Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
Section III- Cannot be invoke by private parties
1. Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board G.R. No. 157870 -Drug
testing for employees, student and candidates
● Invocation of private communication-reasonable expectation of privacy
● Valid/invalid intrusion of states-compelling state interest
2. Ople v. Torres G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998- National ID directed to
government numbers
Reasonable expectation of Privacy requisite:
(1) whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy;
(2) whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.
3. Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-69809 -acquitted for wire
tapping because the extension phone is accepted as part of business
Note: Even if there is an extension line, communication is still private.
4. Morfe v. Mutuc G.R. No. L-20387
5. Sps. Hing v. Choachuy G.R. No. 179736-cctv to their neighborhood- violates
constitutionality of privacy
6. Republic v. Eugenio G.R. No. 174629 February 14, 2008
7. Sabio v. Gordon G.R. No. 174340 October 17, 2006
General Rule: Government official dont have expectation of privacy
Exceptions: When public safety or security is at stake, or when a court orders
access to information. Executive privilege. Security of nation
8. Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College G.R. No. 202666
Exceptions: There are exceptions to privacy protections, especially when public
safety or security is at stake, or when a court orders access to information.
9. Gamboa v. Chan G.R. No. 193636
10.Disini v. Esecutive Secretary G.R. No. 203335
11.Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College G.R. No. 161107
Freedom of Expression
● Scope and Modes of Expressions
1. Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728 land mark case
2. Disini v. Executive Secretary G.R. No. 203335
Elements, Restraints, Tests
Prior restraint -refers to government actions that prevent speech or expression before it
occurs. It is considered the most extreme form of censorship because it stops the
expression before it can reach the
public. As a general rule, prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional and is viewed
with hostility by courts because it directly interferes with the freedom of expression.
Exceptions to Prior Restraint
The Philippine legal system recognizes certain narrow exceptions where prior restraint
may be valid,namely:
1. National Security – When the expression endangers the existence of the state, such as
in times of war or emergency, prior restraint may be imposed. For example, the
publication of sensitive military information that could jeopardize operations may be
subject to prior restraint. The clear and present danger test is often employed to
determine if prior restraint is justified.
2. Obscenity – Materials considered obscene can be subject to prior restraint. In the
Philippines, this is governed by the Obscene Publications Law (Article 201 of the
Revised Penal Code).The test for obscenity was laid down in Miller v. California (413
U.S. 15, 1973), adapted inPhilippine jurisprudence, where content is deemed obscene if
it appeals to prurient interests,depicts sexual conduct in an offensive manner, and lacks
serious literary, artistic, political, orscientific value.
3. Libelous Speech – Defamatory statements may be restrained if they clearly violate the
law onlibel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code. However, such restrictions are
still subjectto careful judicial scrutiny to avoid suppressing legitimate criticisms of
public officials and matters of public interest.
4. Incitement to Violence or Lawless Action – Speech that directly incites imminent
violence,rebellion, sedition, or lawless action may be restrained. The test is whether the
speech creates a clear and present danger of producing substantial harm.
5. Contempt of Court – Certain restrictions may be imposed on the press and public
commentary about ongoing judicial proceedings to preserve the impartiality of the
court and prevent undue influence on judicial decisions. However, such restraints must
be balanced against the public'sright to information.
Subsequent punishment refers to penalties imposed after speech or expression has
already beenmade. Unlike prior restraint, which prevents expression before it occurs,
subsequent punishment allows the expression to happen but holds the speaker
accountable for any illegal or harmful consequences. Common forms of subsequent
punishment include criminal sanctions, civil damages, or administrative penalties.
While subsequent punishment is more tolerable than prior restraint, it is still subject to
constitutional limitations to avoid the chilling effect on free speech.
Content-based Regulation (mismong content) vs. Content-neutral Regulation
Content-based regulations directly target the message of speech, while content-neutral
regulations focus on the time, place, or manner of speech without regard to its content.
Content-based regulations face strict scrutiny in court, meaning they must be narrowly
tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
Content-neutral regulations, on the other hand, are subject to a less stringent standard
of review.
Clear and Present Danger Rule vs. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine vs.
Balance-of-Interest Test
Courts in the Philippines employ various tests to evaluate whether restrictions on
speech—whether
prior restraint or subsequent punishment—are constitutionally valid:
1. Clear and Present Danger Test: This test requires that the government show that the
restricted speech poses a real, imminent threat to public safety, security, or other
legitimate
interests. This is commonly applied in cases involving incitement to violence or
rebellion.
