V. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND the uninvited ear.

He did not relinquish his right to

CORRESPONDENCE do so simply because he went to a place where he
could be seen. A person who enters into a telephone
1. KATZ VS. UNITED STATES booth may expect the protection of the Fourth
The petitioner, Katz (the “petitioner”), was Amendment of the Constitution as he assumes that
convicted of transmitting wagering information over the words he utters into the telephone will not be
telephone lines in violation of federal law. The broadcast to the world. Once this is acknowledged, it
government had entered into evidence the is clear that the Fourth Amendment of the
petitioner’s end of telephone conversations that the Constitution protects persons and not areas from
government had obtained by placing a listening unreasonable searches and seizures. The
device to the phone booth that the petitioner used. Government’s activities in electronically listening to
The Court of Appeals rejected the petitioner’s and recording the petitioner’s telephone
contention that the evidence should be suppressed. conversations constituted a search and seizure under
the Fourth Amendment and absent a search warrant
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The protection of the predicated upon sufficient probable cause, all
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution evidence obtained is inadmissible.
(“Constitution”), against unreasonable searches and
seizures, follows the person and not the place. Dissent. Justice Hugo Black (“J. Black”) filed a
dissenting opinion. J. Black observed that
FACTS: eavesdropping was an ancient practice that the
The petitioner used a public telephone booth to Framers were certainly aware of when they drafted
transmit wagering information from Los Angeles to the United States Constitution (“Constitution”). Had
Boston and Miami in violation of federal law. After they wished to prohibit this activity under the Fourth
extensive surveillance, the FBI placed a listening Amendment of the Constitution they would have
device to the top of the telephone booth and added such language that would have effectively
recorded the petitioner’s end of the telephone done so. By clever wording, the Supreme Court
conversations which was then used as evidence finds it plausible to argue that language aimed
against him at his trial. The petitioner moved to have specifically at searches and seizures of things that
the evidence suppressed under the Fourth can be searched and seized may, to protect privacy,
Amendment of the Constitution, and that motion be applied to eavesdropped evidence of
was denied. The Court of Appeals rejected the conversations.
contention that the evidence is inadmissible. Concurrence. Justice John Harlan (“J. Harlan”) filed
Certiorari was granted. a dissenting opinion. The Fourth Amendment of the
ISSUE Constitution protects persons, not places. There is a
twofold requirement for what protection is afforded
Whether the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution to those people. First, that a person has exhibited an
protects telephone conversations conducted in a actual expectation of privacy and, second, that the
phone booth and secretly recorded from introduction expectation be one that society is prepared to
as evidence against a person? recognize as reasonable. The critical fact in this case
is that a person who enters a telephone booth shuts
HELD
the door behind him, pays the toll, and is surely
Justice Potter Stewart filed the majority opinion. The entitled to assume that his conversation is not being
petitioner strenuously asserted that the phone booth intercepted. On the other hand, conversations out in
was a constitutionally protected area. However, the the open public would not be protected against being
Fourth Amendment protects persons and not places overheard as the expectation of privacy would not be
from unreasonable intrusion. Even in a public place, reasonable.
a person may have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in his person. Although the petitioner did not
seek to hide his self from public view when he
entered the telephone booth, he did seek to keep out
1
2. SALCEDO-ORTANEZ V CA W/N the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court was properly availed of by the
FACTS: petitioner in the Court of Appeals
Private respondent Rafael Ortanez filed with the
HELD:
Quezon City RTC a complaint for annulment of
marriage with damages against petitioner Teresita 1. No. Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled “An Act to
Salcedo-Ortanez, on grounds of lack of marriage Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other
license and/or psychological incapacity of the Related Violations of the Privacy of
petitioner. Communication, and for other purposes” expressly
makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence
Among the exhibits offered by private respondent
thus:
were three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone
conversations between petitioner and unidentified
persons.
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
Teresita submitted her Objection/Comment to authorized by all the parties to any private
Rafael’s oral offer of evidence. However, the trial communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
court admitted all of private respondent’s offered cable, or by using any other device or arrangement,
evidence and later on denied her motion for to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
reconsideration, prompting petitioner to file a communication or spoken word by using a device
petition for certiorari with the CA to assail the commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
admission in evidence of the aforementioned detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or
cassette tapes. however otherwise described. . . .
These tape recordings were made and obtained when Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the
private respondent allowed his friends from the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning
military to wire tap his home telephone. of the same or any part thereof, or any information
therein contained, obtained or secured by any person
CA denied the petition because (1) Tape recordings
in violation of the preceding sections of this Act
are not inadmissible per se. They and any other
shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
variant thereof can be admitted in evidence for
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing
certain purposes, depending on how they are
or investigation.
presented and offered and on how the trial judge
utilizes them in the interest of truth and fairness and Absent a clear showing that both parties to the
the even handed administration of justice; and (2) A telephone conversations allowed the recording of the
petition for certiorari is notoriously inappropriate to same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is
rectify a supposed error in admitting evidence mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.
adduced during trial. The ruling on admissibility is
2. Yes and no. The extraordinary writ of certiorari is
interlocutory; neither does it impinge on jurisdiction.
generally not available to challenge an interlocutory
If it is erroneous, the ruling should be questioned in
order of a trial court. The proper remedy in such
the appeal from the judgment on the merits and not
cases is an ordinary appeal from an adverse
through the special civil action of certiorari. The
judgment, incorporating in said appeal the grounds
error, assuming gratuitously that it exists, cannot be
for assailing the interlocutory order.
anymore than an error of law, properly correctible
by appeal and not by certiorari. However, where the assailed interlocutory order is
patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would
Petitioner then filed the present petition for review
not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
may allow certiorari as a mode of redress.
ISSUE: W/N the recordings of the telephone
conversations are admissible in evidence

2
3. NAVARRO VS. COURT OF APPEALS cable, or by using any other device or arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
FACTS: communication or spoken word by using a device
Two local media men, Stanley Jalbuena,
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
Enrique Lingan, in Lucena City went to the police
detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or
station to report alledged indecent show in one of the
however otherwise described:
night establishment shows in the City. At the station,
a heated confrontation followed between victim It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a
Lingan and accused policeman Felipe Navarro who participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the
was then having drinks outside the headquarters, next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any
lead to a fisticuffs. The victim was hit with the tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other
handle of the accused's gun below the left eyebrow, such record, or copies thereof, of any
followed by a fist blow, resulted the victim to fell communication or spoken word secured either
and died under treatment. The exchange of words before or after the effective date of this Act in the
was recorded on tape, specifically the frantic manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same
exclamations made by Navarro after the altercation for any other person or persons; or to communicate
that it was the victim who provoked the fight. the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or
During the trial, Jalbuena, the other media man to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete
testified. Presented in evidence to confirm his or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the
testimony was a voice recording he had made of the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence
heated discussion at the police station between the in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of
accused police officer Navarro and the deceased, offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be
Lingan, which was taken without the knowledge of covered by this prohibition.
the two.
SEC. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the
existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or
ISSUES:
meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
1. Whether or not the voice recording is
information therein contained obtained or secured by
admissible in evidence in view of RA 4200, which
any person in violation of the preceding sections of
prohibits wire tapping.
this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any
judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
2. Whether the mitigating circumstances of hearing or investigation.
sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
Thus, the law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting,
offended party and lack of intention to commit so
or recording of private communications.Since the
grave a wrong may be appreciated in favor of the
exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan
accused.
was not private, its tape recording is not prohibited.
HELD:
Nor is there any question that it was duly
1. The answer is affirmative, the tape is
authenticated. A voice recording is authenticated by
admissible in view of RA 4200, which prohibits wire
the testimony of a witness (1) that he personally
tapping. Jalbuena's testimony is confirmed by the
recorded the conversation; (2) that the tape played in
voice recording he had made.
court was the one he recorded; and (3) that the
Indeed, Jalbuenas testimony is confirmed by the voices on the tape are those of the persons such are
voice recording he had made. It may be asked claimed to belong. In the instant case, Jalbuena
whether the tape is admissible in view of R.A. No. testified that he personally made the voice
4200, which prohibits wire tapping. The answer is in recording; that the tape played in court was the one
the affirmative. The law provides: he recorded; and that the speakers on the tape were
petitioner Navarro and Lingan. A sufficient
SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not
foundation was thus laid for the authentication of the
being authorized by all the parties to any private
tape presented by the prosecution..
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or

3
 2. The remarks of Lingan, which immediately order from the court or which public safety or order
preceded the acts of the accused, constituted require otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any
sufficient provocation. Provocation is said to be any violation of this provision renders the evidence
unjust or improper conduct of the offended party obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any
capable of exciting, annoying or irritating someone. proceeding."
The provocation must be sufficient and must
immediately precede the act; and in order to be The intimacies between husband and wife do
sufficient, it must be adequate to excite a person to not justify anyone of them in breaking the drawers
commit the wrong, which must be accordingly and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for
proportionate in gravity. The mitigating any telltale evidence of marital infedility. A person,
circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave by contracting marriage, does not shed her/his
a wrong must also be considered. The exclamations integrity or her/his right to privacy as an individual
made by Navarro after the scuffle that it was Lingan and the constitutional protection is ever available to
who provoked him showed that he had no intent to him or to her.
kill the latter.
The law insures absolute freedom of
4. ZULUETA VS. COURT OF APPEALS communication between the spouses by making it
FACTS: privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of or against the other without the consent of the
private respondent Alfredo Martin. On March 26, affected spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither
1962, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a may be examined without the consent of the other as
doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her to any communication received in confidence by one
mother, a driver and private respondent's secretary, from the other during the marriage, save for
forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet of her specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of
husband's clinic and took 157 documents consisting communication; quite another is a compulsion for
of private respondents between Dr. Martin and his each one to share what one knows with the other.
alleged paramours, greeting cards, cancelled check, And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity
diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. The that each owes to the other.
documents and papers were seized for use in
5. ALEJANO VS. CABUAY
evidence in a case for legal separation and for
disqualification from the practice of medicine which FACTS: Early morning of 27 July 2003, some 321
petitioner had filed against her husband. armed soldiers, led by the now detained junior
officers, entered and took control of the Oakwood
ISSUE: Premier Luxury Apartments (“Oakwood”), an
upscale apartment complex, located in the business
Whether or not the papers and other
district of Makati City. The soldiers disarmed the
materials obtained from forcible entrusion and from
security officers of Oakwood and planted explosive
unlawful means are admissible as evidence in court
devices in its immediate surroundings. The junior
regarding marital separation and
officers publicly renounced their support for the
disqualification from medical practice.
administration and called for the resignation of
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and several
HELD: cabinet members.
Indeed the documents and papers in question are
inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional Around 7:00 p.m. of the same date, the soldiers
injuction declaring "the privacy of communication voluntarily surrendered to the authorities after
and correspondence to be inviolable" is no less several negotiations with government emissaries.
applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks The soldiers later defused the explosive devices they
herself aggrieved by her husband's infedility) who is had earlier planted. The soldiers then returned to
the party against whom the constitutional provision their barracks. On 31 July 2003, Gen. Abaya, as the
is to be enforced. The only exception to the Chief of Staff of the AFP, issued a directive to all
prohibition in the constitution is if there is a "lawful the Major Service Commanders to turn over custody
4
of ten junior officers to the ISAFP Detention Center. the detainees’ complaint against the regulations and
The transfer took place while military and civilian conditions in the ISAFP Detention Center. The
authorities were investigating the soldiers’ remedy of habeas corpus has one objective: to
involvement in the Oakwood incident. inquire into the cause of detention of a person. The
purpose of the writ is to determine whether a person
On 1 August 2003, government prosecutors filed an
is being illegally deprived of his liberty.Ifthe inquiry
Information for coup d’etat with the Regional Trial
reveals that the detention is illegal, the court orders
Court of Makati City, Branch 61, against the soldiers
the release of the person. If, however, the detention
involved in the 27 July 2003 Oakwood incident. The
is proven lawful, then the habeas corpus proceedings
government prosecutors accused the soldiers of coup
terminate.
d’etat as defined and penalized under Article 134-A
of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as The use of habeas corpus is thus very limited. It is
amended. The case was docketed as Criminal Case not a writ of error. Neither can it substitute for an
No. 03-2784. The trial court later issued the appeal.
Commitment Orders giving custody of junior A mere allegation of a violation of one’s
officers Lt. SG Antonio Trillanes IV (“Trillanes”) constitutional right is not sufficient. The courts will
and Capt. Gerardo Gambala to the Commanding extend the scope of the writ only if any of the
Officers of ISAFP. On 2 August 2003, Gen. Abaya following circumstances is present: (a) there is a
issued a directive to all Major Service Commanders deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the
to take into custody the military personnel under unlawful restraint of a person; (b) the court had no
their command who took part in the Oakwood jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (c) an
incident except the detained junior officers who excessive penalty is imposed and such sentence is
were to remain under the custody of ISAFP. void as to the excess.
Petitioners filed a petition for Habeas Corpus before AS TO DENIAL OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL: The
the CA, however the same was denied. The Court of scheduled visiting hours provide reasonable access
Appeals found the petition bereft of merit. The to the detainees, giving petitioners sufficient time to
appellate court pointed out that the detainees are confer with the detainees. The detainees’ right to
already charged of coup d’etat before the Regional counsel is not undermined by the scheduled visits.
Trial Court of Makati. Habeas corpus is unavailing Even in the hearings before the Senate and the
in this case as the detainees’ confinement is under a Feliciano Commission, petitioners were given time
valid indictment, the legality of which the detainees to confer with the detainees, a fact that petitioners
and petitioners do not even question. themselves admit.23 Thus, at no point were the
detainees denied their right to counsel.
ISSUE: WON the denial of the petition for Habeas
Corpus was valid AS TO INHUMANE PUNISHMENT: The boarding
of the iron grills is for the furtherance of security
HELD: YES
within the ISAFP Detention Center. This measure
For obvious reasons, the duty to hear the petition for intends to fortify the individual cells and to prevent
habeas corpus necessarily includes the determination the detainees from passing on contraband and
of the propriety of the remedy. If a court finds the weapons from one cell to another. The boarded grills
alleged cause of the detention unlawful, then it ensure security and prevent disorder and crime
should issue the writ and release the detainees. In the within the facility. The diminished illumination and
present case, after hearing the case, the Court of ventilation are but discomforts inherent in the fact of
Appeals found that habeas corpus is inapplicable. detention, and do not constitute punishments on the
After actively participating in the hearing before the detainees.
Court of Appeals, petitioners are estopped from
The limitation on the detainees’ physical contacts
claiming that the appellate court had no jurisdiction
with visitors is a reasonable, non-punitive response
to inquire into the merits of their petition.
to valid security concerns.
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the remedy AS TO RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF
of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to address COMMUNICATION: The letters alleged to have
5
been read by the ISAFP authorities were not
confidential letters between the detainees and their
lawyers. The petitioner who received the letters from
detainees Trillanes and Maestrecampo was merely
acting as the detainees’ personal courier and not as
their counsel when he received the letters for
mailing. In the present case, since the letters were
not confidential communication between the
detainees and their lawyers, the officials of the
ISAFP Detention Center could read the letters. If the
letters are marked confidential communication
between the detainees and their lawyers, the
detention officials should not read the letters but
only open the envelopes for inspection in the
presence of the detainees..
Inmates are deemed to have no right to correspond
confidentially with anyone.
Inmate mail may be censored for the furtherance of a
substantial government interest such as security or
discipline. The inspection of the letters is a valid
measure as it serves the same purpose as the opening
of sealed letters for the inspection of the contraband.
Since the letters were not confidential
communication between the detainees and their
lawyer, the officials of the detention center could
read the letter. If the letters are marked confidential
communications between the detainees and their
lawyer, the officials should not read the letter but
only open the envelop for inspection in the presence
of detainees.

6
VI. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, RIGHT TO telecasting of false information or willful
ASSEMBLY, AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM misrepresentation. The NTC stated that the
continuous airing or broadcast of the “Hello Garci”
A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS taped conversations by radio and TV stations is a
CHAVEZ V. GONZALES (Hello Garci Case) continuing violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law
and the conditions of the Provisional Authority
FACTS: and/or Certificate of Authority. It warned that their
The case originates from events that occurred a year broadcast/airing of such false information and/or
after the 2004 national and local elections. On June willful misrepresentation shall be a just cause for the
5, 2005, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the
reporters that the opposition was planning to licenses or authorizations issued to the said media
destabilize the administration by releasing an establishments.
audiotape of a mobile phone conversation allegedly Subsequently, a dialogue was held between the NTC
between the President of the Philippines, Gloria and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa
Macapagal Arroyo, and a high-ranking official of the Pilipinas (KBP) which resulted in the issuance of a
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The Joint Press Statement which stated, among others,
conversation was audiotaped allegedly through wire- that the supposed wiretapped tapes should be treated
tapping Later, in a Malacaang press briefing, with sensitivity and handled responsibly.
Secretary Bunye produced two versions of the tape,
one supposedly the complete version, and the other, Consequently, petitioner Chavez filed a petition
a spliced, doctored or altered version, which would under Rule 65 against respondents Secretary
suggest that the President had instructed the Gonzales and the NTC directly with the Supreme
COMELEC official to manipulate the election Court. He
results in the Presidents favor. It seems that alleged that the acts of respondents are violations of
Secretary Bunye admitted that the voice was that of the freedom on expression and of the press, and the
President Arroyo, but subsequently made a right of the people to information on matters of
retraction public concern.

As a consequence of the public release of copies of On the other hand, respondent denied that the acts
the “Hello Garci” compact disc audiotapes involving transgress the Constitution, and questioned
a wiretapped mobile phone conversation between petitioners legal standing to file the petition. Among
then-President Gloria Arroyo and Comelec the arguments they raised as to the validity of the
Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, respondent fair warning issued by respondent NTC, is that
DOJ Secretary Gonzales warned reporters that those broadcast media enjoy lesser constitutional
who had copies of the CD and those broadcasting or guarantees compared to print media, and the warning
publishing its contents could be held liable under the was issued pursuant to the NTCs mandate to
Anti-Wiretapping Act. He also stated that persons regulate the telecommunications industry. [17] It was
possessing or airing said tapes were committing a also stressed that most of the [television] and radio
continuing offense, subject to arrest by anybody. stations continue, even to this date, to air the tapes,
Finally, he stated that he had ordered the National but of late within the parameters agreed upon
Bureau of Investigation to go after media between the NTC and KBP.
organizations “found to have caused the spread, the
THE ISSUES
playing and the printing of the contents of a tape.”
1. Will a purported violation of law such as the
Meanwhile, respondent NTC warned in a press
Anti-Wiretapping Law justify straitjacketing the
release all radio stations and TV network
exercise of freedom of speech and of the press?
owners/operators that the conditions of the
authorization and permits issued to them by 2. Did the mere press statements of respondents
government like the Provisional Authority and/or DOJ Secretary and the NTC constitute a form of
Certificate of Authority explicitly provides that they content-based prior restraint that has transgressed the
shall not use their stations for the broadcasting or Constitution?
7
THE RULING confined to the expression of ideas that are
conventional or shared by a majority.
RE-EXAMINING THE LAW ON FREEDOM OF
SPEECH,
OF EXPRESSION AND OF THE PRESS The constitutional protection is not limited to the
exposition of ideas. The protection afforded free
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech extends to speech or publications that are
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of
entertaining as well as instructive or
the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
informative. Specifically, in Eastern Broadcasting
government for redress of grievances.
Corporation (DYRE) v. Dans, this Court stated that
Freedom of expression has gained recognition as a all forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are
fundamental principle of every democratic entitled to the broad protection of the clause on
government, and given a preferred right that stands freedom of speech and of expression.
on a higher level than substantive economic freedom
While all forms of communication are entitled to the
or other liberties. The cognate rights codified
broad protection of freedom of expression
by Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution, copied
clause, the freedom of film, television and radio
almost verbatim from the First Amendment of the
broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the
U.S. Bill of Rights, were considered the necessary
freedom accorded to newspapers and other print
consequence of republican institutions and the
media, as will be subsequently discussed.
complement of free speech. This preferred status of
free speech has also been codified at the DIFFERENTIATION: THE LIMITS &
international level, its recognition now enshrined in RESTRAINTS OF FREE SPEECH
international law as a customary norm that binds all
From the language of the specific constitutional
nations.
provision, it would appear that the right to free
In the Philippines, the primacy and high esteem speech and a free press is not susceptible of any
accorded freedom of expression is a fundamental limitation. But freedom of expression is not an
postulate of our constitutional system. This right absolute, nor is it an unbridled license that gives
was elevated to constitutional status in the 1935, the immunity for every possible use of language and
1973 and the 1987 Constitutions, reflecting our own prevents the punishment of those who abuse this
lesson of history, both political and legal, that freedom.
freedom of speech is an indispensable condition for
Thus, all speech are not treated the same. Some
nearly every other form of freedom.
types of speech may be subjected to some regulation
ABSTRACTION OF FREE SPEECH by the State under its pervasive police power, in
order that it may not be injurious to the equal right
The scope of freedom of expression is so broad that
of others or those of the community or society. The
it extends protection to nearly all forms of
difference in treatment is expected because the
communication. It protects speech, print and
relevant interests of one type of speech, e.g.,
assembly regarding secular as well as political
political speech, may vary from those of another,
causes, and is not confined to any particular field of
e.g., obscene speech. Distinctions have therefore
human interest. The protection covers myriad
been made in the treatment, analysis, and evaluation
matters of public interest or concern embracing all
of the permissible scope of restrictions on various
issues, about which information is needed or
categories of speech. We have ruled, for example,
appropriate, so as to enable members of society to
that in our jurisdiction slander or libel, lewd and
cope with the exigencies of their period. The
obscene speech, as well as fighting words are not
constitutional protection assures the broadest
entitled to constitutional protection and may be
possible exercise of free speech and free press for
penalized.
religious, political, economic, scientific, news, or
informational ends, inasmuch as the Constitution's Moreover, the techniques of reviewing alleged
basic guarantee of freedom to advocate ideas is not restrictions on speech (overbreadth, vagueness, and

