradition Law, the word immediate
was used to qualify the arrest of the accused. This qualification would be
rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant.
Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties, receiving facts and
arguments from them, and giving them time to prepare and present such
facts and arguments. When it requires a speedy action on the petition, the
trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination to ferret out
the true and actual situation, immediately upon the filing of the petition.
From the knowledge and the material then available to it, the court is
expected merely to get a good first impression -- a prima facie finding --
sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and
detention of the accused.
On the basis also of the Constitution, Section 2 Article III does not
require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The
Constitution only requires examination under oath or affirmation of
complaints and the witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to
notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest.  The
judges merely determine personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt
of an accused.
F. World Summit on Information Society Declarations
Its purpose is to address issues related to the global digital divide. It
was broadened later to include internet related public policy issues.
To create an information society where everyone can create, access,
utilize, and share information.
Focuses on the cooperation and partnerships of countries. And,
deals more when it comes with information.
II. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
CONSTITUTION
It is a written and codified document which serves as the
fundamental law of the state. A written instrument enacted
by direct action of the people by which the fundamental
powers of the government are established, limited, and
defined, and by which those powers are distributed among
the several departments for their safe and useful exercise
for the benefit of the people. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,
G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997)
A. Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936
Facts: Petitioner Jose Angara together with Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and
Dionisio Mayor were candidates to be seated in the National Assembly for
the first district of the Province of Tayaban.
Angara won and was proclaimed and took his oath. Thereafter,
Ynsua filed an election protest before the Electoral Commission (EC) on
December 8, 1935. However, EC adopted its own resolution that it will not
consider any election protest that was not submitted on or before December
9, 1935. On the other hand, Angara sought the dismissal of Ynsua’s protest
arguing that the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the electoral
Commission solely as regards the merits of contested elections to the
National Assembly, that the Constitution excludes from said jurisdiction the
power to regulate the proceedings of said election contests, which power has
been reserved to the Legislative Department of the Government or the
National Assembly, that like the Supreme Court and other courts created in
pursuance of the Constitution, whose exclusive jurisdiction relates solely to
deciding the merits of controversies submitted to them for decision and to
matters involving their internal organization, the Electoral Commission can
regulate its proceedings only if the National Assembly has not availed of its
primary power to so regulate such proceedings, that Resolution No. 8 of the
National Assembly is, therefore, valid and should be respected and obeyed,
and that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass upon the fundamental
question herein raised because it involves an interpretation of the
Constitution of the Philippines.
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction over the Electoral
Commission and the subject matter of the controversy.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the EC and the subject
matter in controversy.
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our
government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in
our Constitution.
In regards with the concept of checks and balances, in its power to
determine what courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established to
define their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their support on the
National Assembly that controls the judicial department to a certain extent.
Here, the EC is a constitutional organ with the sole power to
determine contests over electoral protests. EC is no a separate department of
the government, and if it were, conflicting claims of authority under the
fundamental law between department powers and agencies of the
government are necessarily determined by the judiciary in justifiable and
appropriate cases.
B. Government of the Philippine Islands v. Springer, G.R. No. 26979,
April 1, 1927
Facts: There was an Act created by the Philippine Legislature – Act No. 2705
and Act No. 2822. Here, there were three directors pursuant to the National
Coal Company that were elected to their positions.
“The voting power of all such stock owned by the Government of the
Philippine Islands shall be vested exclusively in a committee consisting of
the Governor-General, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives.”
Issue: Whether the Philippine Legislature has an authority to appoint
officials.
Held: No. Pursuant to Section 22 of the Organic Act,” That all executive
functions of the government must be directly under the Governor-General or
within one of the executive department under the supervision and control of
the Governor-General.”
The performance of duties appointment to membership in the voting
committee is an executive function on the government. The administrative
domination of a governmentally organized and controlled corporation is
clearly not a duty of the legislative.