2. Dangerous Tendency Test: A more lenient test compared to the clear and present
danger test, the dangerous tendency test allows restrictions on speech if the speech has
the potential to lead to a substantive evil. This was used in early sedition cases but is
now considered outdated, having been replaced by the clear and present danger
standard.
3. Balancing of Interests Test: This test weighs the individual's right to free speech
against the government's interest in restricting the speech. Courts balance these
competing interests and determine which has more weight in a particular situation.
4. O’Brien Test (for Symbolic Speech): Adopted from U.S. jurisprudence, this test
applies to cases involving non-verbal speech or symbolic expression. The Court asks
whether the restriction on expression furthers an important government interest, is
unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and whether the incidental restriction
on speech is no greaterthan essential.
3. New Sounds Broadcasting v. Dy G.R. Nos. 170270 & 179411
4. Soriano v. Laguardia G.R. No. 164785
5. Chavez v. Gonzales G.R. No. 168338 - landmark case .
Content Neutral- Clear and Danger Test
6. Bayan v. Ermita G.R. No. 169838
7. Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA G.R. No. 119673
8. Primicias v. Fugoso G.R. No. L-1800
9. Mutic v. COMELEC G.R. No. L-32717
Burgos v. Chief of Staff G.R. No. L-64261 December 26, 1984
Osmeña v. COMELEC G.R. No. 132231 March 31, 1998
12. Adiong v. COMELEC G.R. No. 103956
Penera v. COMELEC G.R. No. 181613
Concerned Boholanos v. Calibo A.M. NO. RTJ-01-1621 : September
27, 2007
GSIS v. Villaviza G.R. No. 180291 July 27, 2010
Navarro v. Villegas G.R. No. L-31687 February 26, 1970
Reyes v. Bagatsing G.R. No. L-65366 November 9, 1983
Ruiz v. Gordon G.R. No. L-65695 December 19, 1983
Bayan Muna v. Executive Secretary G.R. No. 159618 : February 01,
2011
Cabansag v. Fernandez G.R. No. L-8974 October 18, 1957
● Criticism of Official Conduct
1. U.S. v. Bustos G.R. No. L-12592 March 8, 1980- Landmark case
2. Lagunzad v. Sotto G.R. No. L-32066 August 6, 1979
If personal life of government official there will be a privacy
3. Ayer Productions v. Judge Capulong G.R. No. 82380
1. People v. Alarcon G.R. No. 46551 December 12, 1939
2. People v. Godoy G.R. Nos. 115908-09 December 6, 1995
3. In re Sotto G.R. No. 14576 September 6, 1918
4. In re Laureta G.R. No. 68635. March 12, 1987
5. In re Jurado A.M. No. 93-2-037 SC April 6, 1995
● Art and Obscenity
1. U.S. v. Kottinger G.R. No. L-20569 October 29, 1923
2. People v. Go Pin G.R. No. L-7491 August 8, 1955
3. Gonzales v. Katigbak G.R. No. L-69500 July 22, 1985
4. Pita v. CA G.R. No. 80806 October 5, 1989
5. Nogales v. People G.R. No. 191080 November 21, 2011
Freedom of Religion
The doctrine of benevolent neutrality- as understood within the context of
Philippine law, is a nuanced approach to the relationship between religion and
the government, emphasizing both the separation of church and state and the
protection of religious freedom. It recognizes the significant role religion plays in
the lives of Filipinos and acknowledges its potential to positively influence
society, while simultaneously upholding the state's secular goals. The doctrine
allows for accommodations of religious practices and beliefs, within reasonable
limits, to ensure individuals can freely practice their faith without undue
government interference
● Religion in the Constitution
1. Aglipay v. Ruiz G.R. No. L-45459 (event of Roman Catholic Religion,
30th Eucharistic Congress)
2. Imbong v. Ochoa G.R. No. 204819 (landmark case)
● Separation of Church and State
1. Estrada v. Escritor A.M. NO. P-02-1651 :(landmark case) if sa
paniniwala nila mas paninigan ng court
2. Garces v. Estenzo G.R. No. L-53487 May 25, 1981
3. Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728 January 21,
2015
4. United Church of Christ v. Bradford United Church of Christ G.R. No.
171905 June 20, 2012
● Religious Profession and Worship
1. Gerona v. Secretary of Education G.R. No. L-13954 August 12,
1959
2. Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent G.R. No. 95770 (flag ceremony)
3. American Bible Society v. City of Manila G.R. No. L-9637 April
30, 1957
4. German v. Barangan G.R. No. L-68828 March 27, 1985
5. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC G.R. No. 190582 April
8, 2010
● Religious Tests