8
so on) have been applied differently to each Philippine jurisprudence, even as early as the period
category, either consciously or unconsciously. under the 1935 Constitution, has recognized four
aspects of freedom of the press. These are:
Generally, restraints on freedom of speech and
expression are evaluated by either or a combination (1) freedom from prior restraint;
of three tests, i.e.,
(2) freedom from punishment subsequent to
publication;
(a)
the dangerous tendency (3) freedom of access to information; and
doctrine which permits
(4) freedom of circulation
limitations on speech once a
rational connection has been Be that as it may, the determination in every case of
established between the speech whether there is an impermissible restraint on the
restrained and the danger freedom of speech has always been based on the
contemplated circumstances of each case, including the nature of
the restraint. And in its application in our
(b) the balancing of interests
tests, used as a standard when jurisdiction, the parameters of this principle have
courts need to balance been etched on a case-to-case basis, always tested
conflicting social values and by scrutinizing the governmental issuance or act
individual interests, and against the circumstances in which they operate,
requires a conscious and and then determining the appropriate test with
detailed consideration of the which to evaluate.
interplay of interests PRIOR RESTRAINT
observable in a given situation
of type of situation; and It refers to official governmental restrictions on the
press or other forms of expression in advance of
(c) the clear and present danger actual publication or dissemination.[ Freedom from
rule which rests on the prior restraint is largely freedom from government
premise that speech may be censorship of publications, whatever the form of
restrained because there is censorship, and regardless of whether it is wielded
substantial danger that the by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the
speech will likely lead to an government. Thus, it precludes governmental acts
evil the government has a right that required approval of a proposal to publish;
to prevent. This rule requires licensing or permits as prerequisites to publication
that the evil consequences including the payment of license taxes for the
sought to be prevented must be privilege to publish; and even injunctions against
substantive, extremely serious publication. Even the closure of the business and
and the degree of imminence printing offices of certain newspapers, resulting in
extremely high the discontinuation of their printing and publication,
are deemed as previous restraint or censorship. Any
As articulated in our jurisprudence, we have applied
law or official that requires some form of permission
either the dangerous tendency doctrine or clear
to be had before publication can be made, commits
and present danger test to resolve free speech
an infringement of the constitutional right, and
challenges. More recently, we have concluded that
remedy can be had at the courts.
we have generally adhered to the clear and present
danger test. It is important to stress not all prior restraints on
speech are invalid. Certain previous restraints
ANATOMY OF RESTRICTIONS: PRIOR
may be permitted by the Constitution, but
RESTRAINT, CONTENT-NEUTRAL AND
determined only upon a careful evaluation of the
CONTENT-BASED REGULATIONS
challenged act as against the appropriate test by
which it should be measured against.
9
Hence, it is not enough to determine whether the restrictions imposed are neither overbroad nor
challenged act constitutes some form of restraint on vague.
freedom of speech. A distinction has to be made
NOTE: THIS CASE is subject to clear and present
whether the restraint is
danger rule, as they are content-
(1) a content-neutral regulation, i.e., merely based restrictions. The acts of respondents focused
concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one solely on but one object, a specific content fixed as
that merely controls the time, place or manner, and these were on the alleged taped conversations
under well defined standards; or between the President and a COMELEC official.
Undoubtedly these did not merely provide
(2) a content-based restraint or censorship, i.e., the
regulations as to the time, place or manner of the
restriction is based on the subject matter of the
dissemination of speech or expression.
utterance or speech.
THE CASE AT BAR
CONTENT-NEUTRAL REGULATION
1. Will a purported violation of law such as the
 only a substantial governmental Anti-Wiretapping Law justify
interest is required for its validity. straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of
 it is subjected to an intermediate speech and of the press? NO
review.
Because regulations of this type are not designed to A governmental action that restricts freedom of
suppress any particular message, they are not subject speech or of the press based on content is given
to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny but the strictest scrutiny, with
an intermediate approach somewhere between the the government having the burden of overcoming
mere rationality that is required of any other law and the presumed unconstitutionality by the clear and
the compelling interest standard applied to content- present danger rule. This rule applies equally
based restrictions. to all kinds of media, including broadcast media.

The test is called intermediate because the Court Respondents, who have the burden to show that
will not merely rubberstamp the validity of a law but these acts do not abridge freedom of speech and of
also require that the restrictions be narrowly-tailored the press, failed to hurdle the clear and present
to promote an important or significant governmental danger test. [T]he great evil which government
interest that is unrelated to the suppression of wants to prevent is the airing of a tape recording in
expression. The intermediate approach has been alleged violation of the anti-wiretapping law. The
formulated in this manner: records of the case at bar however are confused and
confusing, and respondents’ evidence falls short of
A governmental regulation is sufficiently justified if satisfying the clear and present danger test. Firstly,
it is within the constitutional power of the the various statements of the Press Secretary
Government, if it furthers an important or substantial obfuscate the identity of the voices in the tape
governmental interest; if the governmental interest is recording. Secondly, the integrity of the taped
unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and conversation is also suspect. The Press Secretary
if the incident restriction on alleged [freedom of showed to the public two versions, one supposed to
speech & expression] is no greater than is essential be a “complete” version and the other, an “altered”
to the furtherance of that interest. version. Thirdly, the evidence of the respondents on
the who’s and the how’s of the wiretapping act is
CONTENT-BASED RESTRAINT OR
ambivalent, especially considering the tape’s
CENSORSHIP
different versions. The identity of the wire-tappers,
It bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is the manner of its commission and other related and
measured against the clear and present danger relevant proofs are some of the invisibles of this
rule. The latter will pass constitutional muster only case. Fourthly, given all these unsettled facets of
if justified by a compelling reason, and the

10
the tape, it is even arguable whether its airing would issued its statement as the regulatory body of
violate the anti-wiretapping law. media. Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for
and on behalf of the government in an
Not every violation of a law will justify
official capacity is covered by the rule on prior
straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of speech
restraint. The concept of an act does not limit
and of the press. Our laws are of different
itself to acts already converted to a formal order
kinds and doubtless, some of them provide norms of
or official circular. Otherwise, the non-
conduct which even if violated have only an adverse
formalization of an act into an official order or
effect on a persons private comfort but does not
circular will result in the easy circumvention of
endanger national security. There are laws of great
the prohibition on prior restraint. The press
significance but their violation, by itself and
statements at bar are acts that should be struck down
without more, cannot support suppression of free
as they constitute impermissible forms of prior
speech and free press. In fine, violation of law is
restraints on the right to free speech and press.
just a factor, a vital one to be sure, which should be
weighed in adjudging whether to restrain freedom of 2. SORIANO vs. LAGUARDIA
speech and of the press. The totality of the
injurious effects of the violation to private and FACTS:
public interest must be calibrated in light of the On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m.,
preferred status accorded by the Constitution and by petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating Daan,
related international covenants protecting freedom of aired on UNTV 37, made obscene remarks against
speech and of the press. In calling for a careful and INC. He made the following remarks:
calibrated measurement of the circumference of all
these factors to determine compliance with the clear Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;
and present danger test, the Court should not be Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang
misinterpreted as devaluing violations of law. By babae o di ba. Yung putang babae ang gumagana
all lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang
means, violations of law should be vigorously prose gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O, masahol pa sa
cuted by the State for they breed their own evil putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa
consequence. But to repeat, the need to prevent putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng
their violation cannot per se trump the exercise of mga demonyong ito. x x x
free speech and free press, a preferred right
whose breach can lead to greater evils. For this Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate but
failure of the respondents alone to offer proof to almost identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by
satisfy the clear and present danger test, the Court Jessie L. Galapon and seven other private
has no option but to uphold the exercise of free respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni Cristo
speech and free press. There is no showing that the (INC), against petitioner in connection with the
feared violation of the anti-wiretapping law clearly above broadcast. Respondent Michael M. Sandoval,
endangers the national security of the State. who felt directly alluded to in petitioner’s remark,
was then a minister of INC and a regular host of the
TV program Ang Tamang Daan.
2. Did the mere press statements of respondents
DOJ Secretary and the NTC constitute a form of ISSUE:
content-based prior restraint that has transgressed the
Whether or not Soriano’s statements during the
Constitution? YES
televised “Ang Dating Daan” part of the religious
it is not decisive that the press statements made discourse and within the protection of Section 5,
by respondents were not reduced in or followed Art.III.
up with formal orders or circulars. It is sufficient
HELD:
that the press statements were made by
No. The SC ruled that “Soriano’s statement can be
respondents while in the exercise of their official
treated as obscene, at least with respect to the
functions. Undoubtedly, respondent Gonzales made
average child,” and thus his utterances cannot be
his statements as Secretary of Justice, while the NTC
11
considered as protected speech. Citing decisions As previously discussed by the Court, the vulgar
from the US Supreme Court, the High Court said language petitioner used on prime-time television
that the analysis should be “context based” and can in no way be characterized as suitable for all
found the utterances to be obscene after considering ages, and is wholly inappropriate for children.
the use of television broadcasting as a medium, the
The interest of the government in protecting children
time of the show, and the “G” rating of the show,
who may be subjected to petitioner’s invectives must
which are all factors that made the utterances
take precedence over his desire to air publicly his
susceptible to children viewers. The Court
dirty laundry. As emphasized in Gonzalez v. Kalaw
emphasized on how the uttered words could be
Katigbak,4 the freedom of broadcast media is, in
easily understood by a child literally rather than in
terms of degree of protection it deserves, lesser in
the context that they were used.”
scope, especially as regards television, which
reaches every home where there is a set, and where
The SC also said “that the suspension is not a prior
children will likely be among the avid viewers of the
restraint, but rather a “form of permissible
programs shown. The same case also laid the basis
administrative sanction or subsequent punishment.”
for the classification system of the MTRCB when it
In affirming the power of the MTRCB to issue an
stated, "It cannot be denied though that the State as
order of suspension, the majority said that “it is a
parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude
sanction that the MTRCB may validly impose under
of caring for the welfare of the young."5
its charter without running afoul of the free speech
clause.” visit fellester.blogspot.com The Court said Moreover, there is nothing in petitioner’s statements
that the suspension “is not a prior restraint on the subject of the complaints expressing any particular
right of petitioner to continue with the broadcast of religious belief, nothing furthering his avowed
Ang Dating Daan as a permit was already issued to evangelical mission. The fact that he came out with
him by MTRCB,” rather, it was a sanction for “the his statements in a televised bible exposition
indecent contents of his utterances in a “G” rated TV program does not automatically accord them the
program.” character of a religious discourse. Plain and simple
insults directed at another person cannot be elevated
Soriano vs. La Guardia
to the status of religious speech.
March 15, 2010
Further, the exercise of religious freedom can be
x-------------------------------------------------------------- regulated by the State when it will bring about the
--------x clear and present danger of some substantive evil
which the State is duty bound to prevent, i.e. serious
detriment to the more overriding interest of public
Soriano filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He health, public morals, or public welfare.
averred that the suspension imposed constitutes prior
3. NEW YORK TIMES CO. vs. UNITED
restraint and an abridgement of his exercise of
STATES
religion and freedom of expression. The SC ruled
that the same has no merit. Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the
United States (Supreme Court) held that the
Petitioner has not contested the fact of his having
Government failed to meet the requisite burden of
made statements on the air that were contextually
proof needed to justify a prior restraint of expression
violative of the program’s "G" rating. To merit a "G"
when attempting to enjoin the New York Times and
rating, the program must be "suitable for all ages,"
Washington Post from publishing contents of a
which, in turn, means that the "material for
classified study.
television [does not], in the judgment of the
[MTRCB], x x x contain anything unsuitable for
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Any system of prior
children and minors, and may be viewed without
restraints on expression comes to the Supreme Court
adult guidance or supervision."
bearing a heavy presumption against its invalidity.
The Government “thus creates a heavy burden of

12
showing justification for the enforcement of such a allegation and proof that publication must inevitably,
restraint.” directly and immediately cause the occurrence of an
event kindred to imperiling the safety of a transport
Facts. The United States sought to enjoin the New
already at sea can support the issuance of an interim
York Times and Washington Post from publishing
restraining order. Unless and until the Government
contents of a confidential study about the
has clearly made its case, the First Amendment of
Government’s decision making with regard to
the Constitution commands that no injunction be
Vietnam policy. The District Court in the New York
issued.
Times case and the District Court and the Court of
The responsibility must be where the power is. The
Appeals in the Washington Post case held that the
Executive must have the large duty to determine and
Government had not met the requisite burden
preserve the degree of internal security necessary to
justifying such a prior restraint.
exercise its power effectively. The Executive is
correct with respect to some of the documents here,
Issue. Whether the United States met the heavy
but disclosure of any of them will not result in
burden of showing justification for the enforcement
irreparable danger to the public.
of such a restraint on the New York Times and
The United States has not met the very heavy
Washington Post to enjoin them from publishing
burden, which it must meet to warrant an injunction
contents of a classified study?
against publication in these cases.
Held. No. Judgments of the lower courts affirmed. The ultimate issue in this case is whether this Court
The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second or the Congress has the power to make this law. It is
Circuit is reversed and remanded with directions to plain that Congress has refused to grant the authority
enter a judgment affirming the District Court. The the Government seeks from this Court.
stays entered June 25, 1971, by the Court are
Discussion. This very divided opinion shows how
vacated. The mandates shall issue forthwith.
heavy the Government’s burden is to justify a prior
restraint of expression
Dissent. The scope of the judicial function in
passing upon activities of the Executive Branch in PER CURIAM (VERBATIM)
the field of foreign affairs is very narrowly
We granted certiorari in these cases in which the
restricted. This view is dictated by the doctrine of
United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times
Separation of Powers. The doctrine prohibiting prior
and the Washington Post from publishing the
restraints does not prevent the courts from
contents of a classified study entitled "History of
maintaining status quo long enough to act
U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy."
responsibly.
The First Amendment is only part of the "Any system of prior restraints of expression comes
Constitution. The cases should be remanded to be to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its
developed expeditiously. constitutional validity." Near v. Minnesota (1931).
Concurrence. To find that the President has The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of
“inherent power” to halt the publication of news by showing justification for the imposition of such a
resort to the courts would wipe out the First restraint." The District Court for the Southern
Amendment of the United States Constitution District of New York, in the New York Times case,
[Constitution]. and the District Court for the District of Columbia
The First Amendment of the Constitution leaves no and the Court of Appeals for the District of
room for governmental restraint on the press. There Columbia Circuit, in the Washington Post case, held
is, moreover, no statute barring the publication by that the Government had not met that burden. We
the press of the material that the Times and Post seek agree.
to publish.
The First Amendment of the Constitution tolerates The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the
no prior judicial restraints of the press predicated District of Columbia Circuit is therefore affirmed.
upon surmise or conjecture that untoward The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second
consequences may result. Thus, only governmental Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded with

13
directions to enter a judgment affirming the For the New York Times: The 1st Amendment's
judgment of the District Court for the Southern guarantee of freedom of the press protects the
District of New York. The stays entered June 25, newspaper in the publication of these documents.
1971, by the Court are vacated. The judgments shall One of the few restraints on executive power in
issue forthwith. matters of national defense is a knowledgeable
population. The press must be free to inform the
So ordered.
American people. In addition, the Government has
CASE DIGEST # 2 failed to show that publication of the Pentagon
Papers would endanger national security.
Historical Background
For the United States: The 1st Amendment does not
Over the years the Supreme Court has disagreed on guarantee an absolute freedom of the press,
the limits that can be placed on the 1st Amendment especially when the nation's security is involved.
guarantees of freedom of speech and press. In 1971, The Court must strike a balance between the
the Court faced these issues again in a case brought fundamentally important right to a free press and the
by the New York Times. The newspaper had equally important duty of the Government to protect
obtained a copy of documents known as “The the nation. Allowing the publication of these
Pentagon Papers”—an internal Defense Department documents would establish a dangerous precedent
report that detailed government deception with for future cases involving national security.
regard to the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Papers
surfaced at a time when the American people were Decision and Rationale
deeply divided on the question of United States
By a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled in favor of
involvement in the war. The New York
the New York Times. In the judgment, the Court
Times fought for the right to publish the papers
cited a prevailing precedent, noting: “Any system of
under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment.
prior restraints of expression comes to this Court
Circumstances of the Case bearing a heavy presumption against its
constitutional validity.” In other words, the Court
The Pentagon Papers, officially known as “History would not be favorably disposed to stifling the press
of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam on the order of the government.
Policy,” were illegally copied and then leaked to the
press. The New York Times and the Washington Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas, members
Post had obtained the documents. Acting at the of the majority, held that the 1st Amendment is
Government's request, the United States district absolute. Justice Black called it “unfortunate” in his
court in New York issued a temporary injunction—a view “that some of my Brethren [fellow justices] are
court order—that directed the New York Times not apparently willing to hold that the publication of
to publish the documents. The Government claimed news may sometimes be enjoined. Such a holding,”
that the publication of the papers would endanger the he wrote, “would make a shambles of the First
security of the United States. The New York Amendment.”
Times appealed the order to the United States
Justice Byron White, joined by Justice Potter
Supreme Court, arguing that prior restraint—
Stewart, believed that while there are situations in
preventing publication—violated the 1st
which the 1st Amendment may be abridged, they
Amendment.
had to “concur in today's judgments, but only
Constitutional Issues because of the concededly extraordinary protection
against prior restraints enjoyed by the press under
Are the freedoms provided by the 1st Amendment our constitutional system.” Although the justices
absolute? Did the threat to national security thought that the New York Times had probably gone
outweigh the freedom of press guaranteed by the 1st too far in publishing the Pentagon Papers, they
Amendment? Did the publication of the Pentagon found nothing in the law to prevent the newspaper
Papers in fact pose a threat to national security? from doing so.
Arguments
14
Deferring to responsibilities of the Executive, Chief vague word "security" should not be used "to
Justice Warren Burger dissented. Given those vast abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First
responsibilities, Burger noted, the Executive also Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since
had to be given broader authority. “In these cases, publication would not cause an inevitable, direct,
the imperative of a free and unfettered press comes and immediate event imperiling the safety of
into collision with another imperative, the effective American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.
functioning of a complex modern government and
specifically the effective exercise of certain 4. CHAPLINSKY vs. STATE OF NEW
constitutional powers of the Executive,” Burger HAMPSHIRE
wrote. “Only those who view the First Amendment FACTS:
as an absolute in all circumstances—a view I
respect, but reject—can find such cases as these to On a public sidewalk in downtown Rochester,
be simple or easy.” Walter Chaplinsky was distributing literature that
supported his beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness and
The decision reinforced the Court's stance against attacked more conventional forms of religion. The
prior restraint and has often been noted in town marshal warned him against causing a
subsequent prior restraint cases. In the spring of disturbance, but Chaplinsky's conduct resulted in an
2000, a Texas district court judge ordered the upheaval that blocked the surrounding roads and
Associated Press (AP) not to publish a story about a caused a police officer to remove (although not
state-guaranteed loan to a Texas shrimp farm. arrest) him. On his way to the police station,
Lawyers for the AP cited the New York Times case Chaplinsky saw the town marshal again and shouted
in their argument. The judge lifted the order after at him that he was "a God-damned racketeer" and "a
two days of hearings. damned Fascist." This verbal assault led to his arrest.
When he was questioned about what he had said,
SHORTEST CASE DIGEST
Chaplinsky admitted cursing the marshal as a
Facts of the case racketeer and a fascist while denying that he had
invoked the name of God. He was convicted of
In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers
violating a state law that prohibited intentionally
Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to
offensive, derisive, or annoying speech to any
prevent the New York Times and Washington Post
person who is lawfully in a street or public area. He
from publishing materials belonging to a classified
was arrested and charged with violating a state
Defense Department study regarding the history of
statute, which states: No person shall address any
United States activities in Vietnam. The President
offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other
argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect
person who is lawfully in any street or other public
national security. This case was decided together
place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive
with United States v. Washington Post Co.
name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his
presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or
annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his
lawful business or occupation. (Chapter 378, Sec. 2,
Question of the Public Laws of New Hampshire) Appealing
his fine, Chaplinsky argued that the law violated the
Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the First Amendment on the grounds that it was overly
publication of what it termed "classified vague.
information" violate the First Amendment?
ISSUES: Is speech that incites a breach of the peace
Conclusion protected by the First Amendment? Does the
application of the state statute violate Chaplinsky's
Yes. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the
freedom of speech protected by the First
government did not overcome the "heavy
Amendment?
presumption against" prior restraint of the press in
this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the