C. Regalado v. Yulo, G.R. No. L-42935, February 15, 1935
Facts: Petitioner Felipe Regalado was a qualified candidate to be seated to
the Office of Justice of Peace of Malinao, Albay where he took office until
he turned 65 years old on September 13, 1934. With this, the person of
Esteban T. Villar was designated to be seated to the Office of Justice of
Peace replacing Regalado. However, Regalado did protest upon leaving his
post.
Issue: Whether or not under the provisions of section 203 of the
Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3899, the justices of the peace
and auxiliary justices of the peace appointed prior to the approval of the last
mentioned Act who reached the age of sixty-five years after said Act took
effect shall cease to hold office upon reaching the age of sixty-five years.
Held: No. The provision of the Act clearly indicates that justices of the peace
who turned 65 years of age by the time this Act took effect shall cease to
hold office on January 1, 1933. It must be noted that the provision took effect
on November 16, 1931.
Here, Regalado turned 65 years of age on September 13, 1934
subsequent to the approval of the Act which was on November 16, 1931 and
hence, Regalado is not affected by the provision. Therefore, it is the
judgement of the Supreme Court that Villar must be ousted and Regalado
shall be seated to the Office of Justice of Peace.
NOTE: Applying the concept of Verba Legis in Statutory
Construction, which means that whenever possible, the
words used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are
 employed. “Plain Meaning Rule.” Here, it is clear on the
Act that only those who turned 65 years old from the time
of the enactment of the statute until January 1, 1933 are
affected. Since Regalado turned 65 years old on
September 13, 1934, he shall not be affected by the
statute.
Verba Legis – which means that whenever possible, the
words used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are
employed.
Ratio Legis Est Anima – which means that in case of
ambiguity, the words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers.
D. Tecson v. COMELEC
E. Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November
10, 2003
Facts: There were two impeachment cases that were filed in this case. In
regards with the first impeachment case, former President Joseph Estrada
filed an impeachment case against Chief Justice Hilario G. David Jr. and
seven associate justices for culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of
public trust and other high crimes wherein the House Committee on Justice
held that the impeachment case that was filed was sufficient in form.
However, they opted to dismiss the case being insufficient in substance. A
second impeachment case was filed and this time it was accompanied with a
signature of one-third of the members of the House of Representatives.
It was then being argued that the second impeachment case that was
filed is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section 5, Article XI of
the Constitution that, “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
Issue: Whether the offenses alleged in the second impeachment complaint
constitute valid impeachable offenses under the Constitution.
Held: Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution enumerates six grounds for
impeachment, two of these, namely, other high crimes and betrayal of public
trust, elude a precise definition. In fact, an examination of the records of the
1986 Constitutional Commission shows that the framers could find no better
way to approximate the boundaries of betrayal of public trust and other high
crimes than by alluding to both positive and negative examples of both,
without arriving at their clear cut definition or even a standard therefor.
Clearly, the issue calls upon this court to decide a non-justiciable political
question which is beyond the scope of its judicial power under Section 1,
Article VIII.
F. Casela v. CA, G.R. No. L-26754, October 16, 1970
Facts: On October 26, 1956, the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) that
Mateo be ejected and to vacate the premises and remove his house therefrom.
Mateo refused to the writ of execution three times. Instead, he instituted a
civil case before the Court of First Instance asking Magsaysay to pay him the
value of his house in the amount of P5,000.00, improvements of P2,000.00,
in addition to damages in the sum of P1,600.00. He also filed a motion for
suspension of the implementation of the writ of execution. Magsaysay filed a
counter-motion to declare the defendant and the provincial Sheriff in
contempt of Court. The civil case was eventually brought to the CA. The CA
dismissed Mateo’s appeal.
So, Magsaysay filed a motion on December 6, 1963 and another
dated February 11, 1964 praying for the issuance of an alias writ of execution
attaching thereto a copy of the CA’s decision. The agrarian court, however,
in an order dated March 5, 1964, denied the motion, arguing that its decision
dated October 26, 1956 could no longer be executed on mere motion for the
reason that a period of five (5) years had already elapsed from the said date.
Magsaysay moved for reconsideration.