15
RULING: Justice Murphy wrote the majority The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 makes it a crime to
opinion for the court, which was supported 9-0 falsely claim receipt of military decorations or
(there were no concurring opinions written). The medals. On September 26, 2007, Mr. Alvarez was
court held that the state statute restricting speech was charged in the Central District of California with two
specific enough that it complied with the counts of falsely representing that he had been
requirements of due process and did not awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in
unreasonably impinge on Chaplinsky’s First violation the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. Mr. Alvarez
Amendment rights to free speech. Therefore it did moved to dismiss on the grounds that the statute
not violate the 14th Amendment. violated his first amendment right to free speech.
The district court denied Alvarez's motion to
Rationale of the Court: Although Chaplinsky
dismiss. The respondent thereafter pleaded guilty,
protested that the statute violated all three of the
but reserved his right to appeal.
First Amendment freedoms (speech, press, and
religion), the court found that only the free speech Alvarez appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
part applied. Chaplinsky was not charged for the the Ninth Circuit, and the court reversed and
religious content of his speech or for the flyers he’d remanded the lower court's decision. It reasoned that
been handing out, only for the remarks to Marshall the Supreme Court had never held that the
Bowering. The court recognized that the right to free government may prohibit speech simply because it is
speech was not unlimited. They found that the knowingly false and that some knowingly false
following types of speech were not protected by the speech could have affirmative constitutional value.
First Amendment: “the lewd and obscene, the The court of appeals denied the government's
profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ request for rehearing. Thereafter, the government
words – those which by their very utterance inflict appealed the court of appeals' decision.
injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the
ISSUE: Does 18 U.S.C. 704(b), the Stolen Valor
peace.” Such speech is deemed worthless, or of little
Act, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First
use with regard to social values, as it does not
Amendment?
contribute to the formation of ideas or discovery of
truth – the speech is simply unproductive. The state RULING: Yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,
statue was not deemed too restrictive because it writing for a 6-3 majority, affirmed the Court of
explains that only words with a tendency to incite Appeals. Content-based restrictions on speech are
violence are not protected. The test of this is whether subject to strict scrutiny and are almost always
the average person would consider these words invalid, except in rare and extreme circumstances.
likely to cause a fight. For this reason, this case is While categories of speech, such as defamation and
popularly known for establishing the “fighting true threats, present a grave and imminent threat,
words” precedent. false statements alone do not present such a threat.
Congress drafted the Stolen Valor Act too broadly,
5. UNITED STATES vs. ALVAREZ
attempting to limit speech that could cause no harm.
FACTS: Criminal punishment for such speech is improper.
On July 23, 2007, Xavier Alvarez, a member of the Justice Stephen G. Breyer concurred, concluding
Three Valleys Water District Board of Directors, that false statements of fact should be subject to
attended a joint meeting with the Walnut Valley intermediate scrutiny. However, as drafted, the
Water District Board of Directors at the Board's Stolen Valor Act violates intermediate scrutiny
headquarters. Mr. Alvarez was invited to speak because it applies to situations that are unlikely to
about his background, and he stated, "I'm a retired cause harm. Justice Elena Kagan joined in the
marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back concurrence.
in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of
Justice Samuel A. Alito dissented. Congress could
Honor." In fact, Mr. Alvarez had not received the
not draft the Stolen Valor Act more narrowly, while
Congressional Medal of Honor, nor any other
still preventing the substantial harm caused by false
military medal or decoration. He had also had never
statements concerning military decoration. Justice
served in the United States Armed Forces.
16
Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas joined or excess of jurisdiction.
in the dissent.
6. SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ENGAGEMENT POLITICAL LAW- Requisites of power of
NETWORK INC vs. ANTI-TERRORISM judicial review
COUNCIL In constitutional litigations, the power of judicial
review is limited by four exacting requisites, viz: (a)
FACTS: there must be an actual case or controversy; (b)
Six petitions for certiorari and prohibition were filed
petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the
challenging the constitutionality of RA 9372,
question of constitutionality must be raised at the
otherwise known as the Human Security Act.
earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of
Impleaded as respondents in the various petitions are
constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case.
the Anti-Terrorism Council composed of, at the time
In the present case, the dismal absence of the first
of the filing of the petitions, Executive Secretary
two requisites, which are the most essential, renders
Eduardo Ermita as Chairperson, Justice Secretary
the discussion of the last two superfluous. Locus
Raul Gonzales as Vice Chairperson, and Foreign
standi or legal standing requires a personal stake in
Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo, Acting Defense
the outcome of the controversy as to assure that
Secretary and National Security Adviser Norberto
concrete adverseness which sharpens the
Gonzales, Interior and Local Government Secretary
presentation of issues upon which the court so
Ronaldo Puno, and Finance Secretary Margarito
largely depends for illumination of difficult
Teves as members. All the petitions, except that of
constitutional questions.
the IBP, also impleaded Armed Forces of the
For a concerned party to be allowed to raise a
Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Gen. Hermogenes
constitutional question, it must show that (1) it has
Esperon and Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief
personally suffered some actual or threatened
Gen. Oscar Calderon.
injuryas a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitions should prosper the government, (2) the injury is fairly traceable to
the challenged action, and (3) the injury is likely to
HELD: be redressed by a favorable action.
No. Petitions Dismissed. Petitioner-organizations assert locus standi on the
REMEDIAL LAW- certiorari does not lie against basis of being suspected "communist fronts" by the
respondents who do not exercise judicial or government, especially the military; whereas
quasi-judicial functions individual petitioners invariably invoke the
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides: "transcendental importance" doctrine and their status
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, as citizens and taxpayers.
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial Petitioners in G.R. No. 178890 allege that they have
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his been subjected to "close security surveillance by
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion state security forces," their members followed by
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there "suspicious persons" and "vehicles with dark
is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate windshields," and their offices monitored by "men
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person with military build." They likewise claim that they
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the have been branded as "enemies of the State. Even
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and conceding such gratuitous allegations, the Office of
praying that judgment be rendered annulling or the Solicitor General (OSG) correctly points out that
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or petitioners have yet to show any connection between
officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law the purported "surveillance" and the implementation
and justice may require. of RA 9372.
Parenthetically, petitioners do not even allege with REMEDIAL LAW- Requisites of Judicial Notice
any modicum of particularity how respondents acted Petitioner-organizations in G.R. No. 178581, would
without or in excess of their respective jurisdictions, like the Court to take judicial notice of respondent's
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack alleged action of tagging them as militant

17
organizations fronting for the Communist Party of From July 2007 up to the present, petitioner-
the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the organizations have conducted their activities fully
National Peoples Army (NPA). The tagging, and freely without any threat of, much less an actual,
according to petitioners, is tantamount to the effects prosecution or proscription under RA 9372.
of proscription without following the procedure
under the law. REMEDIAL LAW- A taxpayer suit is proper
only when there is an exercise of the spending or
taxing power of Congress, whereas citizen
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have
standing must rest on direct and personal interest
three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one
in the proceeding.
of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be
well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
RA 9372 is a penal statute and does not even
uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the
provide for any appropriation from Congress for its
limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal
implementation, while none of the individual
guide in determining what facts may be assumed to
petitioner-citizens has alleged any direct and
be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it
personal interest in the implementation of the law. It
can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts
bears to stress that generalized interests, albeit
evidenced by public records and facts of general
accompanied by the assertion of a public right, do
notoriety. Moreover, a judicially noticed fact must
not establish locus standi. Evidence of a direct and
be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is
personal interest is key.
either: (1) generally known within the territorial
jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of
POLITICAL LAW- judicial power operates only
accurate and ready determination by resorting to
when there is an actual case or controversy.
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questionable.
An actual case or controversy means an existing case
or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for
No ground was properly established by petitioners
determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest
for the taking of judicial notice. Petitioners’
the decision of the court would amount to an
apprehension is insufficient to substantiate their
advisory opinion.
plea. That no specific charge or proscription under
RA 9372 has been filed against them, three years
Petitioners obscure allegations of sporadic
after its effectivity, belies any claim of imminence of
"surveillance" and supposedly being tagged as
their perceived threat emanating from the so-called
"communist fronts" in no way approximate a
tagging.
credible threat of prosecution. From these
allegations, the Court is being lured to render an
The same is true with petitioners KMU, NAFLU and
advisory opinion, which is not its function. Without
CTUHR in G.R. No. 178554, who merely harp as
any justiciable controversy, the petitions have
well on their supposed "link" to the CPP and NPA.
become pleas for declaratory relief, over which the
They fail to particularize how the implementation of
Court has no original jurisdiction. Then again,
specific provisions of RA 9372 would result in
declaratory actions characterized by "double
direct injury to their organization and members.
contingency," where both the activity the petitioners
intend to undertake and the anticipated reaction to it
The Court takes note of the joint statement of
of a public official are merely theorized, lie beyond
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Justice
judicial review for lack of ripeness.
Secretary Raul Gonzales that the Arroyo
Administration would adopt the US and EU
POLITICAL LAW- A facial invalidation of a
classification of the CPP and NPA as terrorist
statute is allowed only in free speech cases,
organizations. Such statement notwithstanding, there
wherein certain rules of constitutional litigation
is yet to be filed before the courts an application to
are rightly excepted
declare the CPP and NPA organizations as domestic
terrorist or outlawed organizations under RA 9372.
18
Petitioners assail for being intrinsically vague and that the element of "unlawful demand" in the
impermissibly broad the definition of the crime of definition of terrorism must necessarily be
terrorism under RA 9372 in that terms like transmitted through some form of expression
"widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among protected by the free speech clause.
the populace" and "coerce the government to give in Before a charge for terrorism may be filed under RA
to an unlawful demand" are nebulous, leaving law 9372, there must first be a predicate crime actually
enforcement agencies with no standard to measure committed to trigger the operation of the key
the prohibited acts. qualifying phrases in the other elements of the
A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness crime, including the coercion of the government to
when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of accede to an "unlawful demand." Given the presence
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its of the first element, any attempt at singling out or
meaning and differ as to its application. It is highlighting the communicative component of the
repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it prohibition cannot recategorize the unprotected
violates due process for failure to accord persons, conduct into a protected speech.
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the Petitioners’ notion on the transmission of message is
conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers entirely inaccurate, as it unduly focuses on just one
unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions particle of an element of the crime. Almost every
and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government commission of a crime entails some mincing of
muscle. The overbreadth doctrine, meanwhile, words on the part of the offender like in declaring to
decrees that a governmental purpose to control or launch overt criminal acts against a victim, in
prevent activities constitutionally subject to state haggling on the amount of ransom or conditions, or
regulations may not be achieved by means which in negotiating a deceitful transaction.
sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the As earlier reflected, petitioners have established
area of protected freedoms. neither an actual charge nor a credible threat of
As distinguished from the vagueness doctrine, the prosecution under RA 9372. Even a limited
overbreadth doctrine assumes that individuals will vagueness analysis of the assailed definition of
understand what a statute prohibits and will "terrorism" is thus legally impermissible. The Court
accordingly refrain from that behavior, even though reminds litigants that judicial power neither
some of it is protected. Distinguished from anas- contemplates speculative counseling on a statutes
applied challenge which considers only extant facts future effect on hypothetical scenarios nor allows the
affecting real litigants, a facial invalidation is an courts to be used as an extension of a failed
examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws legislative lobbying in Congress. Petitions
and defects, not only on the basis of its actual Dismissed.
operation to the parties, but also on the assumption
or prediction that its very existence may cause others B. LIBEL
not before the court to refrain from constitutionally 8. NEW YORK TIMES CO. VS. SULLIVAN
protected speech or activities.
Justice Mendoza accurately phrased the subtitle in FACTS.
his concurring opinion that the vagueness and The Plaintiff was one of three Commissioners of
overbreadth doctrines, as grounds for a facial Montgomery, Alabama, who claimed that he was
challenge, are not applicable to penal laws. A litigant defamed in a full-page ad taken out in the New York
cannot thus successfully mount a facial challenge Times.
against a criminal statute on either vagueness or
overbreadth grounds. Since a penal statute may only The advertisement was entitled, “Heed Their Rising
be assailed for being vague as applied to petitioners, Voices” and it charged in part that an unprecedented
a limited vagueness analysis of the definition of wave of terror had been directed against those who
"terrorism" in RA 9372 is legally impermissible participated in the civil rights movement in the
absent an actual or imminent charge against them. South.
In insisting on a facial challenge on the invocation
Some of the particulars of the advertisement were
that the law penalizes speech, petitioners contend
false. Although the advertisement did not mention
19
the Plaintiff by name, he claimed that it referred to official conduct unless he proves that the statement
him indirectly because he had oversight was made with actual malice – that is, with
responsibility of the police. knowledge that it was false or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not.
The Defendant claimed that it authorized publication
of the advertisement because it did not have any * The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme
reason to believe that its contents were false. Court) holds that the Constitution delimits a State’s
power to award damages for libel in actions brought
There was no independent effort to check its
by public officials against critics of their official
accuracy. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant
conduct. In this case, the rule requiring proof of
retract the advertisement.
actual malice is applicable.
The Defendant was puzzled as to why the Plaintiff
* The Defendant’s failure to retract the
thought the advertisement reflected adversely on
advertisement upon the Plaintiff’s demand is not
him. The jury found the ad libelous per se and
adequate evidence of malice for constitutional
actionable without proof of malice. The jury
purposes. Likewise, it is not adequate evidence of
awarded the Plaintiff $500,000 in damages.
malice that the Defendant failed to check the
The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The advertisements accuracy against the news stories in
Defendant appealed. the Defendant’s own files. Also, the evidence was
constitutionally defective in another respect: it was
ISSUE. incapable of supporting the jury’s finding that the
Is the Defendant liable for defamation for printing an allegedly libelous statements were made of and
advertisement, which criticized a public official’s concerning the Plaintiff.
official conduct? Concurrence. Justice Hugo Black (J. Black) argued
HELD. that the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the
Constitution do not merely “delimit” a State’s power
No. Reversed and remanded. to award damages, but completely prohibit a State
from exercising such a power. The Defendant had an
* Safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press
absolute, unconditional right to publish criticisms of
are required by the First and Fourteenth
the Montgomery agencies and officials.
Amendments of the United States Constitution
(Constitution) in a libel action brought by a public Discussion. In order for a public official to recover
official against critics of his official conduct. in a defamation action involving his official conduct,
malice must be proved. Without the showing of
* Under Alabama law, a publication is libelous per
malice, the Supreme Court felt that a defamation
se if the words tend to injure a person in his
action in this case would severely cripple the
reputation or to bring him into public contempt. The
safeguards of freedom speech and expression that
jury must find that the words were published of and
are guaranteed in the First Amendment of the
concerning the plaintiff.
Constitution and applicable to the States via the
Once libel per se has been established, the defendant Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
has no defense as to stated facts unless he can
9. ROSENBLOOM v. METROMEDIA
persuade the jury that they were true in all their
particulars. FACTS:
* Erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate Petitioner was a distributor of nudist magazines in
and it must be protected if the freedoms of Philadelphia. In response to the complaints of the
expression are to have the breathing space that the citizens, the Special Investigations Squad of the
need to survive. Philadelphia Police Department initiated a series of
enforcement actions under the obscenity laws of the
* The constitutional guarantees require a federal rule
city.
that prohibits a public official from recovering
damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his
20
The police purchased various magazines which were (b) that a reasonable listener would conclude that it
subsequently determined as obscene. Most of the refers to the petitioner;
newsstand operators were arrested on charges of
(c) that WIP forfeited privilege to report official
selling obscene materials. While the police were
proceedings fairly and accurately that it intends to
making arrests, petitioner arrived to deliver some of
injure the plaintiff personally; and
his nudist magazines and was arrested.
(d) that the reporting was false. Petitioner was not
Three days later, police obtained a search warrant
able to comply with the requirements of proof
for petitioner’s home and rented barn he uses as
sufficiently.
warehouse. The inventory of magazines and books
found in the locations were seized. The police activities which were aimed at
implementing the obscenity laws were for the
Petitioner was released on bail, but he was arrested
interest of the public. The Court opined that if a
for the 2nd time.
matter is subject of public or general interest, it
Following the 2nd arrest, Captain Ferguson cannot suddenly become less so merely because a
telephoned respondent’s radio station (WIP) and private individual is involved.
other local radio stations, and a local newspaper
Pennsylvania’s libel law recognizes that society’s
informing them of the raid on petitioner’s
interest in protecting individual reputation often
home and of his arrest. WIP broadcasted the event yields to other important social goals.
on October 4, 1963. It was broadcasted several times
but from October 5 to 21, WIP did not broadcast 10. JAPAN AIRLINES VS. JESUS SIMANGAN
further reports relating to the petitioner. FACTS:
Petitioner brought an action in the Federal District • 1991 - Jesus Simangan decided to donate a kidney
Court alleging that the magazines he distributed to his ailing cousin, Loreto Simangan, in UCLA
were not obscene and for the defamatory broadcasts. School of Medicine in Los Angeles, California,
The jury acquitted petitioner in the State Court and U.S.A. Tests proved that his blood and tissue type
he filed a case for damages. He contends that the were well-matched with his cousin's, so, to facilitate
broadcasts of October 4 describing his arrest, Simangan's travel to the United States, UCLA wrote
constituted libel per se and was proved false by a letter to the American Consulate in Manila to
petitioner’s subsequent acquittal. District court arrange for his visa.
awarded the damages, Court of Appeals reversed the
decision. Simangan was issued an emergency U.S. visa (a
parole visa) by the American Embassy in Manila.
Hence, the appeal.
• Simangan purchased a round trip plane ticket from
ISSUE: petitioner Japan Airlines (JAL) for US$1,485.00 and
was issued the corresponding boarding pass. He was
Whether WIP’s October 4 broadcasts regarding the
scheduled to a particular flight bound for Los
arrest of the petitioner constituted libel.
Angeles via Narita, Japan.
HELD:
• July 29, 1992 - Simangan went to Ninoy Aquino
No. The libel law holds actionable any unprivileged International Airport. His plane ticket, boarding
“malicious” publication of matter tending to harm a pass, travel authority and personal articles were
person’s reputation and expose him to public hatred, subjected to rigid immigration and security routines.
contempt, or ridicule. After passing through them, he was allowed by JAL
to enter its plane. Inside, JAL's airline crew
Pennsylvania’s libel laws recognize truth as a
suspected Simangan of carrying a falsified travel
complete defense to a libel action. The burden of
document and imputed that he would only use the
proof lies with the petitioner to prove that
trip to the United States as a pretext to stay and work
(a) one or more of the broadcasts were defamatory; in Japan.

21
The stewardess asked respondent to show his travel • May 31, 2005 - CA affirmed the decision of the
documents. Shortly after, the crew haughtily ordered RTC but lowered the amount of moral damages
him to stand up and leave the plane.
to P500,000, and exemplary damages to P250,000,
Simangan protested, explaining that he was issued a and deleted the award of attorney's fees.
U.S. visa. Just to allow him to board the plane, he
pleaded with JAL to closely monitor his movements ISSUES:
when the aircraft stops over in Narita. His pleas were (1) whether or not Simangan is entitled to moral and
ignored. He was then constrained to go out of the exemplary damages
plane.
(4) whether or not JAL is entitled to its counterclaim
Simangan waited there for three hours in JAL's for damages
ground office, while the plane took off and left him
behind. Afterwards, he was informed that his travel HELD:
documents were, indeed, in order. Respondent was (1) YES. Moral damages: Inattention to and lack of
refunded the cost of his plane ticket less the sum of care for the interests of its passengers who are
US$500.00 which was deducted by JAL. entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as to
JAL then booked Simangan a flight the very next their convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles
day. However, Simangan's U.S. visa was the passenger to an award of moral damages. The
subsequently cancelled. findings of facts state: "[Simangan] was haughtily
ejected by appellant. xxx [In] the presence of other
• Simangan filed an action for damages in RTC in passengers, the appellant's airline staff shouted at
Valenzuela City. him to stand up and arrogantly asked him to produce
his travel papers, without the least courtesy xxx
• JAL denied the material allegations of the
complaint, argued there was "a need for his travel Then, he was compelled to deplane on the grounds
documents to be authenticated by the United States that his papers were fake. His protestation of having
Embassy" because no one from JAL's airport staff been issued a U.S. visa coupled with his plea to
had encountered a parole visa before, and then appellant to closely monitor his movements when
lodged a counterclaim alleging wrongful institution the aircraft stops over in Narita, were ignored.
of complaint.
Worse, he was made to wait for many hours at the
• During the trial, JAL presented a witness who office of appellant only to be told later that he has
testified that JAL suffered further damages. valid travel documents."
Allegedly, respondent caused the publications of his Exemplary damages: JAL is also liable for
subject complaint against JAL in a newspaper for exemplary damages as its above-mentioned acts
which JAL suffered damages. (The issue about the constitute wanton, oppressive and malevolent acts
publications were not alleged in JAL's Answer but against respondent.
was treated as if it had been raised in the pleadings.)
Attorney's fees: In its extraordinary concept, an
• September 21, 2000 - RTC ruled in favor of attorney's fee is an indemnity for damages ordered
Simangan, ordering JAL to pay P1,000,000.00 as
by the court to be paid by the losing party in a
moral damages, the amount of P500,000.00 as litigation. It is discretionary upon the court.
exemplary damages and the amount of P250,000.00
as attorney's fees. Considering the factual backdrop of this case,
attorney's fees in the amount of P200,000.00 is
• JAL appealed to the CA. This is where JAL first reasonably modest.
interposes the defense that the contract of
(2) NO. Even though JAL is not a public official, the
carriage was novated when JAL booked Simangan a rule on privileged commentaries on matters of public
flight starting the very next day. interest applies to it. The privilege applies not only
to public officials but extends to a great variety of
22
subjects, and includes matters of public concern, 11. TULFO VS PEOPLE
public men, and candidates for office.
FACTS:
JAL's business is mainly with the traveling public.
Atty. Ding So of the Bureau of Customs filed four
Its bumping off of respondent without a valid reason
separate Informations against Erwin Tulfo
naturally drew public attention and generated a
(Writer/Author).
public issue. The publications involved matters
about which the public has the right to be informed Susan Cambri (Managing Editor), Rey Salao
because they relate to a public issue. (National Editor), Jocelyn Barlizo (City Editor), and
Philip Pichay (President of Carlo Publishing House
Assuming that respondent, indeed, caused the
Inc), accusing them of libel in connection with the
publication of his complaint, he may not be held
publication of articles in the column “Direct Hit” of
liable for damages for it. The constitutional
the daily tabloid Remate.
guarantee of freedom of the speech and of the press
includes fair commentaries on matters of public PINAKAMAYAMAN SA CUSTOMS
interest. This is explained by the Court in Borjal v.
Ito palang si Atty. Ding So ng Intelligence Division
Court of Appeals, to wit: ng Bureau of Customs and [sic] pinakamayaman na
yata na government official sa buong bansa sa
To reiterate, fair commentaries on matters of public
pangungurakot lamang diyan sa South Harbor.
interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense
in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair Hindi matibag ang gagong attorney dahil malakas
comment means that while in general every daw ito sa Iglesia ni Kristo.
discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed
false, because every man is presumed innocent until Hoy, So! . . nakakahiya ka sa mga INC, ikaw na yata
his guilt is judicially proved, and every false ang pinakagago at magnanakaw na miyembro nito.
imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when Balita ko, malapit ka nang itiwalag ng nasabing
the discreditable imputation is directed against a simbahan dahil sa mga kalokohan mo.
public person in his public capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable. In order that such Abangan bukas ang mga raket ni So sa BOC.
discreditable imputation to a public official may be
SI ATTY. SO NG BOC
actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact
or a comment based on a false supposition. If the LINTEK din sa pangungurakot itong Ding So ng
comment is an expression of opinion, based on Bureau of Customs Intelligence Unit sa South
established facts, then it is immaterial that the Harbor.
opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might
reasonably be inferred from the facts. (Citations Daan-daang libong piso ang kinikita ng masiba at
omitted and underscoring ours) matakaw na si So sa mga importer na ayaw ideklara
ang totoong laman ng mga container para makaiwas
Hence, pursuant to the Borjal case, there must be an sa pagbayad ng malaking customs duties at taxes.
actual malice in order that a discreditable imputation
to a public person in his public capacity or to a Si So ang nagpapadrino sa mga pag-inspection ng
public official may be actionable. To be considered mga container na ito. Siyempre-binibigyan din niya
malicious, the libelous statements must be shown to ng salapi yung ibang mga ahensiya para pumikit na
have been written or published with the knowledge lang at itikom ang kanilang nga [sic] bibig diyan sa
that they are false or in reckless disregard of whether mga buwayang taga BOC.
they are false or not.88 Awang-awa ako sa ating gobyerno. Bankrupt na nga,
Considering that the published articles involve ninanakawan pa ng mga kawatan tulad ni So.
matters of public interest and that its expressed Ewan ko ba rito kay Atty. So, bakit hindi na lang
opinion is not malicious but based on established tumayo ng sarili niyang robbery-hold-up gang para
facts, the imputations against JAL are not actionable. kumita ng mas mabilis.
Therefore, JAL may not claim damages for them.
23
Hoy So.. hindi bagay sa iyo ang pagiging attorney . . c. The subject in Borjal was a private citizen,
. Mas bagay sa iyo ang pagiging buwayang naka whereas in the present case, the subject is a public
korbata at holdaper. Magnanakaw official.
ka So!! d. It was held in Borjal that the articles written by
Art Borjal were “fair commentaries on matters of
—————
public interest.”
Tulad ni Atty. Ding So ng Bureau of Customs
2. NO. The columns were unsubstantiated attacks
Intelligence Division, saksakan din ng lakas itong si
on Atty. So, and cannot be countenanced as being
Daniel Aquino ng Presidential Anti-Smuggling Unit
privileged
na nakatalaga sa South Harbor.
simply because the target was a public official.
Tulad ni So, magnanakaw na tunay itong si Aquino.
a. Even with the knowledge that he might be in
Panghihingi ng pera sa mga brokers, ang lakad nito.
error, even knowing of the possibility that someone
Pag hindi nagbigay ng pera ang mga brokers, maiipit else may have used Atty. So’s name, as Tulfo
ang pagre-release ng kanilang kargamento. surmised, he made no effort to verify the
information given by his source or even to ascertain
—————- the identity of the person he was accusing.
Nagfile ng P10 M na libel suit itong si Atty. Carlos b. Although falsity of the articles does not prove
So ng Bureau of Customs laban sa inyong lingkod at malice, the existence of press freedom must be done
ilang opisyales ng Remate sa “consistent with good faith and reasonable care.”
Pasay City Court. Nagalit itong tarantadong si Atty. This was clearly abandoned by Tulfo when he wrote
So dahil binanatan ko siya at inexpose ang the subject articles. This is no case of mere error or
kagaguhan niya sa BOC. honest mistake, but a case of a journalist abdicating
his responsibility to verify history and instead
Hoy, So . . . dagdagan mo pa ang pagnanakaw mo misinforming the public.
dahil hindi kita tatantanan. Buhay ka pa sinusunog
na ang iyong kaluluwa sa c. Tulfo had written and published the articles with
reckless disregard of whether the same were false or
impyerno. not. The test laid down is the “reckless disregard”
test, and Tulfo failed to meet that test.
After trial, the RTC found Tulfo, et al. guilty of
libel. The CAaffirmed the decision d. Evidence of malice: The fact that Tulfo published
another article lambasting Atty. So after the
ISSUES:
commencement of an action. Tulfo did not relent nor
1.Why was Borjal v. CA not applied to this case? did he pause to consider his actions, but went on to
continue defaming Atty. So.This is a clear indication
2.W/N the assailed articles are privileged. of his intent to malign Atty. So, no matter the cost,
3.W/N the assailed articles are fair commentaries. and is proof of malice.