That the decision of October 26, 1956 of the Court of Agrarian
Relations became final and executory on December 17, 1956, is not
controverted. Counting five years from December 17, 1956, the plaintiff
Exequiel Magsaysay had until December 17, 1961 within which to move for
execution of the said decision. It would thus appear that Magsaysay's motion
for execution of December 11, 1963, having been filed beyond the five-year
reglementary period, was time-barred.
Issue: Whether Magsaysay filed beyond the five-year reglementary period.

Held: No. He exhausted all legal means within his power to eject Casela from
his land. But the writs of execution issued by the lower court were not
complied with and/or were suspended by reason of acts or causes not of
Magsaysay's own making and against his objections.
From December 17, 1956 when the decision in question became final
and executory, to December 11, 1963, the date when Magsaysay's motion for
execution was filed, a period of six years, eleven months and twenty-four
days elapsed. From this period must be subtracted the time during which the
writs of execution could not be served, or a period of three years, nine
months and twenty-five days. Consequently, only three years, one month and
twenty-nine days can be charged against the five-year reglementary period.
Undoubtedly, therefore, Magsaysay's motion for execution of December 11,
1963 was filed well within the five-year reglementary period.
Conscience and equity should always be considered in the
construction of statutes. The courts are not to be hedged in by the literal
meaning of the language of the statute; the spirit and intendment thereof
must prevail over its letter. This rule of construction is especially applicable
where adherence to the letter of the statute would result in absurdity and
injustice.
G. La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, G.R. No. 127882,
December 1, 2004
Facts: A petition for prohibition and mandamus was filed challenging the
constitutionality of RA 7942 otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act
of 1995, its Implementing Rules and Regulations (DENR Administrative
Order No. [DAO] 96-40); and the FTAA dated March 30, 1995, executed by
the government with Western Mining Corporation (Philippines), Inc.
(WMCP) which was granted by the court and held the unconstitutionality of
certain provisions of RA 7942, DAO 96-40, as well as of the entire FTAA
executed between the government and WMCP, mainly on the finding that
FTAAs are service contracts prohibited by the 1987 Constitution.
It was found by the court that it was antithetical to the principle of
sovereignty over our natural resources, because they allowed foreign control
over the exploitation of our natural resources, to the prejudice of the Filipino
nation.
Issue: Whether it is to be considered unconstitutional as it violates the
provision Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
Held: In regards with RA 7942, it is unconstitutional since it provided fully
foreign owned corporations to exploit the Philippine natural resources.
Article XII Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution retained the Regalian
Doctrine which states that ―All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.
The same section also states that, ―the exploration and development and
utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision
of the State.
H. Due Process
Due process is the right of every constituent to be heard, to have a
speedy, impartial, and public trial.
Procedural Due Process:
Requires, essentially, the opportunity to be heard in which
every citizen is given the chance to defend himself or explain his side
through the protection of general rules of procedure. It contemplates
notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.
Substantive Due Process:
Requires that the law itself is valid, fair, reasonable, and just.
For the law to be fair and reasonable it must have a valid objective
which is pursued in a lawful manner. The objective of the
government is valid when it pertains to the interest of the general
public, as distinguished from those of a particular class. The manner
of pursuing the objective is lawful if the means employed are
reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive.
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IN THE 1987 PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION:
Art III, Sec. 1 – No person shall be deprived of live,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
 any person be denied the equal protection of laws.
Art. III, Sec. 14(1) – No person shall be held to answer
for a criminal offense without due process of law.
This right is also recognized in the international community through
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention
on Civil and Political Rights, which also guarantees the right to life, liberty,
and due process of law, among others.
H.1 Cornejo v. Gabriel, G.R. No. 16887, November 17, 1920
Facts: In this case, there were complaints against Miguel Cornejo,
who is the municipal President of Pasay, filed to Andres Gabriel, the
provincial Governor of Rizal, in regards with the conducts acted by the
former. Thereafter, Gabriel conducted his investigations and held that
Cornejo be temporarily suspended.
Cornejo contends that the suspension was done without him being
heard. There was no hearing and it deprived him of his to due process in
filing an answer.
Issue: Whether Cornejo was deprived of his right to due process.
Held: No. The Supreme Court was guided by the statement of Judge
Cooley that due process of law is not necessarily judicial process; much of
the process by means of which the Government is carried on, and the order of
society maintained, is purely executive or administrative, which is as much
due process of law, as is judicial process. Further, in certain proceedings,
therefore, of an administrative character, it may be stated, without fear of
contradiction, that the right to a notice and hearing are not essential to due
process of law.
"Due process of law" has been defined many, many times, and
simply means that before a man can be deprived of his life, liberty or
property, he must be given an opportunity to defend himself.”
H.2 Associated Communications & Wireless Services v. Dumlao,
G.R. No. 136762, November 21, 2002
I. Equal Protection
The fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is not absolute,
but is subject to reasonable classification. If the groupings are characterized
by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be
treated and regulated differently from another. The classification must also
be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to
the same class.
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and
individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the
oppression of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit legislation which is
limited either by the object to which it is directed or by the territory within
which it is to operate. It does not demand absolute equality among residents;
it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which
applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies
alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable. grounds exist for
making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who
do not. (Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957)
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IN THE 1987
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION:
Art III, Sec. 1 – No person shall be deprived of live,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of laws.
While democracy promotes freedom and equality for all, in many
countries, it is precisely this inequality, the unfairness in the experience of
public goods, that has added to the appeal of the so-called populist message
and the pro-poor platform.
I.1 City of Manila v. Posadas, G.R. No. L-23551, November 25,
1925
Facts: Respondent Metropolitan Water District raises claims to have
interests which are adverse to those of the petitioner.
The Metropolitan Water District has been sending bills to the
government of the City of Manila for the collection or the services the former
rendered to the latter. The City of Manila has been paying some of those
water bills but refused to pay the others.

Prior to that, the Metropolitan Water District unanimously approved
Resolution No. 21 entitled, “A resolution to fix charges, and the rates thereof,
for all services rendered by the Metropolitan Water District,” is by which all
consumers of water were to be charged uniform rates.
Thereafter, the Insular Auditor then made demand in the City of
Manila for the payment and settlement of said claim, advising them that,
upon failure of payment he would exercise the power vested in him by Sec.
588 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Sec. 1 of Act No. 3066 but
the City of Manila still refused to comply with said demand.
Issue: Whether the City of Manila is entitled to pay the charges in
pursuant of Act No. 2832, “Does not empower the Metropolitan Water
District, either expressly or impliedly or in general terms, to charge for water
consumed by petitioner, from the water system of the City of Manila”
Held: There is no pretense that the City of Manila has any claim of
any kind against the Metropolitan Water District has against the city is for
the use of water, and the city disputes the validity of the claim.
The Supreme Court held that the situation was an attempt was made
to take money out of the government treasury, which belongs to the City of
Manila, a municipal corporation, and apply it to the payment of a debt which
a public corporation claims to have against the city. That proceeding was in
direct conflict with three of the express provisions of Sec. 3 of the Jones
Law.
First, it violates that portion of the section which says that no law
shall be enacted “which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law.”
The answer does not claim or allege that the city was ever served
with any process or that it had notice or was given an opportunity to defend
itself before the Insular Auditor rendered his decision.
Second, it violates that portion of the section which says: “That no
money shall be paid out of the treasury exception pursuance of an
appropriation by law.”
It is not claimed It is not claimed that any appropriation was made by
the Government of the city to pay the claim of the Metropolitan Water
District against the city, and yet over the vigorous protest and objection of
the city, defendants propose to take money out of the government treasury,
which belongs to the city, and pay an-alleged debt of the Metropolitan Water
District against the city. No money can be taken out of the Government
treasury for any purpose without an appropriation having first been made for
that specific purpose. In legal effect that was the decision of this court in
Gotamco v. Wright, decided November 5, 1924, and published in 46 Phil.,
467, where in an opinion written by Justice Ostrand, it is said:
". . . Section 3 of the Organic Act expressly provides that ’no money shall be
paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation by law.’