RULING: 3.NO. Good faith is lacking, as Tulfo failed to

substantiate or even attempt to verify his story
1.Borjal was not applied to this case because: before publication.
a.Borjal stemmed from a civil action for damages a. The provided no details o the acts committed by
based on libel, and was not a criminal case. the subject. They are plain and simple baseless
accusations, backed up by the word of one unnamed
b.The ruling in Borjal was that there was no
source.
sufficient identification of the complainant.
b. Not “fair” or “true” because “fair” is defined as
“having the qualities of impartiality and honesty.”

24
“True” is defined as “comfortable to fact; correct; Freedom of expression as well as freedom of the
exact; actual; genuine; honest.” Tulfo failed to press may not be unrestrained, but neither must it be
satisfy these requirements, as he did not do reined in too harshly
research before making his allegations, and it has NOTES:
been shown that these allegations were baseless. The
Obiter 1: It may be cliché that the pen is mightier
articles are not “fair and true reports,” but merely
than the sword, but in this particular case, the lesson
wild accusations.
to be learned is that such a mighty weapon should
Elements of fair commentary (to be considered not be wielded recklessly or thoughtlessly, but
privileged): always guided by conscience and careful thought.
a. That it is a fair and true report of a judicial, Obiter 2: A robust and independently free press is
legislative, or other official proceedings which are doubtless one of the most effective checks on
not of confidential nature, or of a statement, report, government power and abuses. Hence, it behooves
or speech delivered ins aid proceedings, or of any government functionaries to respect the value of
other act performed by a public officer in the openness and refrain from concealing from media
exercise of his functions; corruption and other anomalous practices occurring
within their backyard. On the other hand, public
b. That it is made in good faith;
officials also deserve respect and protection against
c. That it is without any comments or remarks. false innuendoes and unfounded accusation of
official wrongdoing from an abusive press. As it
Journalists may be allowed an adequate margin of were, the law and jurisprudence on libel heavily tilt
error in the exercise of their profession, but this in favor of press freedom. The common but most
margin does not expand to cover every defamatory unkind perception is that government institutions
or injurious statement they may make in the and their officers and employees are fair game to
furtherance of their profession, nor does this margin official and personal attacks and even ridicule. And
cover total abandonment of responsibility. the practice on the ground is just as disconcerting.
The mere fact that the subject of an article is a public Reports and accusation of official misconduct often
figure or a matter of public interest does not mean it times merit front page or primetime treatment, while
is a fair commentary within the scope of qualified defenses set up, retraction issued, or acquittal
privileged communication, which would rendered get no more, if ever, perfunctory coverage.
automatically exclude the author from liability. The unfairness needs no bel aboring. The balm of
clear conscience is sometimes not enough.
The confidentiality of sources and their importance
to journalists are accepted and respected. What Freedom of Press vs Responsibility of the Press
cannot be accepted are journalists making no efforts Freedom of the press was given greater weight over
to verify the information given by a source, and the rights of individuals, the Court, however, has
using that unverified information to throw wild stressed that such
accusations and besmirch the name of possibly an
innocent person. freedom is not absolute and unbounded. The
exercise of this right or any right enshrined in the
Journalists have a responsibility to report the truth, Bill of Rights, indeed,
and in doing so must at least investigate their stories
before publication, and be able to back up their comes with an equal burden of responsible exercise
stories with proof. Journalists are not storytellers or of that right. The recognition of a right is not free
novelists who may just spin tales out of fevered license for the one
imaginings, and pass them off as reality. There must
claiming it to run roughshod over the rights of
be some foundation to their reports; these reports
others.
must be warranted by facts.

25
Journalists Code of Ethics - Art. I of said code states Enrile declared that he will not approve the use,
that journalists recognize the duty to air the other appropriation, reproduction and/or exhibition of his
side and the duty name, or picture, or that of any member of his family
in any cinema or television production, film or other
to correct substantive errors promptly. Art. VIII
medium for advertising or commercial exploitation.
states that journalists shall presume persons accused
petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of
of crime of being
Enrile was deleted from the movie script, and
innocent until proven otherwise. petitioners proceeded to film the projected motion
picture. However, a complaint was filed by Enrile
The exercise of press freedom must be done invoking his right to privacy.
consistent with good faith and reasonable care. This
was clearly abandoned by Tulfo when he wrote the RTC ordered for the desistance of the movie
subject articles. This is no case of mere error or production and making of any reference to plaintiff
honest mistake, but a case of a journalist abdicating or his family and from creating any fictitious
his responsibility to verify his story and instead character in lieu of plaintiff which nevertheless is
misinforming the public. Journalists may be allowed based on, or bears substantial or marked
an adequate margin of error in the exercise of their resemblance to Enrile. Hence the appeal.
profession, but this margin does not expand to cover
ISSUE:
every defamatory or injurious statement they may
make in the furtherance of their profession, nor does Whether or Not freedom of expression was violated
this margin cover total abandonment of
responsibility. RULING:
1.Petitioners claim that in producing the “The Four
Tulfo et al. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four
Day Revolution,” they are exercising their freedom
(4) counts of the crime of LIBEL.
of speech and of expression protected under the
12. AYER PRODCUTIONS PTY. LTD. VS Constitution. Private respondent, on the other hand,
CAPULONG asserts a right of privacy and claims that the
production and filming of the projected mini-series
FACTS: would constitute an unlawful intrusion into his
Petitioner McElroy an Australian film maker, and privacy which he is entitled to enjoy.
his movie production company, Ayer Productions,
2.The freedom of speech and of expression includes
envisioned, sometime in 1987, for commercial
the freedom to film and produce motion pictures and
viewing and for Philippine and international release,
to exhibit such motion pictures in theatres or to
the historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at
diffuse them through television. In our day and age,
EDSA.
motion pictures are a universally utilized vehicle of
The proposed motion picture entitled "The Four Day communication and medium of expression.
Revolution" was endorsed by the MTRCB as and
3.This freedom is available in our country both to
other government agencies consulted. Ramos also
locally-owned and to foreign-owned motion picture
signified his approval of the intended film
companies.
production. It is designed to be viewed in a sixhour
mini-series television play, presented in a "docu- Furthermore, the circumstance that the production of
drama" style, creating four fictional characters motion picture films is a commercial activity
interwoven with real events, and utilizing actual expected to yield monetary profit, is not a
documentary footage as background. disqualification for availing of freedom of speech
and of expression. Indeed, commercial media
David Williamson is Australia's leading playwright
constitute the bulk of such facilities available in our
and Professor McCoy (University of New South
country and hence to exclude commercially-owned
Wales) is an American historian have developed a
and operated media from the exercise of
script.
constitutionally protected freedom of speech and of

26
expression can only result in the drastic contraction current events. It extends also to information or
of such constitutional liberties in our country. education, or even entertainment and amusement, by
books, articles, pictures, films and broadcasts
4.The production and filming by petitioners of the
concerning interesting phases of human activity in
projected motion picture does not constitute an
general, as well as the reproduction of the public
unlawful intrusion upon private respondent’s right of
scene in newsreel and travelogues. In determining
privacy. More so, the motion picture is not
where to draw the line, the courts were invited to
principally about, nor is it focused upon, the man
exercise a species of censorship over what the public
Juan Ponce Enrile, but it is compelled, if it is to be
may be permitted to read; and they were
historical, to refer to the role played by Enrile in the
understandably liberal in allowing the benefit of the
precipitating and the constituent events of the
doubt.
change of government.
6.The line of equilibrium in the specific context of
5.The privilege of enlightening the public is not
the instant case between the constitutional freedom
limited to the dissemination of news in the scene of
of speech and of expression and the right of privacy,
current events. It extends also to information or
may be marked out in terms of a requirement that the
education, or even entertainment and amusement, by
proposed motion picture must be fairly truthful and
books, articles, pictures, films and
historical in its presentation of events. There must,
broadcasts concerning interesting phases of human in other words, be no knowing or reckless disregard
activity in general, as well as the reproduction of the of truth in depicting the participation of private
public scene in newsreel and travelogues. In respondent in the EDSA Revolution. There must be
determining where to draw the line, the courts were no
invited to exercise a species of censorship over what
presentation of the private life of the unwilling
the public may be permitted to read; and they were
private respondent and certainly no revelation of
understandably liberal in allowing the benefit of the
intimate or embarrassing personal facts.
doubt.
To the extent that the motion picture limits itself in
6.The line of equilibrium in the specific context of
portraying the participation of private respondent in
the instant case between the constitutional freedom
the EDSA Revolution to those events which are
of speech and of expression and the right of privacy,
directly and reasonably related to the public facts of
may be marked out in terms of a requirement that the
the EDSA Revolution, the intrusion into private
proposed motion picture must be fairly truthful and
respondent’s privacy cannot be regarded as
historical in its presentation of events. There must,
unreasonable and actionable. Such portrayal may be
in other words, be no knowing or reckless disregard
carried out even without a license from private
of truth in depicting the participation of private
respondent.
respondent in the EDSA Revolution. There must be
no presentation of the private life of the unwilling C. OBSCENITY
private respondent and certainly no revelation of
intimate or embarrassing personal facts. To the 14. MILLER VS. CALIFORNIA
extent that the motion picture limits itself in FACTS:
portraying the participation of private respondent in
the EDSA Revolution to those events which are Marvin Miller (appellant) operated a mail-
directly and reasonably related to the public facts of order business in California. In 1971, he conducted a
the EDSA Revolution, the intrusion into private mass-mailing campaign to advertise the sale of adult
respondent’s privacy cannot be regarded as materials which primarily consist of pictures and
unreasonable and actionable. Such portrayal may be drawings very explicitly depicting men and women
carried out even without a license from private in groups of two or more engaging in variety of
respondent. sexual activities with genitals often prominently
displayed. After an unsolicited mail was received by
5.The privilege of enlightening the public is not a restaurant manager and his mother, they
limited to the dissemination of news in the scene of complained to the police.

27
 Miller was convicted in violation of (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
California Penal Code 311 2(a), a misdemeanor, by serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
knowingly distributing obscene matter. Appellate
Moreover, the Court stated that the jury may
Department of the Superior Court of California,
measure the essentially factual issues of prurient
County of Orange affirmed the judgment.
appeal and patent offensiveness based on the
ISSUES: standard that prevails in the forum community and
nees not to employ a "national standard.
WON obscenity is protected by the 1st and
14th Amendment of the US Constitution Although fundamental First Amendment
limitations on the powers of the States do not vary
WON states may determine what constitutes
from community to community, this does not mean
obscenity
that there are, or should or can be, fixed, uniform
WON there is a national standard in defining national standards of precisely what appeals to the
“obscenity” "prurient interest" or is "patently offensive."

HELD: These are essentially questions of fact, and

United States is simply too big and too diverse for
No. The 1st and 14th Amendments have never been the Court to reasonably expect that such”national
treated as absolutes. In Roth’s case, it was held that standards” could be articulated for all 50 States in a
obscenity is not within the constitutionally protected single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite
speech or press. The definition of obscenity in consensus exists.
Roth’s case was further underscored by that of
Memoir decision. In the latter decision, it was Miller’s Case was vacated and remanded to the
required that “...to prove obscenity, it must be trial court for further proceedings (defining
affirmatively established that a material is utterly obscenity based on community standards).
without social value”. However, such Memoirs test
had been abandoned as it was impossible to create
standards as to what really constitutes the phrase Additional infos:
“without redeeming social value” relative to proving
Roth v. United States presumed "obscenity" to be
obscenity.
"utterly without redeeming social
Having settled that obscenity is not protected importance," Memoirs required that to prove
by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court further obscenity it must be affirmatively established that
stated that regulation of freedom of expression may the material is "utterly without redeeming social
be conducted by States but it must be carefully value."
limited so as not to infringe any vested rights. The
Supreme Court confined the permissible scope of the
regulation of Freedom of Expression to works which California Penal Code 311.2 (a) Every person who
depict or describe sexual conduct. Such conduct knowingly: sends or causes to be sent, or brings or
must be specifically defined by applicable State causes to be brought, into this state for sale or
Laws. The Court presented basic guidelines for the distribution, or in this state prepares, publishes,
trier of facts on identifying obscenity: prints, exhibits, distributes, or offers to distribute, or
has in his possession with intent to distribute or to
(a) whether "the average person, applying
exhibit or offer to distribute, any obscene matter is
contemporary community standards" would find that
guilty of a misdemeanor
the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
interest, 15. PITA VS. COURT OF APPEALS
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a 178 SCRA 362 (1989)
patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable state law, and FACTS:

28
 On December 1 and 3, 1983, pursuing an The Court, in an attempt to provide a
Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the solution to a problem, emphasized the ruling in
City of Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing, elements of Reyes vs. Bagatsing, a case involving the delivery of
the Special Anti-Narcotics Group, Auxilliary a political speech. The presumption is that the
Services Bureau, Western Police District, INP of the speech may validly be said. The burden is on the
Metropolitan Police Force of Manila, seized and State to demonstrate the existence of a danger, a
confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand danger that must not only be: (1) clear but also, (2)
owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks, present, to justify State action to stop the speech.
magazines, publications and other reading materials Applying to the case at bar, there must be a clear
believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and actual danger, an objective and convincing,
and later burned the seized materials in public at the not subjective or conjectural, proof of the existence
University belt along C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila, of such clear and present danger to justify the
in the presence of Mayor Bagatsing and several interference of the state in matters involving
officers and members of various student “immoral” lore or literature.
organizations.
It is also significant in this case the seizure
Among the publications seized, and later of the plaintiff’s belongings, the Court is not
burned, was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines published convinced that the private respondents have shown
and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita. After his the required proof to justify a ban and to warrant
injunctive relief was dismissed by the RTC and his confiscation of the literature for which mandatory
appeal rejected by CA, he seeks review with SC, injunction had been sought below.
invoking the guaranty against unreasonable searches
First of all, they were not possessed of a
and seizure.
lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to
ISSUE: be pornography, and (2) authorizing them to carry
out a search and seizure, by way of a search warrant.
WON the defendants and/or their agents
can, without a court order, confiscate or seize It is basic that searches and seizures may
plaintiff’s magazine before any judicial finding is be done only through a judicial warrant,
made on whether said magazine is obscene or not otherwise, they become unreasonable and subject
to challenge. In Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP, they
counter-minded the orders of the Regional Trial
HELD: Court authorizing the search of the premises of We
Forum and Metropolitan Mail, two Metro Manila
The preliminary issue is whether the dailies, by reason of a defective warrant. We have
magazines confiscated were obscene or not. In its greater reason here to reprobate the questioned raid,
ruling, the court has presented past decisions relating in the complete absence of a warrant, valid or
to obscenity but to no avail, such rulings did not invalid. The fact that the instant case involves an
resolve the problem of determining obscenity. What obscenity rap makes it no different from Burgos, a
the Court is impressing, plainly and simply, is that political case, because, and as we have indicated,
the question is not, and has not been, an easy one to speech is speech, whether political or "obscene".
answer, as it is far from being a settled matter. The
Court shares disappointment over the discouraging The Court is not ruling out warrantless
trend in American decisional law on obscenity as searches, as the Rules of Court (1964 rev.) (the
well as the pessimism on whether or not an Rules then prevailing) but as the provision itself
"acceptable" solution is in sight. As the Court stated, suggests, the search must have been an incident to
”...individual tastes develop, adapt to wide-ranging a lawful arrest, and the arrest must be on account
influences, and keep in step with the rapid advance of a crime committed. Here, no party has been
of civilization. What shocked our forebears, say, five charged, nor are such charges being readied
decades ago, is not necessarily repulsive to the against any party, under Article 201, as amended, of
present generation”. the Revised Penal Code.

29
We make this resume. Padan y Alova, like Go Pin, raised more questions
than answers. For one thing, if the exhibition was
1. The authorities must apply for the issuance of a
attended by "artists and persons interested in art and
search warrant from a judge, if in their opinion, an
who generally go to art exhibitions and galleries to
obscenity rap is in order;
satisfy and improve their artistic tastes," could the
2. The authorities must convince the court that the same legitimately lay claim to "art"? For another,
materials sought to be seized are "obscene", and suppose that the exhibition was so presented that
pose a clear and present danger of an evil "connoisseurs of [art], and painters and sculptors
substantive enough to warrant State interference and might find inspiration," in it, would it cease to be a
action; case of obscenity?

3. The judge must determine whether or not the Gonzales vs. Kalaw Katigbak follows an American
same are indeed "obscene:" the question is to be Jursprudence “Whether to the average person,
resolved on a case-to-case basis and on His Honor's applying contemporary standards, the dominant
sound discretion. theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to
prurient interest."
4. If, in the opinion of the court, probable cause
exists, it may issue the search warrant prayed for; Memoirs v. Massachusettes, a 1966
decision,characterized obscenity as one "utterly
5. The proper suit is then brought in the court under without any redeeming social value," marked yet
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code; another development
6. Any conviction is subject to appeal. The appellate Miller v. California, expressly
court may assess whether or not the properties seized abandoned Massachusettes, and established "basic
are indeed "obscene". guidelines," to wit: "(a) whether 'the average person,
Petition granted, decision of respondent court applying contemporary standards' would find the
reversed and set aside. 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
Cases cited (defining obscenity)
law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole,
People vs. Kottinger- the test in determining the lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
existence of obscenity, are as follows: value.