Neither the Insular Collector of Customs nor any other official of the
Government is authorized to order the expenditure of unappropriated funds,. .
."
And third, the other provision which says:
"That all money collected on any tax levied or assessed for a special purpose
shall be treated as a special fund in the treasury and paid out for such purpose
only."
Here, the defendants purpose to take public money from and out of
the government treasury, which is in a special fund, and which was assessed,
levied and collected for a special purpose, and pay it over to a public
corporation. In other words, to take money out of the government treasury,
which was assessed, levied and collected for the exclusive use and benefit of
the City of Manila, a municipal corporation, and pay it to the Metropolitan
Water District, which is a public corporation.
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION:
The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is
not absolute but is subject to reasonable classification. To
be reasonable, the classification (a) must be based on
substantial distinctions which make for real differences; (b)
must be germane to the purpose of the law; (c) must not be
limited to existing conditions only; and (d) must apply
equally to each member of the class.
The guarantee of equal protection means that “no person or
class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of
the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes
 in the same place and in like circumstances.”[11] It means
that “all persons or things similarly situated should be
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed.” The guarantee does not provide absolute
equality of rights or indiscriminate operation on persons.
Persons or things that are differently situated may thus be
treated differently. Equality only applies among equals.
What is prohibited by the guarantee is the discriminatory
legislation which treats differently or favors others when
both are similarly situated.
I.2 Felwa v. Salas, G.R. No. L-26511, October 29, 1996
I.3 Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957
Ruling: The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor
and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the
oppression of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit legislation which is
limited either by the object to which it is directed or by the territory within
which it is to operate. It does not demand absolute equality among residents;
it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which
applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies
alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable. grounds exist for
making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who
do not.
I.4 Agustin v. Edu, G.R. No. L-49112, February 2, 1979
J. Article III, Section 4
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances.
NOTE:
Freedom of expression has four aspects, to wit: (a)
freedom of speech; (b) freedom of expression; (c) freedom
of the press; and (d) freedom of assembly. Nonetheless,
the scope of the protection extends to right to form
associations or societies not contrary to law, right to
access to information on matters of public concern, and
freedom of religion. These are all crucial to the
advancement of beliefs and ideas and the establishment of
an “uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate in the free
market of ideas.”
Freedom of press implies that all people should have the
right to express themselves in writing or in any other way
of expression of personal opinion or creativity.
Freedom of assembly refers to the right to hold a rally to
voice out grievances against the government. In addition,
we might be wondering why is there a need for a permit.
Permit is required to hold a rally. It must be emphasized,
however, that the permit is not a requirement for the
validity of the assembly or rally, because the right is not
subject to prior restraint. Rather, the permit is a
requirement for the use of the public place.
J.1 Clear and Present Danger Rule
Situation 1: Francisco Chavez v. Raul Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338,
February 15, 2008
K. Article III, Section 7
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
K.1 Legaspi v. CSC, G.R. No. L-72119, May 29, 1987
The fundamental right of the people to information on matters of
public concern is invoked in this special civil action for mandamus instituted
by Legaspi against the CSC. Here, Legaspi requested an information in
regards to the employment of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas as
sanitarians claiming that they passed the civil service examinations for
sanitarians. However, the Solicitor General contends that Legaspi does not
possess any clear legal right to be informed of the civil service eligibilities of
the government employees concerned. Also, that there is no ministerial duty
on the part of the commission to furnish the petitioner with the information
he seeks. On the other hand, petitioner has firmly anchored his case upon the
right of the people to information on matters of public concern, which by its
very nature, is a public right.
In regards to the legal standing, the court was guided by a previously
decided case, Subido v. Ozaeta, that the term “public” is a comprehensive,
all-inclusive term. Properly construed, it embraces every person. To say that
only those who have a present and existing interest of a pecuniary character
in the particular information sought are given the right of inspection is to
make an unwarranted distinction. Thus, the petitioner, being a citizen who as
such is clothed with personality to seek redress for the alleged obstruction of
the exercise of the public right. The court finds no cogent reason to deny his
standing to bring the suit.