"whether the tendency of the matter charged as D. FILM AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND
obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds CENSORSHIP
are open to such immoral influences and into whose
16. MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND
hands a publication or other article charged as being
CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB),
obscene may fall." Or that "which shocks the
petitioner,
ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency.
"Kottinger hastened to say, however, that "[w]hether vs.
a picture is obscene or indecent must depend upon
the circumstances of the case, 8and that ultimately, ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
the question is to be decided by the "judgment of and LOREN LEGARDA, respondents.
the aggregate sense of the community reached by FACTS:
it."
On October 15, 1991, at 10:45 in the
People vs. Go Pin- "if the pictures here in question evening, respondent ABS-CBN aired “Prosti-
were used not exactly for art's sake but rather for tuition,” an episode of the television (TV) program
commercial purposes," the pictures are not entitled “The Inside Story” produced and hosted by
to any constitutional protection. respondent Legarda. It depicted female students
moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for
30
their tuition fees. In the course of the program, Inside Story” from the coverage of the above cited
student prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some provisions; and annul and set aside the MTRCB
faculty members were interviewed. The Philippine Decision dated March 12, 1993 and Resolution
Women’s University (PWU) was named as the dated April 14, 1993. Respondents averred that the
school of some of the students involved and the above-cited provisions constitute “prior restraint”
facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue, Manila on respondents’ exercise of freedom of expression
conspicuously served as the background of the and of the press, and, therefore,
episode. unconstitutional. Furthermore, the above cited
provisions do not apply to the “The Inside Story”
The showing of “The Inside Story”
because it falls under the category of “public affairs
caused uproar in the PWU community. Dr. Leticia
program, news documentary, or socio-political
P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU,
editorials” governed by standards similar to those
and the PWU Parents and Teachers Association filed
governing newspapers. The RTC rendered a decision
letter-complaints with petitioner MTRCB. Both
in favour of the respondent.
complainants alleged that the episode besmirched
the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment Petitioner MTRCB through the Solicitor
of some of its female students. General, contends inter alia: first, all television
programs, including “public affairs programs, news
Acting on the letter-complaints, the
documentaries, or socio-political editorials,” are
MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a formal complaint
subject to petitioner’s power of review under Section
with the MTRCB Investigating Committee, alleging
3 (b) of P.D. No. 1986 and pursuant to this Court’s
among others, that respondents did not submit “The
ruling in Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals;
Inside Story” to petitioner for its review
second, television programs are more accessible to
and exhibited the same without its permission, thus,
the public than newspapers, thus, the liberal
violating Section 7 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
regulation of the latter cannot apply to the former;
1986 and Section 3, Chapter III and Section 7,
third, petitioner’s power to review television
Chapter IV of the MTRCB Rules and Regulations.
programs under Section 3(b) of P. D. No. 1986 does
On February 5, 1993, after hearing and not amount to “prior restraint;” and fourth, Section
submission of the parties’ memoranda, the MTRCB 3(b) of P. D. No. 1986 does not violate respondents’
Investigating Committee rendered a Decision, the constitutional freedom of expression and of the
decretal portion of which reads: press.

“WHEREFORE, the aforementioned premises, the ISSUE:

respondents are ordered to pay the sum of TWENTY
WON the MTRCB has the power or
THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) for non-
authority to review the “The Inside Story” prior to
submission of the program, subject of this case for
its exhibition or broadcast by television?
review and approval of the MTRCB.
Heretofore, all subsequent programs of the
‘The Inside Story’ and all other programs of the RULING:
ABS-CBN Channel 2 of the same category shall be
Settled is the rule in statutory
submitted to the Board of Review and Approval
construction that where the law does not make any
before showing; otherwise the Board will act
exception, courts may not except something
accordingly.
therefrom, unless there is compelling reason
Respondents then filed a special civil apparent in the law to justify it. Ubi lex non
action for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court distinguit nec distinguere debemos. Thus, when
(RTC), Branch 77, Quezon City. It seeks the law says “all television programs,” the word
to: declare as unconstitutional Sections 3(b), 3(c), “all” covers all television programs, whether
3(d), 4, 7, and 11 of P. D. No. 1986 and Sections 3, religious, public affairs, news documentary, etc.
7, and 28 (a) of the MTRCB Rules and The principle assumes that the legislative body made
Regulations; (in the alternative) exclude the “The
31
no qualification in the use of general word or grounds. The district court entered a temporary
expression. restraining order prohibiting the enforcement of the
CDA as it applied to “‘indecent’ communications.”
It bears stressing that the sole issue here is
A second suit was filed by 27 plaintiffs, challenging
whether petitioner MTRCB has authority to review
two provisions of the CDA. The district court
“The Inside Story.” Clearly, we are not called upon
granted a preliminary injunction against the
to determine whether petitioner violated Section 4,
enforcement of both provisions. Under special
Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution
provisions of the CDA, the government appealed
providing that no law shall be passed abridging the
directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming the
freedom of speech, of oppression or the
district court erred in finding the provisions
press. Petitioner did not disapprove or ban the
unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
showing of the program. Neither did it cancel
respondents’ permit. Respondents were merely The first provision challenged the criminalization of
penalized for their failure to submit to petitioner the “’knowing’ transmission of ‘obscene or
“The Inside Story” for its review and indecent’ messages to any recipient under 18 years
approval. Therefore, we need not resolve whether of age.” The second provision challenged the
certain provisions of P. D. No. 1986 and the prohibition of the “’knowin[g]’ sending or
MTRCB Rules and Regulations specified by displaying to a person under 18 of any message that,
respondents contravene the Constitution or if the in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently
freedom of press has been infringed. offensive as measured by contemporary community
standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.”
Consequently, we cannot sustain the
RTC’s ruling that Sections 3 (c) (d), 4, 7 and 11 of ISSUE. Whether the two CDA statutory provisions
P. D. No. 1986 and Sections 3, 7 and 28 (a) of the at issue are constitutional?
MTRCB Rules and Regulations are
unconstitutional. It is settled that no question DECISION:
involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. He
governmental act may be heard and decided by the emphasized the variety of content on the Internet,
court unless there is compliance with the legal holding that it is “no exaggeration to conclude that
requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: (1) that the the content on the Internet is as diverse as human
question must be raised by the proper party; (2) that thought.” [p. 852]
there must be an actual case or controversy; (3) that
the question must be raised at the earliest possible The government had argued that the provisions were
opportunity; and, (4) that the decision on the needed to protect minors from harmful material on
constitutional or legal question must be necessary to the Internet, particularly sexually explicit material,
the determination of the case itself. and that similar regulation as already existed for
broadcasting should be applied to the Internet. The
Petition is GRANTED. The assailed RTC Decision Court strongly disagreed with this contention,
dated November 18, 1997 and Order dated August holding that there was no history of Internet
26, 2002 are hereby REVERSED. The Decision regulation and the Internet was not as invasive as
dated March 12, 1993 of petitioner MTRCB is radio or television. Furthermore, unlike the
AFFIRMED. Costs against respondent. broadcast media, which could be regulated partly
because of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies
E. CYBERSPACE COMMUNITCATIONS
available, Internet bandwidth was almost unlimited,
17. RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES providing relatively low-cost capacity for
UNION communication of all kinds. The Court also stressed
that users seldom encounter content by accident.
FACTS
As to the text of the provisions, the Court considered
Twenty plaintiffs (including the ACLU) filed suit
that they were vaguely worded and failed to
challenging provisions of the 1996 Communications
adequately define or limit “indecent” or “patently
Decency Act (CDA) on First Amendment
offensive” material. The provisions would
32
potentially criminalise large amounts of non- 18. JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ET AL. v. THE
pornographic material with serious educational or SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL.,
other value, and the “community standards” criterion
Constitutional law; unsolicited commercial
as applied to the Internet meant that any website
communications, also known as “spam” is entitled to
available to a nation-wide audience would be judged
protection under freedom of expression. To prohibit
by the standards of the community most likely to be
the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a
offended by it. This would provoke uncertainty and
person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited
raise questions whether the Act criminalized serious
commercial ads addressed to him. Commercial
discussion about issues such as birth control,
speech is a separate category of speech which is not
homosexuality, or the consequences of prison rape.
accorded the same level of protection as that given
None of the defenses provided for saved the to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of
provisions. The Court disagreed that the proposed expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection.
coding of specific sites as indecent would suffice; The State cannot rob him of this right without
there would be no way of knowing whether a violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
potential recipient would actually block such sites. expression. Unsolicited advertisements are
Age verification was prohibitively expensive, legitimate forms of expression.
particularly for non-commercial websites and
Criminal law; Cyberlibel under Section 4(c)(4) of
individuals, and even if it was affordable there was
the Cybercrime Law is constitutional. The Court
no evidence that this would preclude minors from
agrees with the Solicitor General that libel is not a
posing as adults.
constitutionally protected speech and that the
The Court held that, “[i]t is true that we have government has an obligation to protect private
repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in individuals from defamation. Indeed, cyberlibel is
protecting children from harmful materials. But that actually not a new crime since Article 353, in
interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad relation to Article 355 of the Penal Code, already
suppression of speech addressed to adults. As we punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely
have explained, the Government may not “reduc[e] affirms that online defamation constitutes “similar
the adult population…to…only what is fit for means” for committing libel. But the Court’s
children.”” [p. 875] The Court therefore agreed with acquiescence goes only insofar as the cybercrime
the district court’s conclusion that “the CDA places law penalizes the author of the libelous statement or
an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech, article. Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies,
and that the defenses do not constitute the sort of unheard of when the Penal Code provisions on libel
‘narrow tailoring’ that will save an otherwise were enacted. The culture associated with internet
patently invalid unconstitutional provision.” [p. 882] media is distinct from that of print.
Finally, the government had said that the Act was Criminal law; Section 5 of the Cybercrime Law that
needed to foster the growth of the Internet, arguing punishes “aiding or abetting” libel on the cyberspace
that the unregulated availability of “indecent” and is a nullity. The terms “aiding or abetting” constitute
“patently offensive” material would drive people broad sweep that generates chilling effect on those
away. The Court held that this contention was who express themselves through cyberspace posts,
clearly wrong, as illustrated by the dramatic ongoing comments, and other messages. Its vagueness raises
growth of the internet, and held that, “governmental apprehension on the part of internet users because of
regulation of the content of speech is more likely to its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of
interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to expression, especially since the crime of aiding or
encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of abetting ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace
expression in a democratic society outweighs any front in a fuzzy way. What is more, as the
theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.” petitioners point out, formal crimes such as libel are
not punishable unless consummated. In the absence
of legislation tracing the interaction of netizens and
their level of responsibility such as in other
countries, Section 5, in relation to Section 4(c)(4) on
33
Libel, Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial unreasonable searches and seizure
Communications, and Section 4(c)(2) on Child as well as the right to the privacy of
Pornography, cannot stand scrutiny. communications;
FACTS: o • Section 19 of the Cybercrime Act,
which authorizes the Respondent
Petitioners Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., Rowena S.
Secretary of DOJ to block or restrict
Disini, Lianne Ivy P. Medina, Janette Toral and
access to any content upon a prima
Ernesto Sonido, Jr., as taxpayers, file a Petition for
facie finding that the same violates
Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the
the law, contains an undue
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petitioners seek
delegation of legislative authority,
to 1) nullify Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of RA
infringes upon the judicial power of
10175, otherwise known as the “Cybercrime
the judiciary, and violates the
Prevention Act of 2012” for violating the
Petitioners’ Constitutionally-
fundamental rights protected under the Constitution;
protected right to due process and
and 2) prohibit the Respondents, singly and
freedom of expression; and
collectively, from enforcing the afore-mentioned
provisions of the Cybercrime Act. o • Section 4(c)(4) defines libel as a
cybercrime and in relation to
Named as Respondents are the Secretary of Justice,
Section 6 of the law increased the
the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government,
penalty from 6 months to 4 years
the Executive Director of the Information
and 2 months to the greater period
Communications Technology Office, the Chief of
of 6 years to 10 years, infringes
the Philippine National Police, and the Director of
upon the right to freedom of
the National Bureau of Investigation.
expression and also restricts the
ISSUES/GROUNDS: freedom of the press. Under Section
12, a prima facie finding by the
1. Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of The Secretary of DOJ can trigger an
Cybercrime Act violate the petitioners’ order directed at service providers to
constitutionally protected rights to freedom block access to the said material
of expression, due process, equal protection, without the benefit of a trial or a
privacy of communications, as well as the conviction. Thus, RA 10175
Constitutional sanctions against double infringes upon the right to freedom
jeopardy, undue delegation of legislative of expression and also restricts the
authority and the right against unreasonable freedom of the press. The increased
searches and seizure; penalties, plus the ease by which
o • Sections 6 and 7 of the Cybercrime allegedly libelous materials can be
Act more than doubles the liability removed from access, work together
for imprisonment for any violation as a “chilling effect” upon protected
of existing penal laws are in speech.
violation of the petitioners’ right 2. No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy
against Double Jeopardy; in the court of law, and that this Petition is
o • Section 12 of the Cybercrime Act, therefore cognizable by the SC’s judicial
which permits the NBI and the PNP power under Article VIII, Section 1 par. 2 of
“with due cause” to engage in real the Constitution and pursuant to Rule 65,
time collection of traffic data Sec. 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
without the benefit of the as amended.
intervention of a judge, violates the ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS:
Petitioners’ Constitutionally-
protected right to be free from 1. The Cybercrime Act Violates Free Speech:

34
 o • imposes heavier penalties for laid down in the RPC or special law,
online libel than paper-based simply by the passage of the
libel; single act of online libel will Cybercrime Act;
result in two convictions penalized
o • the cybercrimes defined and
separately under the RP and the
punished under Section 6 of the Act
Cybercrime Act;
are absolutely identical to the crimes
o online libel under the Cybercrime defined in the RPC and special laws
Act will ensure the imprisonment of which raises the possibility that an
the accused and for a much longer accused will be punished twice for
period. Such changes will result in a the same offense in violation of the
chilling effect upon the freedom of Constitution;
speech;
o • Congress created a class of
o • with the passage of the offenders who commit crimes “by,
Cybercrime Act, Senator Vicente through or with the use” of ICTs in
Sotto III’s earlier threat to violation of the equal
criminally prosecute all bloggers protection clause
and internet users who were critical
3. The Real Time Collection of
of his alleged plagiarism of online
Traffic Date Violate the Right to Privacy
materials for use in his speech
and the Right Against Unreasonable
against the Reproductive Health Bill
Searches and Seizure:
became real; threat of criminal
prosecution under RA 10175 will o • No compelling state interest that
work to preclude people such as justifies real time collection of data;
Petitioners from posting social the authority vested on the
commentaries online, thus creating a Philippine National Police and the
“chilling effect” upon the freedom National Bureau of Investigation to
of expression; collect data is not bounded by any
reasonable standard except “due
o • gives the DOJ Secretary blanket
cause” which presumably, the PNP
authority to restrain and block
and NBI will determine for itself;
access to content whether authored
by private citizens or the organized o • While the privacy of suspected
press sans any hearing of any kind terrorists, through the Human
but merely upon a mere prima Security Act, are protected by the
facie showing that a particular intervention of the Court of Appeals
Internet article constitutes online before surveillance operations are
libel; conducted, the privacy of all citizens
may be infringed without judicial
o • respondents must demonstrate how
participation in the Cybercrime Act;
the Cybercrime Act will fare under
strict scrutiny o • Neither the PNP nor the NBI is
required to justify the incursion into
2. Sections 6 and 7 of the Cybercrime Act
the right to privacy;
violate the Double Jeopardy and Equal
Protection Clauses of the Constitution: o No limits imposed upon the PNP or
the NBI since they can lawfully
o • Persons who commit crimes using
collect traffic data at all times
information and communication
without interruption;
technologies (ICTs) face the
possibility of being imprisoned
more than double the imprisonment
35
 o • No stated justification for this 4. YouTube video may be
warrant-free unlimited incursion blocked for presumably
into the privacy of citizens violating the IP Code.
4. The Respondent DOJ Secretary’s Take o • The Cybercrime Act fails the two
Down Authority under Section 19 of the tests laid down by the Court
Cybercrime Act violates Due Process and is in Abakada Guro Party List v.
an Undue Delegation of Legislative Purisima (GR No. 166715) to
Authority determine the validity of delegation
of legislative power: (1) the
o • The DOJ Secretary’s
completeness test and (2) the
overwhelming powers to order the
sufficient standard test
restriction or blocking of access to
certain content upon a mere prima 1. Nowhere in the Cybercrime
facie finding without any need for a Act’s declaration of policy
judicial determination is in clear does it lay down the
violation of petitioners’ legislative policy with
Constitutionally protected right to respect to the blocking of
due process; content. No limits upon the
takedown power of the
o • The Cybercrime Act contemplates
respondent DOJ Secretary;
that the respondent DOJ Secretary
will be “judge, jury and 2. Prima facie standard is not
executioner” of all cybercrime- enough to prevent the DOJ
related complaints; Secretary from exercising
infinite discretion and
o To consider that all penal provisions
becoming the supreme
in all specials laws are cybercrimes
authority in the Philippine
under Section 6, it • follows that:
Internet landscape.
1. Complaints filed by
PRAYER:
intellectual property rights
owners may be acted upon 1. Declare null and void, for being
the Respondent DOJ unconstitutional, Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12
Secretary to block access to and 19 of RA 10175;
websites and content upon a
2. Prohibit all Respondents from implementing
mere prima facie showing
Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of RA
of an infringement;
10175;
2. Foreign sites (e.g.
3. Issue a TRO enjoining the Respondents
Amazon.com) offering
from implementing Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12
goods on retail to Philippine
and 19 of RA 10175; and
citizens may be blocked for
violating the Retail Trade 4. Issue other reliefs, just and equitable in the
Law; premises.
3. Foreign service providers 5. The Supreme Court on Tuesday, February
such as Skype may be 18, upheld as constitutional most provisions
blocked from offering voice of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime
services without securing a Law, including online libel – subject to one
license from the National condition.
Telecommunications
Communication;

36
 6. The High Court also struck down a technical or electronic means "traffic data" in real
provision of the law that gives the state the time.
power to take down online content without a
Section 4 (c)(3) of the law says that
court warrant.
"the transmission of commercial electronic
7. Seeking to strike a balance between communication with the use of computer system
fundamental freedoms and government which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale
control, the High Court decided on the products and services are prohibited" unless certain
constitutionality of Republic Act 10175 a conditions – such as prior affirmative consent from
little over a year after oral arguments were the recipient – are met. This was ruled
heard on Jan 15, 2013. unconstitutional.
8. Among the hotly-debated issues during the A separability clause contained in Section 29,
oral arguments was the law's provision on Chapter VIII of the law allows the rest of the law to
online libel. (READ: 'Libel gone is best- "remain in full force and effect" even if certain
case scenario for SC cybercime ruling') provisions are held invalid.
9. The Supreme Court decision, penned by
Justice Roberto Abad, ruled online libel to
be constitutional but with an exception –
that is, in cases where it covers persons Nuances in other provisions
other than the original author. Recipients of,
and netizens who react to a potentially Three other provisions were not struck down and
defamatory post, will not be covered by remain in the law, but they will not apply in certain
online libel. cases as decided by the SC. Among these provisions
is online libel, which is constitutional as far as the
Unconstitutional provisions original author is concerned.
Three provisions were voted down as categorically Section 5, which pertains to aiding or abetting the
unconstitutional: commission of a cybercrime and to the attempt to
commit a cybercrime, was declared unconstitutional
 Section 4 (c)(3) which pertains to
only in the following cases: child pornography,
unsolicited commercial communications
unsolicited commercial communications (or spam),
 Section 12 which pertains to real-time and online libel. Section 5 will apply to all other
collection of traffic data cybercrimes outlined in the law.
 Section 19 which pertains to restricting or National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Cybercrime
blocking access to computer data Division Chief Ronald Aguto explained to Rappler
that it will also be hard for both law enforcement and
The SC decided that Section 19 – granting power to
the prosecution to prove the "attempt to commit a
the Department of Justice (DOJ) to restrict computer
cybercrime."
data on the basis of prima facie or initially observed
evidence – was not in keeping with the Constitution. Aiding a nd abetting the commission of a
The said automatic take-down clause is found in cybercrime, he added, might unduly cover certain
Section 19 of the cybercrime law. players in the online industry.
Even the SOLICITOR General, in his defense of RA Section 7, which pertains to liability of a cyber
10175, admitted before the SC that Section 19 is criminal under other laws, was declared
"constitutionally impermissible, because it permits a unconstitutional only in the following cases: online
form of final restraint on speech without prior libel and child pornography.
judicial determination."
The SC cited the guarantee against double jeopardy
Section 12 would have allowed law enforcement or being punished more than once for the same
authorities with due cause to collect or record by
37
offense – a guarantee outlined in the Constitution – ISSUE:
in deciding on Section 7.
Libel is punishable by Article 353 of the Revised
1. Does the Congress (through ordinary
Penal Code, while child pornography is punishable
legislative process) have the power to amend
by RA 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act.
or propose amendment to the Constitution?
A person convicted of libel or child pornography can
2. May the proposed amendments be submitted
only be punished once, under the coverage of
at a plebiscite scheduled on the same day as
a single law.
the regular elections?
F. ELECTIONS AND EXPRESSIONS
HELD:
19. GONZALES VS. COMELEC
21 SCRA 774; G.R. No. L-28196; 9 Nov 1967
1. No. The power to amend the Constitution or
FACTS: to propose amendments is not included in the
general grant of legislative powers to Congress. It is
On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of
part of the inherent powers of the people - as the
Representatives passed the following resolutions:
repository of sovereignty in a republican state, to
1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, make, and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental
proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of the Law.
Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to
Congress may propose amendments to the
increase the membership of the House of
Constitution merely because the same explicitly
Representatives from a maximum of 120, as
grants such power. Hence, when exercising the
provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum
same, it is said that Senators and Members of the
of 180, to be apportioned among the several
House of Representatives act, not as members
provinces as nearly as may be according to the
of Congress, but as component elements of
number of their respective inhabitants, although each
a constituent assembly. When acting as such, the
province shall have, at least, one (1) member;
members of Congress derive their authority from the
2. R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the
amendments to said Constitution, the convention to same function, for their authority does not emanate
be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each from the Constitution - they are the very source of
representative district, to be "elected in the general all powers of government, including the Constitution
elections to be held on the second Tuesday of itself.
November, 1971;" and
Since, when proposing, as a constituent
3. R. B. H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article assembly, amendments to the Constitution, the
VI, of the same Constitution, be amended so as to members of Congress derive their authority from the
authorize Senators and members of the House of Fundamental Law, it follows that they do not have
Representatives to become delegates to the the final say on whether or not their acts are within
aforementioned constitutional convention, without or beyond constitutional limits. The Constitution
forfeiting their respective seats in Congress. expressly confers upon the Supreme Court, the
power to declare a treaty unconstitutional, despite
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon the eminently political character of treaty-making
approval by the President, on June 17, 1967, became power.
Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the
amendments to the Constitution proposed in the The issue whether or not a Resolution of
aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be Congress - acting as a constituent assembly -
submitted, for approval by the people, at the general violates the Constitution essentially justiciable, not
elections, which shall be held on November 14, political, and, hence, subject to judicial review.
1967.
38
 2. Yes. The term “election” in article XV of The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's
the 1935 Constitution does not indicate that the fundamental right of free speech. The preferred
“election” therein referred to is a “special”, not a freedom of expression calls all the more for the
general election. The circumstance that three utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the
previous amendments to the Constitution had been dissemination of information to make more
submitted to the people for ratification in special meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage. The
elections merely shows that congress deemed it best so-called balancing of interests
to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It
—
does not negate its authority to submit proposed
amendments for ratification in general elections. individual freedom on one hand and substantial
public interests on the other
—
20. BLO UMPAR ADIONG vs. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS is made even more difficult in election campaign
cases because the Constitution also gives specific
FACTS :
authority to the Commission on Elections to
Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial candidate supervise the conduct of free, honest, and orderly
in the May 11, 1992 elections now assails the elections. When faced with border line situations
COMELEC's Resolution insofar as it prohibits the where freedom to speak by a candidate or party and
posting of decals and stickers in "mobile" places like freedom to know on the part of the electorate are
cars and other moving vehicles. According to him invoked against actions intended for maintaining
such prohibition is violative of Section 82 of the clean and free elections, the police, local officials
Omnibus Election Code and Section 11(a) of and COMELEC, should lean in favor of freedom.
Republic Act No. 6646. In addition, the petitioner The regulation of election campaign activity may not
believes that with the ban on radio, television and pass the test of validity if it is too general in its terms
print political advertisements, he, being a neophyte or not limited in time and scope in its application, if
in the field of politics stands to suffer grave and it restricts one's expression of belief in a candidate or
irreparable injury with this prohibition. The posting one's opinion of his or her qualifications, if it cuts
of decals and stickers on cars and other moving off the flow of media reporting, and if the regulatory
vehicles would be his last medium to inform the measure bears no clear and reasonable with the
electorate that he is a senatorial candidate in the May constitutionally sanctioned objective.
11, 1992 elections. Finally, the petitioner states that
The posting of decals and stickers in mobile places
as of February 22, 1992 (the date of the petition) he
like cars and other moving vehicles does not
has not received any notice from any of the Election
endanger any substantial government interest. There
Registrars in the entire country as to the location of
is no clear public interest threatened by such activity
the supposed "Comelec Poster Areas."
so as to justify the curtailment of the cherished
The petition is impressed with merit. The citizen's right of free speech and expression. Under
COMELEC's prohibition on posting of decals and the clear and present danger rule not only must the
stickers on "mobile" places whether public or private danger be patently clear and pressingly present but
except in designated areas provided for by the the evil sought to be avoided must be so substantive
COMELEC itself is null and void on constitutional as to justify a clamp over one's mouth or a writing
grounds instrument to be stilled. The regulation strikes at the
freedom of an individual to express his preference
ISSUE: and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to
Whether or Not the COMELEC’s prohibition is agree with him. A sticker may be furnished by a
unconstitutional. candidate but once the car owner agrees to have it
placed on his private vehicle, the expression
HELD: becomes a statement by the owner, primarily his
own and not of anybody else. The restriction as to