Further, in regards to the right to information, the court takes judicial
notice of the fact that the names of those who pass the civil service
examinations, as in bar examinations and licensure examinations for various
professions, are released to the public.
K.2 Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465. January 18,
2000
K.3 Chavez v. NHA, G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007
There was a memorandum order being challenged, Memorandum
Order No. 161, wherein the goal of this is, approving and directing the
implementation of the Comprehensive and Integrated Metropolitan Manila
Waste Management Phase. Here, the Metropolitan Manila Commission in
coordination with various government agencies was tasked as the lead
agency to implement the plan as formulated by the Presidential Task Force
on Waste Management created by Memorandum Circular No. 39.
Thereafter, NHA was ordered to “conduct feasibility studies and
develop low-cost housing projects at the dumpsite and absorb scavengers in
NHA resettlement/low-cost housing projects.” And this resulted for the NHA
to have a viable conceptual plan to convert the Smokey Mountain dumpsite
into a habitable housing project.
Furthermore, Republic Act No. 6957 or the B.O.T Law was enacted
wherein its declared policy is to recognize the indispensable role of the
private sector as the main engine for national growth and development and
provide the most appropriate favorable incentives to mobilize private
resources for the purpose.
Issue:
Here, the court held that the constitutional guarantee of the right to
information on matters of public concern enunciated in Sec. 7, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution complements the State’s policy of full public
disclosure in all transactions involving public interest expressed in Sec. 28,
Article II of the 1987 Constitution. These provisions are aimed at ensuring
transparency in policy-making as well as in the operations of the government,
and at safeguarding the exercise by the people of the freedom of expression.
In a democratic society like ours, the free exchange of information is
necessary, and can be possible only if the people are provided the proper
information on matters that affect them.
2 Requisites must concur before the right to information may be
compelled by writ of mandamus:
a.) the information sought must be in relation to matters of public
concern or public interest;
b.) it must not be exempt by law from the operation of the
constitutional guarantee.
K.4 Sereno v. CTRM, G.R. No. 175210, February 1, 2016
K.5 De Leon v. Duterte, G.R. No. 252118, May 8, 2020
In this case, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus against
respondent, Office of the President to: (1) compel respondents to disclose all
the medical and psychological/psychiatric examination results, health
bulletins, and other health records of the President ever since he assumed
Presidency; and (2) psychological/psychiatric examinations, which shall be
publicly disclosed in order to ensure the accuracy of the health records to be
released. This is because of the actions of the President being absent from
several engagements due to health reasons and also had prolonged absences
from public view most especially that it was the time of the surge of COVID-
19.
 Here, petitioner anchors his alleged right to be informed on the basis
of Sec. 12, Article VII and Sec. 7, Article III, in relation to Sec. 28, Article II
of the 1987 Constitution.
Sec. 12, Article VII states that: In case of serious illness of the
President, the public shall be informed of the state of his health. The
members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations
and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be
denied access to the President during such illness.
Here, the court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioner
failed to establish the existence of a clear legal right that was violated, or that
he is entitled to the writ of mandamus prayed for.
The writ of mandamus, however, will not issue to compel an official
to do anything which is not his/her duty to do or which it is his/her duty not
to do, or to give to the applicant anything to which the latter is not entitled by
law. The writ will issue only if the legal right to be enforced is well defined,
clear, and certain.
It bears stressing that for a petition for mandamus to sufficiently
allege a cause of action, petitioner must satisfy the following elements: (1)
the legal right of the plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant
to respect that legal right; and (3) an act or omission of the defendant that
violates such right.
L. Article XVI, Section 11(1), par. 1
The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to
citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives, or associations,
wholly-owned and managed by such citizens.
M. Article XVI, Section 11(1), par. 2
The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial
mass media when the public interest so requires. No combinations in
restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be allowed.