39
where the decals and stickers should be posted is so a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment, of
broad that it encompasses even the citizen's private attaining the truth, of securing participation by the
property, which in this case is a privately-owned people in social and political decision-making, and
vehicle. In consequence of this prohibition, another of maintaining the balance between stability and
cardinal rule prescribed by the Constitution would change. It represents a profound commitment to the
be violated. Section 1, Article III of the Bill of principle that debates on public issues should be
Rights provides that no person shall be deprived of uninhibited, robust, and wide open. 18 It means
his property without due process of law. more than the right to approve existing political
beliefs or economic arrangements, to lend support to
21. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING NETWORK official measures, or to take refuge in the existing
VS COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
climate of opinion on any matter of public
FACTS: consequence. And paraphrasing the eminent Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes, we stress that the freedom
This is a Petition for Certiorari assailing encompasses the thought we hate, no less than the
Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc thought we agree with.
Resolution No. 98-1419 1 dated April 21, 1998. In
the said Resolution, the poll body "RESOLVED to Freedom of expression; limited by valid exercise of
approve the issuance of a restraining order to stop police power. The realities of life in a complex
ABS-CBN or any other groups, its agents or society, however, preclude an absolute exercise of
representatives from conducting such exit survey the freedoms of speech and of the press. Such
and to authorize the Honorable Chairman to issue freedoms could not remain unfettered and
the same." The Resolution was issued by the unrestrained at all times and under all circumstances.
Comelec allegedly upon "information from [a] They are not immune to regulation by the State in
reliable source that ABS-CBN (Lopez Group) has the exercise of its police power.
prepared a project, with PR groups, to conduct radio-
Theoretical tests in determining the validity of
TV coverage of the elections and to make [an] exit
restrictions to freedom of expression. There are two
survey of the vote during the elections for national
theoretical tests in determining the validity of
officials particularly for President and Vice
restrictions to freedom of expression. These are the
President, results of which shall be [broadcast]
'clear and present danger' rule and the 'dangerous
immediately." The electoral body believed that such
tendency' rule. The first, as interpreted in a number
project might conflict with the official Comelec
of cases, means that the evil consequence of the
count, as well as the unofficial quick count of the
comment or utterance must be 'extremely serious
National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). It
and the degree of imminence extremely high' before
also noted that it had not authorized or deputized
the utterance can be punished. The danger to be
ABS-CBN to undertake the exit survey.
guarded against is the 'substantive evil' sought to be
HELD: prevented. The 'dangerous tendency' rule, on the
other hand, may be epitomized as follows: If the
The Supreme Court grants the petition; the Comelec words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the
resolution is nullified. state has a right to prevent, then such words are
Freedom of expression a fundamental principle of a punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or
democratic government. The freedom of expression immediate acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness
is a fundamental principle of our democratic be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be
government. It is a 'preferred' right and, therefore, advocated in general terms. Nor is it necessary that
stands on a higher level than substantive economic the language used be reasonably calculated to incite
or other liberties. Our Constitution clearly mandates persons to acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness. It
that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable
speech or of the press. At the very least, free speech effect of the utterance be to bring about the
and a free press consist of the liberty to discuss substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to
publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest prevent.
without prior restraint. The freedom of expression is
40
Supreme Court adheres to the "clear and present nature of a survey, the interviewees or participants
danger" test. Unquestionably, this Court adheres to are selected at random, so that the results will as
the "clear and present danger" test. In setting the much as possible be representative or reflective of
standard or test for the "clear and the general sentiment or view of the community or
group polled. Second, the survey result is not meant
present danger" doctrine, the Court echoed the
to replace or be at par with the official Comelec
words of Justice Holmes: "The question in every
count. It consists merely of the opinion of the
case is whether the words used are used in such
polling group as to who the electorate in general has
circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a
probably voted for, based on the limited data
clear and present danger that they will bring about
gathered from polled individuals. Finally, not at
the substantive evils that Congress has a right to
stake here are the credibility and the integrity of the
prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
elections, which are exercises that are separate and
In borderline conflict between freedom of expression independent from the exit polls. If at all, the
and state action to ensure clean and free elections, outcome of one can only be indicative of the other.
the Court leans in favor of freedom. Even though the
22. SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS V.
government's purposes are legitimate and
COMELEC
substantial, they cannot be pursued by means that
broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties, when FACTS:
the end can be more narrowly achieved. The
On the one hand, Social Weather Stations (SWS) is
freedoms of speech and of the press should all the
an institution conducting surveys in various fields.
more be upheld when what is sought to be curtailed
Kamahalan Publishing Corp., on the other hand,
is the dissemination of information meant to add
publishes the Manila Standard which is a newspaper
meaning to the equally vital right of suffrage. When
of general circulation and features items of
faced with borderline situations in which the
information including election surveys. Both SWS
freedom of a candidate or a party to speak or the
and Kamahalan are contesting the validity and
freedom of the electorate to know is invoked against
enforcement of R.A. 9006 (Fair Election Act),
actions allegedly made to assure clean and free
especially section 5.4which provides that surveys
elections, this Court shall lean in favor of freedom.
affecting national candidates shall not be published
For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the
15 days before an election and surveys affecting
citizen and the State's power to regulate should not
local candidates shall not be published 7 days before
be antagonistic. There can be no free and honest
the election.SWS wanted to conduct an election
elections if, in the efforts to maintain them, the
survey throughout the period of the elections both at
freedom to speak and the right to know are unduly
the national and local levels and release to the media
curtailed.
the results of such survey as well as publish them
Exit polls do not constitute clear and present danger directly. Kamahalan, for its part, intends to publish
of destroying the credibility and integrity of the election survey results up to the last day of the
electoral process. The Comelec justifies its assailed elections on May 14, 2001.
Resolution as having been issued pursuant to its
constitutional mandate to ensure a free, orderly, ISSUE:
honest, credible and peaceful election. It contends Whether or not the restriction on the publication of
that "an exit poll has the tendency to sow confusion election survey constitutes a prior restraint on the
considering the randomness of selecting exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and
interviewees, which further make[s] the exit poll present danger to justify such restraint
highly unreliable. The probability that the results of
such exit poll may not be in harmony with the RULING:
official count made by the Comelec is ever present. Yes, Section 5.4 of R.A. 9006 constitutes an
In other words, the exit poll has a clear and present unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech,
danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of expression, and the press. The power of the
the electoral process." Such arguments are purely COMELEC over media franchises is limited to
speculative and clearly untenable. First, by the very
41
ensuring equal opportunity, time, space, and the airtime for political campaigns or advertisements,
right to reply, as well as to fix reasonable rates of and also required prior COMELEC approval
charge for the use of media facilities for public for candidates’ television and radio guestings and
information and forms among candidates. Here, the appearances.
prohibition of speech is direct, absolute, and
substantial. Nor does this section pass the O’brient ISSUE:
test for content related regulation because (1) it
suppresses one type of expression while allowing Whether or not Section 9 (a) of
other types such as editorials,etc.; and (2) the COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 on airtime limits
violates freedom of expression, of speech and of the
restriction is greater than what is needed to protect
press.
government interest because the interest can e
protected by narrower restrictions such as
HELD:
subsequent punishment. Note: Justice Kapunan’s
dissenting opinion basically says that the test of YES. The Court held that the assailed rule
clear and present danger is inappropriate to use in on “aggregate-based” airtime limits is unreasonable
order to test the validity of this section. Instead, he and arbitrary as it unduly restricts and constrains the
purports to engage in a form of balancing by ability of candidates and political parties to reach out
weighing and balancing the circumstances to and communicate with the people. Here, the
determine whether public interest is served by the adverted reason for imposing the “aggregate-based”
regulation of the free enjoyment of the rights. airtime limits – leveling the playing field – does not
However, he failed to show why, on the balance, the constitute a compelling state interest which
other considerations (for example, prevention of last would justify such a substantial restriction on the
minute pressure on voters) should outweigh the freedom of candidates and political parties to
value of freedom of expression communicate their ideas, philosophies, platforms
and programs of government. And, this is specially
so in the absence of a clear-cut basis for
23) GMA NETWORK, INC., vs. COMMISSION the imposition of such a prohibitive measure.
ON ELECTIONS, September 2, 2014
It is also particularly unreasonable and
PONENTE: Peralta whimsical to adopt the aggregate-based time limits
on broadcast time when we consider that the
TOPIC: Freedom of expression, of speech and of Philippines is not only composed of so many islands.
the press, airtime limits There are also a lot of languages and dialects spoken
among the citizens across the country. Accordingly,
FACTS: for a national candidate to really reach out to as
many of the electorates as possible, then it might
The five (5) petitions before the Court put in also be necessary that he conveys his message
issue the alleged unconstitutionality of Section 9 (a) through his advertisements in languages
of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 limiting the and dialects that the people may more readily
broadcast and radio advertisements understand and relate to. To add all of these airtimes
of candidates and political parties for national in different dialects would greatly hamper the ability
election positions to an aggregate total of one of such candidate to express himself – a form of
hundred twenty (120) minutes and one suppression of his political speech.
hundred eighty (180) minutes, respectively. They
contend that such restrictive regulation on allowable 24) DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS COMELEC
broadcast time violates freedom of the press, impairs
the people’s right to suffrage as well as their right to G.R. No. 205728 January 21, 2015
information relative to the exercise of their right to
choose who to elect during the forth coming
PONENTE: Leonen
elections
TOPIC: Right to expression, right to political
Section 9 (a) provides for an “aggregate
speech, right to property
total” airtime instead of the previous “per station”
42
 FACTS: FIRST ISSUE: No.

On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted The Court ruled that the present case does
two (2) tarpaulins within a private compound not call for the exercise of prudence or modesty.
housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. There is no political question. It can be acted upon
Each tarpaulin was approximately six feet (6′) by ten by this court through the expanded jurisdiction
feet (10′) in size. They were posted on the front granted to this court through Article VIII, Section 1
walls of the cathedral within public view. The first of the Constitution..
tarpaulin contains the message “IBASURA RH
Law” referring to the Reproductive Health Law of The concept of a political question never
2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The second precludes judicial review when the act of a
tarpaulin is the subject of the present case. This constitutional organ infringes upon a
tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience Vote” fundamental individual or collective right. Even
and lists candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team assuming arguendo that the COMELEC did have the
Buhay” with a checkmark, or “(Pro-RH) Team discretion to choose the manner of regulation of the
Patay” with an “X” mark. The tarpaulin in question, it cannot do so by abridging
electoral candidates were classified according to the fundamental right to expression.
their vote on the adoption of Republic Act No.
10354, otherwise known as the RH Law. Those who Also the Court said that in our jurisdiction,
voted for the passing of the law were classified by the determination of whether an issue involves a
petitioners as comprising “Team Patay,” while those truly political and non-justiciable question lies in the
who voted against it form “Team Buhay.” answer to the question of whether there are
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or
Respondents conceded that the tarpaulin functions conferred upon political bodies. If there
was neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate. are, then our courts are duty-bound to examine
Petitioners also conceded that the tarpaulin contains whether the branch or instrumentality of the
names ofcandidates for the 2013 elections, but not of government properly acted within such limits.
politicians who helped in the passage of the RH Law
but were not candidates for that election. A political question will not be considered
justiciable if there are no constitutionally imposed
ISSUES: limits on powers or functions conferred upon
political bodies. Hence, the existence of
1. Whether or not the size limitation and its constitutionally imposed limits justifies subjecting
reasonableness of the tarpaulin is a political the officialactions of the body to the scrutiny and
question, hence not within the ambit of the Supreme review of this court.
Court’s power of review.
2. Whether or not the petitioners violated the principle In this case, the Bill of Rights gives the
of exhaustion of administrative remedies as the case utmost deference to the right to free speech. Any
was not brought first before the COMELEC En instance that this right may be abridged demands
Banc or any if its divisions. judicial scrutiny. It does not fall squarely into any
3. Whether or not COMELEC may regulate doubt that a political question brings.
expressions made by private citizens.
4. Whether or not the assailed notice and letter for the SECOND ISSUE: No.
removal of the tarpaulin violated petitioners’
fundamental right to freedom of expression. The Court held that the argument on
5. Whether the order for removal of the tarpaulin is a exhaustion of administrative remedies is not proper
content-based or content-neutral regulation. in this case.
6. Whether or not there was violation of petitioners’
right to property. Despite the alleged non-exhaustion of
7. Whether or not the tarpaulin and its message are administrative remedies, it is clear that the
considered religious speech. controversy is already ripe for adjudication.
Ripeness is the “prerequisite that something had by
HELD: then been accomplished or performed by

43
either branch or in this case, organ of government The content of the tarpaulin is a political speech
before a court may come into the picture.”
Political speech refers to speech “both intended and
Petitioners’ exercise of their right to received as a contribution to public deliberation
speech, given the message and their medium, had about some issue,” “fostering informed and civic
understandable relevance especially during the minded deliberation.” On the other hand,
elections. COMELEC’s letter threatening the filing commercial speech has been defined as speech that
of the election offense against petitioners is already does “no more than propose a commercial
an actionable infringement of this right. The transaction.” The expression resulting from the
impending threat of criminal litigation is enough to content of the tarpaulin is, however, definitely
curtail petitioners’ speech. political speech.

In the context of this case, exhaustion of FIFTH ISSUE: Content-based regulation.

their administrative remedies as COMELEC
suggested in their pleadings prolongs the violation of Content-based restraint or censorship
their freedom of speech. refers to restrictions “based on the subject matter of
the utterance or speech.” In contrast, content-neutral
THIRD ISSUE: No. regulation includes controls merely on the incidents
of the speech such as time, place, or manner of the
Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, speech.
and jurisprudence to support their position that they
had the power to regulate the tarpaulin. However, The Court held that the regulation
the Court held that all of these provisions pertain involved at bar is content-based. The tarpaulin
to candidates and political parties. Petitioners are content is not easily divorced from the size of its
not candidates. Neither do they belong to any medium.
political party. COMELEC does not have the
authority to regulate the enjoyment of the preferred Content-based regulation bears a heavy
right to freedom of expression exercised by a non- presumption of invalidity, and this court has used the
candidate in this case. clear and present danger rule as measure.

FOURTH ISSUE: Yes. Under this rule, “the evil consequences

sought to be prevented must be substantive,
The Court held that every citizen’s ‘extremely serious and the degree of imminence
expression with political consequences enjoys a high extremely high.’” “Only when the challenged act has
degree of protection. overcome the clear and present danger rule will it
pass constitutional muster, with the government
Moreover, the respondent’s argument that having the burden of overcoming the presumed
the tarpaulin is election propaganda, being unconstitutionality.”
petitioners’ way of endorsing candidates who voted
against the RH Law and rejecting those who voted Even with the clear and present danger
for it, holds no water. test, respondents failed to justify the regulation.
There is no compelling and substantial state interest
The Court held that while the tarpaulin endangered by the posting of the tarpaulin as to
may influence the success or failure of the justify curtailment of the right of freedom of
named candidates and political parties, this does not expression. There is no reason for the state to
necessarily mean it is election propaganda. The minimize the right of non-candidate petitioners to
tarpaulin was not paid for or posted “in return for post the tarpaulin in their private property. The size
consideration” by any candidate, political party, or of the tarpaulin does not affect anyone else’s
party-list group. constitutional rights.

By interpreting the law, it is clear that SIXTH ISSUE: Yes.

personal opinions are not included, while sponsored
messages are covered.

44
 The Court held that even though the governmental regulation individuals whose religious
tarpaulin is readily seen by the public, the tarpaulin beliefs and practices would otherwise thereby be
remains the private property of petitioners. Their infringed, or to create without state involvement an
right to use their property is likewise protected by atmosphere in which voluntary religious exercise
the Constitution. may flourish.”