N. Civil Code
O. Revised Penal Code
P. Republic Act No. 8293
An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing
the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for Its Powers and Functions, and
for Other Purposes
Q. Republic Act No. 10175
An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing for The Prevention,
Investigation, Suppression and The Imposition of Penalties Therefor and for
Other Purposes
R. Freedom of Speech
Restrictions:
The State may impose two kinds of restrictions on speech
under a system of prior restraint: content-based restriction and
content-neutral restriction. The restriction is content-based when
restriction is directed to the speech itself, while the restriction is
content-neutral when it is directed, not to the speech itself, but to the
incidents (such as time, place, or manner) of the speech. An example
of a content-based restriction is when the government prohibits
speeches against the President, in which case the restriction is on
the speech itself. An example of a content-neutral restriction is when
the government regulates the manner of posting campaign
advertisements, in which case the restriction is on the manner the
right is made.
S. Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression is accorded the highest protection in the Bill
of Rights since it is indispensable to the preservation of liberty and
democracy. Thus, religious, political, academic, artistic, and commercial
speeches are protected by the constitutional guarantee.
The right is not absolute. It must be exercised within the bounds of
law, morals, public policy and public order, and with due regard for others’
rights. Thus, obscene, libelous, and slanderous speeches are not protected by
the guarantee. So are seditious and fighting words that advocate imminent
lawless conduct.
T. Freedom of the Press
U. Freedom to Information
B. Principles –
The right guarantees access to official records for any lawful
purpose. However, access may be denied by the government if the
information sought involves: (a) National security matters, military and
diplomatic secrets; (b) Trade or industrial secrets; (c) Criminal matters; and
(d) Other confidential information (such as inter-government exchanges prior
to consultation of treaties and executive agreement, and privilege speech).
SALIENT FEATURES OF THE REPORTS:
Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, [February 15, 2008], 569 PHIL
155-297)
1. Dangerous tendency doctrine which permits limitations on
speech once a rational connection has been established
between the speech restrained and the danger contemplated.
2. Balancing of interests tests, used as a standard when courts
need to balance conflicting social values and individual
interests, and requires a conscious and detailed consideration
of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation of
type of situation
3. Clear and present danger rule which rests on the premise
that speech may be restrained because there is 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 prevented must be
substantive, "extremely serious and the degree of imminence
extremely high."(Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338,
[February 15, 2008], 569 PHIL 155-297)

C. Prior restraint – a legal concept that refers to government

1. Chavez v. Gonzales; G.R. No. 168338. February 15, 2008
actions that restrict speech or other forms of expression before
they are made. In other words, it is a form of censorship that
A. Freedom of speech – No law shall be passed abridging the
prevents individuals from expressing themselves or
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of
disseminating information.
the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government
for redress of grievances.
2. Data Privacy Act
DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPEECHES AND THEIR
A. Law
DIFFERENT RESTRAINTS ALLOWED BY LAW
- Republic Act No. 10173. Passed on August 15, 2012, and
took effect on September 6, 2016.
All speech are not treated the same. Some types of speech may
be subjected to some regulation by the State under its
B. Definition of Terms
pervasive police power, in order that it may not be injurious to
the equal right of others or those of the community or
1. Data privacy protects the privacy of individuals while
society.  The difference in treatment is expected because the
ensuring free flow of information to promote innovation and growth.
relevant interests of one type of speech, e.g., political speech,
It regulates the collection, recording, organization, storage, updating
may vary from those of another, e.g., obscene speech.
or modification, retrieval, consultation, use, consolidation, blocking,
Distinctions have therefore been made in the treatment,
erasure or destruction of personal data.
analysis, and evaluation of the permissible scope of
restrictions on various categories of speech||| (Chavez v.
 2. Consent of the subject data refers to any freely given,
specific, informed indication of will, whereby the data subject agrees
to the collection and processing of personal information about and/or
relating to him/her.
3. Data subject refers to an individual whose personal
information is processed.