Any regulation, therefore, which operates Lemon test

as an effective confiscation of private property or
constitutes an arbitrary or unreasonable infringement A regulation is constitutional when:
of property rights is void, because it is repugnant to
the constitutional guaranties of due process and 1. It has a secular legislative purpose;
equal protection of the laws. 2. It neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
3. It does not foster an excessive entanglement with
The Court in Adiong case held that a religion.
restriction that regulates where decals and stickers
should be posted is “so broad that it encompasses 25) 1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-
even the citizen’s private property.” Consequently, it UTAK) VS. COMELEC
violates Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution
which provides that no person shall be deprived of G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015
his property without due process of law.
PONENTE: Reyes
SEVENTH ISSUE: No.
TOPIC: Election law, prior restraint of free speech,
The Court held that the church doctrines posting of campaign materials on PUV and public
relied upon by petitioners are not binding upon this terminals, captive-audience doctrine
court. The position of the Catholic religion in the
Philippines as regards the RH Law does not suffice
DOCTRINE:
to qualify the posting by one of its members of a
tarpaulin as religious speech solely on such basis.
The right to participate in electoral processes is a
The enumeration of candidates on the face of the
basic and fundamental right in any democracy. It
tarpaulin precludes any doubt as to its nature as
includes not only the right to vote, but also the right
speech with political consequences and not religious
to urge others to vote for a particular candidate. The
speech.
right to express one’s preference for a candidate is
likewise part of the fundamental right to free
speech. Thus, any governmental restriction on the
right to convince others to vote for
Doctrine of benevolent neutrality a candidate carries with it a heavy presumption of
invalidity.
With religion looked upon with
benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality FACTS:
allows accommodation of religion under certain
circumstances. Accommodations are government On January 15, 2013, the COMELEC promulgated
policies that take religion specifically into account Resolution No. 9615, which provided for the rules
not to promote the government’s favored form of implementing R.A. No. 9006 in connection with the
religion, but to allow individuals and groups to May 13, 2013 national and local elections and
exercise their religion without hindrance. Their subsequent elections. Section 7 thereof, which
purpose or effect therefore is to remove a burden on, enumerates the prohibited forms of election
or facilitate the exercise of, a person’s or propaganda, pertinently provides:
institution’s religion.
SEC. 7. Prohibited Forms of Election
As Justice Brennan explained, the Propaganda. – During the campaign period, it is
“government may take religion into account . . . to unlawful:
exempt, when possible, from generally applicable

45
xxxx

(f) To post, display or exhibit any election campaign HELD:

or propaganda material outside of
authorized common poster areas, in public places, or The Supreme Court held that the said provisions of
in private properties without the consent of the Resolution No. 9615 are null and void for being
owner thereof. repugnant to Sections 1 and 4, Article III of the 1987
Constitution.
(g) Public places referred to in the previous
subsection (f) include any of the following: Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to
Section 7(f), of Resolution No. 9615 are prior
xxxx restraints on speech

5. Public utility vehicles such as buses, jeepneys, Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation
trains, taxi cabs, ferries, pedicabs and tricycles, to Section 7(f), of Resolution No. 9615 unduly
whether motorized or not; infringe on the fundamental right of the people to
freedom of speech. Central to the prohibition is the
6. Within the premises of public transport terminals, freedom of individuals, i.e., the owners of PUVs and
such as bus terminals, airports, seaports, docks, private transport terminals, to express their
piers, train stations, and the like. preference, through the posting of election campaign
material in their property, and convince others to
The violation of items [5 and 6] under subsection (g) agree with them.
shall be a cause for the revocation of the public
utility franchise and will make the owner and/or Pursuant to the assailed provisions of Resolution No.
operator of the transportation service and/or terminal 9615, posting an election campaign material during
liable for an election offense under Section 9 of an election period in PUVs and transport terminals
Republic Act No. 9006 as implemented by Section carries with it the penalty of revocation of the public
18 (n) of these Rules. utility franchise and shall make the owner thereof
liable for an election offense.
Petitioner sought for clarification from COMELEC
as regards the application of REsolution No. 9615 The prohibition constitutes a clear prior restraint
particularly Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in on the right to free expression of the owners of
relation to Section 7(f), vis-à-vis privately owned PUVs and transport terminals. As a result of the
public utility vehicles (PUVs) and transport prohibition, owners of PUVs and transport
terminals. The petitioner then requested the terminals are forcefully and effectively inhibited
COMELEC to reconsider the implementation of the from expressing their preferences under the pain
assailed provisions and allow private owners of of indictment for an election offense and the
PUVs and transport terminals to post election revocation of their franchise or permit to
campaign materials on their vehicles and transport operate.
terminals.
The assailed prohibition on posting election
The COMELEC en banc issued Minute Resolution campaign materials is an invalid content-neutral
No. 13-0214, which denied the petitioner’s request regulation repugnant to the free speech clause.
to reconsider the implementation of Section 7(g)
items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), of A content-neutral regulation, i.e., which
Resolution No. 9615. is merely concerned with the incidents of the speech,
or one that merely controls the time, place or
ISSUE: manner, and under well-defined standards, is
constitutionally permissible, even if it restricts the
Whether or not Section 7(g) items (5) and right to free speech, provided that the following
(6), in relation to Section 7(f), of Resolution No. requisites concur:
9615 are constitutional.

46
1. The government regulation is within the with the franchise or permit to operate the PUV or
constitutional power of the Government; transport terminal.
2. It furthers an important or substantial governmental
interest; Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No.
3. The governmental interest is unrelated to the 9615 are not justified under the captive-audience
suppression of free expression; and doctrine.
4. The incidental restriction on freedom of expression
is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of The captive-audience doctrine states that when a
that interest. listener cannot, as a practical matter, escape from
intrusive speech, the speech can be restricted.
Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. The “captive-audience” doctrine recognizes that
9615 are content-neutral regulations since they a listener has a right not to be exposed to an
merely control the place where election campaign unwanted message in circumstances in which the
materials may be posted. However, the prohibition communication cannot be avoided.
is still repugnant to the free speech clause as it fails
to satisfy all of the requisites for a valid content- A regulation based on the captive-audience doctrine
neutral regulation. is in the guise of censorship, which undertakes
selectively to shield the public from some kinds of
Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to speech on the ground that they are more offensive
Section 7(f), of Resolution No. 9615, are not than others. Such selective restrictions have been
within the constitutionally delegated power of the upheld only when the speaker intrudes on the
COMELEC under Section 4, Article IX-C of the privacy of the home or the degree of captivity makes
Constitution. Also, there is absolutely no necessity it either impossible or impractical for the unwilling
to restrict the right to free speech of the owners of viewer or auditor to avoid exposure.
PUVs and transport terminals.
Thus, a government regulation based on the captive-
The COMELEC may only regulate the franchise audience doctrine may not be justified if the
or permit to operate and not the ownership per se supposed “captive audience” may avoid exposure to
of PUVs and transport terminals. the otherwise intrusive
speech. The prohibition under Section 7(g)
In the instant case, the Court further delineates the items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. 9615 is not
constitutional grant of supervisory and regulatory justified under the captive-audience doctrine; the
powers to the COMELEC during an election commuters are not forced or compelled to read the
period. As worded, Section 4, Article IX-C of the election campaign materials posted on PUVs and
Constitution only grants COMELEC supervisory transport terminals. Nor are they incapable of
and regulatory powers over the enjoyment or declining to receive the messages contained in the
utilization “of all franchises or permits for the posted election campaign materials since they may
operation,” inter alia, of transportation and other simply avert their eyes if they find the same
public utilities. The COMELEC’s unbearably intrusive.
constitutionally delegated powers of supervision and
regulation do not extend to the ownership per se of Lehman’s case not applicable
PUVs and transport terminals, but only to the
franchise or permit to operate the same. The COMELEC, in insisting that it has the right to
restrict the posting of election campaign materials on
Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. PUVs and transport terminals, cites Lehman v. City
9615 are not within the of Shaker Heights, a case decided by the U.S.
constitutionally delegated power of the Supreme Court. In Lehman, a policy of the city
COMELEC to supervise or regulate the franchise government, which prohibits political
or permit to operate of transportation advertisements on government-run buses, was
utilities. The posting of election campaign material upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S.
on vehicles used for public transport or on transport Supreme Court held that the advertising space on the
terminals is not only a form of political expression, buses was not a public forum, pointing out that
but also an act of ownership – it has nothing to do advertisement space on government-run buses,
“although incidental to the provision of public
47
transportation, is a part of commercial venture.” In former, to be considered as such, needs to secure
the same way that other commercial ventures need from the government either a franchise or a
not accept every proffer of advertising from the permit to operate. Nevertheless, as pointed out
general public, the city’s transit system has the earlier, the prohibition imposed under Section
discretion on the type of advertising that may be 7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. 9615
displayed on its vehicles. regulates the ownership per se of the PUV and
transport terminals; the prohibition does not in
In Lehman, the political advertisement was intended any manner affect the franchise or permit to
for PUVs owned by the city government; the city operate of the PUV and transport terminals.
government, as owner of the buses, had the right to
decide which type of advertisements would be As regards ownership, there is no substantial
placed on its buses. distinction between owners of PUVs and transport
terminals and owners of private vehicles and other
Lehman actually upholds the freedom of the owner properties. As already explained, the ownership of
of the utility vehicles, i.e., the city government, in PUVs and transport terminals, though made
choosing the types of advertisements that would be available for use by the public, remains private. If
placed on its properties. In stark contrast, Section owners of private vehicles and other properties
7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. 9615 curtail are allowed to express their political ideas and
the choice of the owners of PUVs and transport opinion by posting election campaign materials
terminals on the advertisements that may be posted on their properties, there is no cogent reason to
on their properties. deny the same preferred right to owners of PUVs
and transport terminals. In terms of ownership,
Also, the city government in Lehman had the right, the distinction between owners of PUVs and
nay the duty, to refuse political advertisements on transport terminals and owners of private
their buses. Considering that what were involved vehicles and properties is merely
were facilities owned by the city government, superficial. Superficial differences do not make
impartiality, or the appearance thereof, was a for a valid classification.
necessity. In the instant case, the ownership of
PUVs and transport terminals remains private; there The fact that PUVs and transport terminals are
exists no valid reason to suppress their political made available for use by the public is likewise
views by proscribing the posting of election not substantial justification to set them apart
campaign materials on their properties. from private vehicles and other
properties. Admittedly, any election campaign
Prohibiting owners of PUVs and transport material that would be posted on PUVs and transport
terminals from posting election campaign terminals would be seen by many people. However,
materials violates the equal protection clause. election campaign materials posted on private
vehicles and other places frequented by the public,
Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. e.g. ,commercial establishments, would also be seen
9615 do not only run afoul of the free speech clause, by many people. Thus, there is no reason to single
but also of the equal protection clause. One of the out owners of PUVs and transport terminals in the
basic principles on which this government was prohibition against posting of election campaign
founded is that of the equality of right, which is materials.
embodied in Section 1, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. Summary

It is conceded that the classification under Section Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section
7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. 9615 is not 7(f), of Resolution No. 9615 violate the free speech
limited to existing conditions and applies equally to clause; they are content-neutral regulations, which
the members of the purported class. However, the are not within the constitutional power of the
classification remains constitutionally impermissible COMELEC issue and are not necessary to further
since it is not based on substantial distinction and is the objective of ensuring equal time, space and
not germane to the purpose of the law. A distinction opportunity to the candidates. They are not only
exists between PUVs and transport terminals and repugnant to the free speech clause, but are also
private vehicles and other properties in that the violative of the equal protection clause, as there is no
48
substantial distinction between owners of PUV s and On June 21, 1993, Prof. Mahar Mangahas through
transport terminals and owners of private vehicles Atty. Antonio M. Abad, Jr. submitted his comment
and other properties. and explanation that it was not true that the Social
Weather Stations, Inc. distributed to the general
On a final note, it bears stressing that the freedom to public the alleged survey. Said survey was privately
advertise one’s political candidacy is clearly a given to Pres. Ramos and the cabinet and was not
significant part of our freedom of expression. A intended for publication nor for public consumption
restriction on this freedom without rhyme or reason and that if ever it reaches the media, he had not
is a violation of the most valuable feature of the authorized anyone to do so. The hearing was had a
democratic way of life. scheduled on June 23, 1993, after which Judge
Asuncion promulgated an Order dated July 2, 1993,
26) SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS, INC. VS finding Professor Mangahas’ explanation
COMELEC satisfactory and dismissing the contempt charge
against him.
G. SPEECH, COURTS AND CONTEMPT
After three weeks or so, or more precisely on July
27) SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS, INC. VS. 26, 1993, Professor Mangahas addressed a letter to
ASUNCION the Chief Justice intended “as a formal complaint
against Honorable Maximiano C. Asuncion for
grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the
FACTS:
law, in connection with his issuance of an Order
dated 17 June 1993.
Published under the by-line of one Marichu
Villanueva and titled “Judiciary worse than PNP,”
an item in the June 17, 1993 issue of the Manila ISSUE:
Standard, a metropolitan daily, reported that the
results of the latest opinion polls conducted by the Whether the Order dated 17 June 1993 is violative of
Ateneo Social Weather Station, as Social Weather the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech
Stations, Inc. (or SWS) is also known, showed the and freedom from prior restraint.
Judiciary to have an even lower satisfaction rating
that the Philippine National Police. HELD:

The item went on to state that the President and his No.
Cabinet had been briefed on the results of the survey
by Professors Mahar Mangahas and Felipe Miranda What was clearly implicit in the newspaper report
of the SWS, and that Malacanang had expressed about the results of the SWS poll - in the words of
concern over the Judiciary’s lawstanding. Press Judge Asuncion, “that the people have more
Secretary Jesus Sison was also quoted as saying that confidence with the police than with the judges” – in
this was “most puzzling,” although he could not, light of the fact, of which judicial notice is taken,
recall the exact rating, noting only that the PNP had that said report came out at a time when there
“a better image that the judiciary.” already was widespread publicity adverse to the
judiciary, there can be no doubt of its clear tendency
Said report appears to have prompted Judge to degrade the administration of justice. Thus, Judge
Maximiano C. Asuncion, presiding judge of Branch Asuncion can hardly be faulted for what, at a
104 of the Regional Trial Court at Quezon City, minimum, he must have felt duty-bound to doin the
motu proprio to initiate on the same date of June 17, circumstances.
1993 proceedings ordering the President of the SWS
to: “explain why you should not be held in contempt No question of prior restraint or violation of the
for distributing to the general public without prior guarantee of free speech arises here, what he did
permission from any court your findings that the being, in essence, merely to initiate an inquiry into
people have more confidence with the police than the source and basis of the derogatory news report.
with judges thereby tending directly or indirectly to And he forthwith abated the proceedings upon
degrade the administration of justice”. receiving an explanation he deemed satisfactory.

49
Upon the facts, and under applicable law and First Amendment of the Constitution is to the
principle, the complaint fails to make a prima facie communication, to its source and to its recipients
showing of the charges made therein, and must both. If there is a right to advertise, there is a
perforce be as it is hereby, DISMISSED. reciprocal right to receive the advertising and it may
be asserted by the consumers here. Therefore, the
28) RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY prescription drug consumers do have standing to
ENTITLED “RESTORING INTEGRITY: A challenge the law.
STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE No. Judgment of the lower court affirmed. The idea
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
that the pharmacist wishes to communicate is
COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS
OF PLAGIARISM AND merely, “I will sell you the X prescription at the Y
MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME price.” Speech does not lose its First Amendment
COURT” protection because money is spent to project it as an
advertisement. When drug prices vary as much as
they do, information as to who is charging what
becomes more than a convenience. This information
29. FORTUN VS. QUINSAYAS (drug prices) is not harmful. The people will know
H. COMMERCIAL SPEECH their own best interests only if they are well
informed. The best means to that end is to open the
30. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF channels of communication by making such
PHARMACY VS. VIRGINIA CITIZENS information available to the consumers rather than
CONSUMER COUCIL, INC. closing the modes of communication by not
prohibiting such advertising. Therefore, the ban on
Brief Fact Summary. A statute banning
advertising prices of prescription drugs is
pharmacists from advertising the prices of
constitutional.
prescription drug prices was found to be in violation
of the First Amendment of the United States
Dissent. In a democracy, the economic is
Constitution (Constitution) by the Supreme Court of
subordinate to the political. The First Amendment of
the United States (Supreme Court).
the Constitution does not mandate the Court’s “open
door policy” toward such commercial advertising.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. If there is a right to
advertise, there is a reciprocal right to receive the Discussion. Here the majority holds that speech is
advertising and it may be asserted by the consumers not taken out of the First Amendment’s protection
here. merely because it is commercial in nature.
Facts. Prescription drug consumers challenged a 31. PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTHCARE
statute banning pharmacists from advertising the ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
prices of prescription drug prices on behalf of the DUQUE III
pharmacists. They claimed that the statute was
unconstitutional and that the First Amendment of the FACTS:
Constitution entitled the consumers to receive the Named as respondents are the Health Secretary,
drug price information. The lower court invalidated Undersecretaries, and Assistant Secretaries of the
the law on First Amendment constitutional grounds. Department of Health (DOH). For purposes of
herein petition, the DOH is deemed impleaded as a
Issue. Whether the prescription drug consumers co-respondent since respondents issued the
have standing to challenge the law? questioned RIRR in their capacity as officials of said
Whether the advertisement of prescription drug executive agency.1Executive Order No. 51 (Milk
prices is outside the protection of the First Code) was issued by President Corazon Aquino on
Amendment of the Constitution because it is October 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative powers
commercial speech? granted to the president under the Freedom
Held. Yes. Judgment of the lower court affirmed. Constitution. One of the preambular clauses of the
Where exists, as here, the protection afforded by the Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to
50
Article 112 of the International Code of Marketing domestic law. The provisions of the WHA
of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the law
by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981. of the land that can be implemented by executive
From 1982 to 2006, the WHA adopted several agencies without the need of a law enacted by the
Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be legislature
supported, promoted and protected, hence, it should
I. GOVERNMENT SPEECH DOCTRINE
be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not
permitted for breastmilk substitutes.In 1990, the 32. PLEASANT GROVE CITY VS. SUMMUM
Philippines ratified the International Convention on
the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of said instrument FACTS:
provides that State Parties should take appropriate Pioneer Park (Park), a public park in petitioner
measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and Pleasant Grove City (City), has at least 11
ensure that all segments of society, specially parents permanent, privately donated displays, including a
and children, are informed of the advantages of Ten Commandments monument. In rejecting the
breastfeeding. On May 15, 2006, the DOH issued request of respondent Summum, a religious
herein assailed RIRR which was to take effect on organization, to erect a monument containing the
July 7, 2006. Seven Aphorisms of Summum, the City explained
that it limited Park monuments to those either
directly related to the City's history or donated by
ISSUE: Whether Administrative Order or the groups with longstanding community ties. After the
Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations City put that policy and other criteria into writing,
(RIRR) issued by the Department of Health (DOH) respondent renewed its request, but did not describe
is not constitutional; the monument's historical significance or
respondent's connection to the community. The City
HELD: YES
rejected the request, and respondent filed suit,
under Article 23, recommendations of the WHA do claiming that the City and petitioner officials had
not come into force for members,in the same way violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause
that conventions or agreements under Article 19 and by accepting the Ten Commandments monument but
regulations under Article 21 come into force. Article rejecting respondent's proposed monument. The
23 of the WHO Constitution reads: District Court denied respondent's preliminary
injunction request, but the Tenth Circuit reversed.
Article 23. The Health Assembly shall have
Noting that it had previously found the Ten
authority to make recommendations to Members
Commandments monument to be private rather than
with respect to any matter within the competence of
government speech and that public parks have
the Organization for an international rule to be
traditionally been regarded as public forums, the
considered as customary law, it must be established
court held that, because the exclusion of the
that such rule is being followed by states because
monument was unlikely to survive strict scrutiny,
they consider it obligatory to comply with such rules
the City was required to erect it immediately.
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can
ISSUE:
become part of the sphere of domestic law either
Whether a permanent monument donated by a
By transformation or incorporation. The
private organization to Pleasant Grove retains its
transformation method requires that an international
character as private speech, or whether it becomes
law be transformed into a domestic law through a
government speech because the city owns, controls,
constitutional mechanism such as local legislation.
and decides to display it?
The incorporation method applies when, by mere
constitutional declaration, international law is HELD:
deemed to have the force of domestic law.
The placement of a permanent monument in a public
Consequently, legislation is necessary to transform park is a form of government speech and is therefore
the provisions of the WHA Resolutions into not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause.
51
 (a) Because that Clause restricts government government-financed monument placed on public
regulation of private speech but not government land constitutes government speech. So, too, are
speech, whether petitioners were engaging in their privately financed and donated monuments that the
own expressive conduct or providing a forum for government accepts for public display on
private speech determines which precedents govern government land. While government entities
here. regularly accept privately funded or donated
monuments, their general practice has been one of
(1) A government entity "is entitled to say
selective receptivity. Because city parks play an
what it wishes," Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors
important role in defining the identity that a city
of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 833, and to select the
projects to its residents and the outside world, cities
views that it wants to express, see, e.g., Rust
take care in accepting donated monuments, selecting
v.Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 194. It may exercise this
those that portray what the government
same freedom when it receives private assistance for
decisionmakers view as appropriate for the place in
the purpose of delivering a government-controlled
question, based on esthetics, history, and local
message. See Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn.,
culture. The accepted monuments are meant to
544 U. S. 550, 562. This does not mean that there
convey and have the effect of conveying a
are no restraints on government speech. For
government message and thus constitute government
example, government speech must comport with the
speech.
Establishment Clause. In addition, public
officials'involvement in advocacy may be limited by
law, regulation, or practice; and a government entity
(c) Here, the Park's monuments clearly represent
is ultimately "accountable to the electorate and the
government speech. Although many were donated in
political process for its advocacy," Board of Regents
completed form by private entities, the City has
of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S.
"effectively controlled" their messages by exercising
217, 235.
"final approval authority" over their selection.
(2) In contrast, government entities are strictly Johanns, supra, at 560-561. The City has selected
limited in their ability to regulate private speech in monuments that present the image that the City
"traditional public fora." Cornelius v. NAACP Legal wishes to project to Park visitors; it has taken
Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 800. ownership of most of the monuments in the Park,
Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are including the Ten Commandments monument; and it
allowed, see Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local has now expressly set out selection criteria.
Educators' Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45, but content-
(d) Respondent's legitimate concern that the
based restrictions must satisfy strict scrutiny, i.e.,
government speech doctrine not be used as a
they must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
subterfuge for favoring certain viewpoints does not
government interest, see Cornelius, supra, at 800.
mean that a government entity should be required to
Restrictions based on viewpoint are also prohibited.
embrace publicly a privately donated monument's
Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 463. Government
"message" in order to escape Free Speech Clause
restrictions on speech in a "designated public forum"
restrictions. A city engages in expressive conduct by
are subject to the same strict scrutiny as restrictions
accepting and displaying a privately donated
in a traditional public forum. Cornelius, supra, at
monument, but it does not necessarily endorse the
800. And where government creates a forum that is
specific meaning that any particular donor sees in
limited to use by certain groups or dedicated to the
the monument. A government's message may be
discussion of certain subjects, Perry Ed. Assn.,
altered by the subsequent addition of other
supra, at 46, n. 7, it may impose reasonable and
monuments in the same vicinity. It may also change
viewpoint-neutral restrictions, see Good News Club
over time.
v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 106-107.
(e) "[P]ublic forum principles ... are out of place
(b) Permanent monuments displayed on public
in the context of this case." United States
property typically represent government speech.
v.American Library Assn., Inc., 539 U. S. 194, 205.
Governments have long used monuments to speak to
The forum doctrine applies where a government
the public. Thus, a government-commissioned and
52
property or program is capable of accommodating a other petitions were ordered to be consolidated on
large number of public speakers without defeating February 14, 2006. During the course of oral
the essential function of the land or program, but arguments, the petitioners, in the interest of a speedy
public parks can accommodate only a limited resolution of the petitions, withdrew the portions of
number of permanent monuments. If governments their petitions raising factual issues, particularly
must maintain viewpoint neutrality in selecting those raising the issue of whether B.P. No. 880
donated monuments, they must either prepare for and/or CPR is void as applied to the rallies of
cluttered parks or face pressure to remove September 20, October 4, 5 and 6, 2005.
longstanding and cherished monuments. Were public
parks considered traditional public forums for the ISSUE:
purpose of erecting privately donated monuments,
Whether the Calibrated Pre-emptive response and
most parks would have little choice but to refuse all
the Batas Pambansa No. 880, specifically Sections 4,
such donations. And if forum analysis would lead
5, 6, 12, 13(a) and 14(a) violates Art. III Sec. 4 of
almost inexorably to closing of the forum, forum
the Philippine Constitution as it causes a disturbing
analysis is out of place. Capitol Square Review and
effect on the exercise by the people of the right to
Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753,
peaceably assemble.
distinguished.
J. FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY HELD:
33. BAYAN VS. ERMITA Section 4 of Article III of the Philippine Constitution
provides that no law shall be passed abridging the
FACTS: freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or
The petitioners, Bayan, et al., alleged that they are the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and that petition the government for redress of grievances.
their right as organizations and individuals were The right to peaceably assemble and petition for
violated when the rally they participated in on redress of grievances, together with freedom of
October 6, 2005 was violently dispersed by speech, of expression, and of the press, is a right that
policemen implementing Batas Pambansa No. 880. enjoys dominance in the sphere of constitutional
protection. For this rights represent the very basis of
Petitioners contended that Batas Pambansa No. 880 a functional democratic polity, without which all the
is clearly a violation of the Constitution and the other rights would be meaningless and unprotected.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and other human rights treaties of which the However, it must be remembered that the right,
Philippines is a signatory. They argue that B.P. No. while sacrosanct, is not absolute. It may be regulated
880 requires a permit before one can stage a public that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment
assembly regardless of the presence or absence of a of others having equal rights, nor injurious to the
clear and present danger. It also curtails the choice rights of the community or society. The power to
of venue and is thus repugnant to the freedom of regulate the exercise of such and other constitutional
expression clause as the time and place of a public rights is termed the sovereign “police power,” which
assembly form part of the message which the is the power to prescribe regulations, to promote the
expression is sought. Furthermore, it is not content- health, morals, peace, education, good order or
neutral as it does not apply to mass actions in safety, and general welfare of the people.
support of the government. The words “lawful
cause,” “opinion,” “protesting or influencing” B.P. No 880 is not an absolute ban of public
suggest the exposition of some cause not espoused assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the
by the government. Also, the phrase “maximum time, place and manner of the assemblies. B.P. No.
tolerance” shows that the law applies to assemblies 880 thus readily shows that it refers to all kinds of
against the government because they are being public assemblies that would use public places. The
tolerated. As a content-based legislation, it cannot reference to “lawful cause” does not make it content-
pass the strict scrutiny test. This petition and two based because assemblies really have to be for