4. Direct marketing refers to communication by whatever
means of any advertising or marketing material which is directed to
particular individuals.
5. Filing system refers to any act of information relating to
natural or juridical persons to the extent that, although the
information is not processed by equipment operating automatically in
response to instructions given for that purpose, the set is structured,
either by reference to individuals or by reference to criteria relating
to individuals, in such a way that specific information relating to a
particular person is readily accessible.
6. Information and communications system refers to a
system for generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise
processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and
includes the computer system or other similar device by or which
data is recorded, transmitted or stored and any procedure related to
the recording, transmission or storage of electronic data, electronic
message, or electronic document.
7. Personal information refers to any information whether
recorded in a material form or not, from which the identity of an
individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly ascertained
by the entity holding the information, or when put together with
other information would directly and certainly identify as an
individual.
8. Personal information controller refers to a person or
organization who controls the collection, holding, processing or use
of personal information, including a person or organization who
instructs another person or organization to collect, hold, process, use,
transfer or disclose personal information on his or her behalf. The
term excludes:
(1) A person or organization who performs such functions as
instructed by another person or organization; and
(2) An individual who collects, holds, processes or uses
personal information in connection with the individual’s personal,
family or household affairs.
9. Personal information processor refers to any natural or
juridical person qualified to act as such under this Act to whom a
personal information controller may outsource the processing of
personal data pertaining to a data subject.
10. Privileged information refers to any and all forms of
data which under the Rules of Court and other pertinent laws
constitute privileged communication.
11. Sensitive personal information refers to personal
information:
(1) About an individual’s race, ethnic origin, marital status,
age, color, and religious, philosophical or political affiliations;
(2) About an individual’s health, education, genetic or sexual
life of a person, or to any proceeding for any offense committed or
alleged to have been committed by such person, the disposal of such
proceedings, or the sentence of any court in such proceedings;
(3) Issued by government agencies peculiar to an individual
which includes, but not limited to, social security numbers, previous
or current health records, licenses or its denials, suspension or
revocation, and tax returns; and
(4) Specifically established by an executive order or an act of
Congress to be kept classified.
SEPARATE DISCUSSION:
As prescribed in Section 2 of this Act, to wit: SEC. 2.
Declaration of Policy. – It is the policy of the State to protect
the fundamental human right of privacy, of communication
while ensuring free flow of information to promote innovation
and growth. The State recognizes the vital role of information
 and communications technology in nation-building and its 3. What are the kinds of media?
inherent obligation to ensure that personal information in - Printed
information and communications systems in the government - Broadcast
and in the private sector are secured and protected. - New Age (e.g. vlogs)
- Narrow Cast (e.g. films and cinemas)
Right to privacy is not expressly but impliedly provided in
the Constitution. 4. Explain the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
- It is a principle under public international law that agreements
entered between two parties, being a signatory therein, shall be
enforced.

5. Define and differentiate personal information controller from a

personal information processor.
- Personal information controller refers to a person or organization
who controls the collection, holding, processing or use of
personal information, including a person or organization who
instructs another person or organization to collect, hold, process,
use, transfer or disclose personal information on his or her
behalf. The term excludes: (1) A person or organization who
performs such functions as instructed by another person or
organization; and (2) An individual who collects, holds,
processes or uses personal information in connection with the
individual’s personal, family or household affairs. On the other
hand, Personal information processor refers to any natural or
juridical person qualified to act as such under this Act to whom a
personal information controller may outsource the processing of
personal data pertaining to a data subject.
-
POSSIBLE EXAMINATION QUESTIONS: 6. Chavez Case.

1. What is a mass media? 7. Cadajas Case.

- Mass media refers to communication devices, which can be used
to communicate and interact with a large number of audiences in 8. Exceptions in Data Privacy Act
different languages.
- Mass media also remains to be an effective means of
communication, spreading information, advertising, marketing,
and in general, of expressing and sharing views, opinions, and
ideas.

2. Is billboard considered as a media?

- Yes.