53
lawful causes, otherwise they would not be IBP President Jose Anselmo Cadiz received the rally
“peaceable” and entitled to protection. Neither the permit on the day before the scheduled rally. Cadiz
words “opinion,” “protesting,” and “influencing” in immediately went to the Court of Appeals to assail
of grievances come from the wording of the the permit because what Atienza did was only a
Constitution, so its use cannot be avoided. Finally, partial grant which was alleged to be a violation of
maximum tolerance is for the protection and benefit the constitutional right to freedom of expression and
of all rallyist and is independent of the content of the a grave abuse of discretion on the part of Atienza.
expression in the rally.
Meanwhile, IBP pushed through with the rally not at
Plaza Miranda but at the Mendiola Bridge.
Furthermore, the permit can only be denied on the
Subsequently, the Manila Police District (MPD)
ground of clear and present danger to public order,
filed a criminal case against Cadiz for allegedly
public safety, public convenience, public morals or
violating the Public Assembly Act or specifically,
public health. This is a recognized exception to the
for staging a rally in a place different from what was
exercise of the rights even under the Universal
indicated in the rally permit.
Declaration of Human Rights and The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Atienza. The
CA ruled that what Atienza did was within his
Wherefore, the petitions are GRANTED in part, and power; that freedom of expression is not absolute.
respondents, more particularly the Secretary of the
Interior and Local Governments, are DIRECTED to Cadiz appealed before the Supreme Court. Cadiz
take all necessary steps for the immediate also prayed for the suspension of the criminal case
compliance with Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. against him on the ground that the certiorari case he
880 through the establishment or designation of at filed against Atienza is a prejudicial question to the
least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city criminal case.
and municipality of the country. After thirty (30) ISSUES:
days from the finality of this Decision, subject to the
giving of advance notices, no prior permit shall be 1. Whether or not the certiorari case Cadiz filed
required to exercise the right to peaceably assemble against Atienza is a prejudicial question to the
and petition in the public parks or plaza in every city criminal case filed against him (Cadiz).
or municipality that has not yet complied with
2. Whether or not it is within Mayor Jose Atienza’s
section 15 of the law. Furthermore, Calibrated pre-
power to modify the rally permit without consulting
emptive response (CPR), insofar as it would purport
with the IBP.
to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, is
NULL and VOID and respondents are ENJOINED HELD:
to REFRAIN from using it and to STRICTLY
OBSERVE the requirements of maximum tolerance, 1. No. It is improper for Cadiz to raise the issue of
The petitions are DISMISSED in all other respects, prejudicial question at this stage and in this certiorari
and the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa No. 880 case. Under the Rules of Court, a prejudicial
is SUSTAINED question is a ground to suspend the criminal
proceeding. However, Cadiz must first file a
34. INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES petition to suspend the criminal proceeding in the
VS. ATIENZA said criminal case. The determination of the
pendency of a prejudicial question should be made at
DIGEST 1:
the first instance in the criminal action, and not
In June 2006, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines before the Supreme Court in an appeal from the civil
(IBP) filed an application for a rally permit with the action.
office of Manila Mayor Jose “Lito” Atienza. The
2. No. In modifying a rally permit or in granting a
IBP sought their rally to be staged at the Mendiola
rally permit which contains a time and place
Bridge. Atienza granted the permit but indicated
different from that applied for, the mayor must first
thereon that IBP is only allowed to stage their rally
consult with the applicant at the earliest opportunity.
at the Plaza Miranda, a freedom park.
54
This is in order to give the applicant some time to 1994 issue “Obscene,” “vulgar,” “indecent,”
determine if such change is favorable to him or “gross,” “sexually explicit,” “injurious to young
adverse (and if adverse, he can seek judicial readers,” and devoid of all moral values.” Following
remedies) – Section 6 of the Public Assembly Act. the publication of the paper and the magazine, the
members of the editorial board, author, all students
It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or
of Miriam College, received a letter signed by Dr.
modification that the clear and present danger test be
Aleli Sevilla, Chair of the Miriam College
the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the
Discipline Committee to inform them that there are
view that there is such an imminent and grave
letters of complaint filed against them by members
danger of a substantive evil, the applicant must be
of the Miriam Community and a concerned Ateneo
heard on the matter. In this case, Atienza did not
grade five student that had been forwarded to the
consult with the IBP. Atienza capriciously and
Discipline Committee for inquiry and investigation
whimsically changed the venue without any reason
and required them submit a written statement in
therefor. Such is a grave abuse of discretion and a
answer to the charge/s on or before the initial date of
violation of the freedom of expression.
hearing, but none of the students submitted their
DIGEST 2 (ISSUE & RULING) respective answers. They instead requested Dr.
Sevilla to transfer the case to the Regional Office of
the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS), which they contested, that had jurisdiction
over the case. Dr. Sevilla again required the students
to file their written answers. In response, the lawyer
for the students submitted a letter to the Discipline
Committee reiterating his clients’ position that said
Committee had no jurisdiction over them. The
Discipline Committee proceeded with its
investigation ex parte. Thereafter, the Discipline
Board, after a review of the Discipline Committee’s
report, imposed disciplinary sanctions upon the
students. The students were suspended, expelled,
dismissed, and one was not allowed to attend her
graduation.
The students thus filed a petition for prohibition and
certiorari with preliminary injunction/restraining
order before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City questioning the jurisdiction of the Discipline
Board of Miriam College over them. The RTC
issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ prayer for a
Temporary Restraining Order. The students
thereafter filed a “Supplemental Petition and Motion
for Reconsideration.” The RTC issued an Order
granting the writ of preliminary injunction. Both
parties moved for a reconsideration of the order. On
K. ACADEMIC FREEDOM
the matter raised by both parties that it is the DECS
35. MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION, INC. which has jurisdiction, the RTC DISMISSED the
VS. COURT OF APPEALS case and all orders it issued are recalled and set
aside. The CA issued a Temporary Restraining
FACTS Order enjoining Miriam College from enforcing
Miriam college has found its school paper (Chi- letters of dismissal/suspension, but it eventually
Rho), and magazine (Ang Magasing Pampanitikan declared the RTC Order, as well as the students’
ng Chi-Rho) contents of the September-October suspension and dismissal, void.
55
ISSUE inherent part of the academic freedom of institutions
of higher learning guaranteed by the Constitution.
1. Whether or not the trail court has the
jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari SC rule that Miriam College has the authority to
filed by the students hear and decide the cases filed against students.
2. Whether or not Miriam College has the V11. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
jurisdiction over the complaints against the students.
A. NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
HELD
1. ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY VS.
1. YES, the grounds invoked by the students in COMELEC
their refusal to answer the charges against them were
limited to the question of jurisdiction – a question FACTS:
purely legal in nature and well within the Petitioner is a national organization which represents
competence and the jurisdiction of the trial court, not the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-genders. It
the DECS Regional Office. This is an exception to filed a petition for accreditation as a party-list
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. organization to public respondent. However, due to
moral grounds, the latter denied the said petition. To
As the Court held in Phil. Global Communications,
buttress their denial, COMELEC cited certain
Inc. vs. Relova : Absent such clarity as to the scope
biblical and quranic passages in their decision. It
and coverage of its franchise, a legal question arises
also stated that since their ways are immoral and
which is more appropriate for the judiciary than for
contrary to public policy, they are considered
an administrative agency to resolve. The doctrine of
nuissance. In fact, their acts are even punishable
primary jurisdiction calls for application when there
under the Revised Penal Code in its Article 201.
is such competence to act on the part of an
administrative body. A motion for reconsideration being denied,
Petitioner filed this instant Petition on Certiorari
A court having jurisdiction of a case has not only the
under Rule 65 of the ROC.
right and the power or authority, but also the duty, to
exercise that jurisdiction and to render a decision in Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation,
a case properly submitted to it. insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious
dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against
2. YES, Section 7 of the Campus Journalism
the establishment of religion. Petitioner also claimed
Act should be read in a manner as not to infringe
that the Assailed Resolutions contravened its
upon the school's right to discipline its students. At
constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech
the same time, however, we should not construe said
and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well
provision as to unduly restrict the right of the
as constituted violations of the Philippines’
students to free speech. Consistent with
international obligations against discrimination
jurisprudence, we read Section 7 of the Campus
based on sexual orientation.
Journalism Act to mean that the school cannot
suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated that
articles he or she has written,except when such petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine
articles materially disrupt class work or involve national political agenda to benefit the nation and
substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of that the petition was validly dismissed on moral
others. grounds. It also argued for the first time that the
LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated
The power of the school to investigate is an adjunct
by the Constitution and RA 7941, and that petitioner
of its power to suspend or expel. It is a necessary
made untruthful statements in its petition when it
corollary to the enforcement of rules and regulations
alleged its national existence contrary to actual
and the maintenance of a safe and orderly
verification reports by COMELEC’s field personnel.
educational environment conducive to learning. That
power, like the power to suspend or expel, is an

56
ISSUE: anything else which shocks, defies, or disregards
decency or morality,” the remedies for which are a
WON Respondent violated the Non-establishment
prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any
clause of the Constitution;
local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without
WON Respondent erred in denying Petitioners judicial proceedings. A violation of Article 201 of
application on moral and legal grounds. the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand, requires
proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal
HELD: conviction. It hardly needs to be emphasized that
Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang mere allegation of violation of laws is not proof, and
Bagong Bayani stands for the proposition that only a mere blanket invocation of public morals cannot
those sectors specifically enumerated in the law or replace the institution of civil or criminal
related to said sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, proceedings and a judicial determination of liability
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, or culpability.
elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without
overseas workers, and professionals) may be more, is not a sufficient governmental interest to
registered under the party-list system. As we justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation
explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor in the party-list system. The denial of Ang Ladlad’s
Party v. Commission on Elections, “the enumeration registration on purely moral grounds amounts more
of marginalized and under-represented sectors is not to a statement of dislike and disapproval of
exclusive”. The crucial element is not whether a homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any
sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a substantial public interest.
particular organization complies with the
requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. C. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 2. GERONA VS. SECRETARY OF

that “[n]o law shall be made respecting an EDUCATION
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
FACTS:
exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our non-
establishment clause calls for is “government 1. When RA 1265 (An Act Making Flag Ceremony
neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, Compulsary In All Educational Institutions) took
“governmental reliance on religious justification is effect, the Sec. of Education issued Dept. Order No.
inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.” We thus 8 prescribing the rules and regulations for the proper
find that it was grave violation of the non- conduct of the flag ceremony.
establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize
2. The said order mandates that a proper salute must
the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of
be given, or at least standing still with arms and
Ang Ladlad. Be it noted that government action
hands straight at sides along with the singing of the
must have a secular purpose.
National Anthem and recital of the pledge. However,
Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills petitioners’ children attending the Buenavista
are sought to be prevented, or why special protection Community School in Uson, Masbate refused to do
is required for the youth. Neither has the COMELEC so.
condescended to justify its position that petitioner’s
3. This was because, as members of Jehova’s
admission into the party-list system would be so
Witnesses, they believe that the obligation imposed
harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabric of
by law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by
society.
the State. This is based on a verse which states:
We also find the COMELEC’s reference to
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or
purported violations of our penal and civil laws
any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or
flimsy, at best; disingenuous, at worst. Article 694 of
that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water
the Civil Code defines a nuisance as “any act,
under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to
omission, establishment, condition of property, or
them, nor serve them.”
57
They consider that the flag is an “image” within this d. considering the separation of the State and
command and thus refuse to salute it. Because of Church, the flag does not have any religious
this, they were expelled from the school. significance.
4. The counsel of petitioners wrote to the Sec. of e. also, the determination of whether a certain ritual
Education that the children be allowed to just remain is or is not a religious ceremony must rest with the
silent and stand still with their arms and hands court; it cannot be left to a religious group or sect or
straight at their sides. This was, however, denied to its follower as there would be confusion and
along with the children’s reinstatement. misunderstanding for there might be as many
interpretations and meaning to be given as there are
5. An action was then filed before the CFI with
religious groups or sects or followers.
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction but the
complaint was dismissed. Hence, the present petition f. as emphatically stated, if a man lived on an island,
with the SC issuing a temporary writ subject to the alone and all by himself, he would normally have
result of the case. complete and absolute rights as to the way he lives,
his religion, incuding the manners he practices his
ISSUE: Should the department order be upheld?
religious beliefs with no laws to obey, no rules and
RULING: Yes. The CFI decision was affirmed and regulations to follow; but since man is gregarious by
the writ of preliminary injunction was dissolved. nature and instinct and he gravitates toward
community life, to receive and enjoy the benefits of
1. First, there was no question with the act of society, he becomes a member of a community or
saluting since the department order allows that nation; thus, he has to give up rights for the benefit
students can just stand still with their arms and of his fellow citizens and for the general welfare,
hands straight at their sides. The issue was focused just as his fellow men and companions also agree to
on the singing of the national anthem and the recital a limitation of their rights in his favor.
of pledge.
g. also, exempting the children will disrupt school
2. The court eventually held that if the exercise of discipline and demoralize the rest of the school
said religious belief clashes with the established population which by far constitutes the great
institutions of society and with the law, then the majority; other pupils would naturally ask for the
former must yield and give way to the latter. The same privilege because they might want to do
reasons are: something else such as play or study; if this
exemption is extended, then the flag ceremony
would soon be a thing of the past or perhaps
a. the flag is not an image nor the flag ceremony a conducted with very few participants, and the time
religious rite; the flag is a symbol of the Republic of will come when we would have citizens untaught
the Philippines, an emblem of national sovereignty, and uninculcated in and not imbued with reverence
unity and cohesion and of freedom and liberty. for the flag and love of country, admiration for
national heroes, and patriotism — a pathetic, even
b. the wordings of the patriotic pledge or the national
tragic situation, and all because a small portion of
anthem does not have anything that is religiously
the school population imposed its will, demanded
objectionable as they speak only of love of country,
and was granted an exemption.
patriotism, liberty and the glory of suffering and
dying for it. 3. US jurisprudence made as basis:
c. the State was merely carrying out its constitutional a. Reynolds vs. US – the law prohibited polygamy
duty to supervise and regulate educational which was allowed for Mormons
institutions and see to it that all schools aim to
develop civic conscience and teach the duties of “Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary
citizenship. (Art. XIV, section 5 of the Constitution). because of his religious belief? To permit this would
be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief
superior to the law of the land, and in effect to
permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
58
b. Hamilton vs. University of California – the the flag ceremony compulsory in all educational
university requires military science and tactics institutions.
training but the objectioners believe that war and
Jehovah's Witnesses admitted that they taught their
preparation for war is a violation of their religious
children not to salute the flag, sing the national
belief
anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they
– it was held untenable. The Court stated that believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious
California did not call them. They sought education devotion" which they "cannot conscientiously give
in the university and the due process clause secured to anyone or anything except God". They consider
by law will be violated if they are to be exempted the flag as an image or idol representing the State.
from the training. They think the action of the local authorities in
compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends
In this case, having elected not to comply with the
constitutional limitations on the State's power and
regulations about the flag salute, they forfeited their
invades the sphere of the intellect and spirit which
right to attend public schools.
the Constitution protect against official control.
c. Minersville School District vs. Gobitis – same
ISSUE:
facts with present case; the US Supreme Court
upheld the conduct of flag ceremony but after 3 Whether or not school children who are
years, it was reversed in West Virginia State Board members or a religious sect may be expelled from
of Education vs. Bernette. This was only because in school for disobedience of R.A. No. 1265 and
the latter case, the parents are to be prosecuted Department Order No. 8
criminally if their children are not in school. It
turned out as a dilemma with the authority against HELD:
individual rights so the Court then approved the No. Religious freedom is a fundamental right which
exemption. However, it is not the ruling in the is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest
present case. protection among human rights, for it involves the
relationship of man to his Creator
Mr. Justice Frankfurter dissented in the latter case
stating: The sole justification for a prior restraint or
limitation on the exercise of religious freedom is the
“The constitutional protection of religious freedom
existence of a grave and present danger of a
… gave religious equality, not civil immunity. Its
character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil
essence is freedom from conformity to religious
to public safety, public morals, public health or any
dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because
other legitimate public interest, that the State has a
of religious dogma…”
right (and duty) to prevent." Absent such a threat to
3. EBRALINAG VS. DIVISION public safety, the expulsion of the petitioners from
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU the schools is not justified. (Teehankee)
FACTS: The petitioners further contend that while they do
not take part in the compulsory flag ceremony, they
The petitioners in both (consolidated) cases were
do not engage in "external acts" or behavior that
expelled from their classes by the public school
would offend their countrymen who believe in
authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag,
expressing their love of country through the
sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic
observance of the flag ceremony. They quietly stand
pledge as required by Republic Act No. 1265 (An
at attention during the flag ceremony to show their
Act making flag ceremony compulsory in all
respect for the right of those who choose to
educational institutions) of July 11, 1955 , and by
participate in the solemn proceedings. Since they do
Department Order No. 8 (Rules and Regulations for
not engage in disruptive behavior, there is no
Conducting the Flag Ceremony in All Educational
warrant for their expulsion.
Institutions) dated July 21, 1955 of the Department
of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) making The Court is not persuaded that by exempting the
Jehovah's Witnesses from saluting the flag, singing
59
the national anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge, respondent Board to grant petitioner INC the
this religious group which admittedly comprises a necessary permit for its TV programs. But on appeal
"small portion of the school population" will shake by the respondent Board, the CA reversed the RTC.
up our part of the globe and suddenly produce a The CA ruled that: (1) the respondent Board has
nation "untaught and uninculcated in and unimbued jurisdiction and power to review the TV
with reverence for the flag, patriotism, love of program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the
country and admiration for national heroes" . What respondent Board did not act with grave abuse of
the petitioners seek only is exemption from the flag discretion when it denied permit for the exhibition
ceremony, not exclusion from the public schools on TV of the three series of “Ang Iglesia ni
where they may study the Constitution, the Cristo” on the ground that the materials constitute
democratic way of life and form of government, and an attack against another religion. The CA also
learn not only the arts, sciences, Philippine history found the subject TV series “indecent, contrary to
and culture but also receive training for a vocation of law and contrary to good customs.” Dissatisfied with
profession and be taught the virtues of "patriotism, the CA decision, petitioner INC appealed to the
respect for human rights, appreciation for national Supreme Court.
heroes, the rights and duties of citizenship, and
moral and spiritual values (Sec. 3[2], Art. XIV, 1987 ISSUES
Constitution) as part of the curricula. Expelling or (1) Does respondent Board have the power to
banning the petitioners from Philippine schools will review petitioner’s TV program?
bring about the very situation that this Court had
feared in Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, (2) Assuming it has the power, did respondent
through the iron hand of the law, to participate in a Board gravely abuse its discretion when it prohibited
ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will the airing of petitioner’s religious program?
hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for RULING
dully constituted authorities.
[The Court voted 13-1 to REVERSE the CA insofar
Also, the expulsion of members of Jehovah's as the CA sustained the action of the respondent
Witnesses from the schools where they are enrolled Board’s X-rating petitioner’s TV Program Series
violates their right as Philippine citizens, under the Nos. 115, 119, and 121. It also voted 10-4 to
1987 Constitution, to "protect and promote the right AFFIRM the CA insofar as the CA it sustained the
of all citizens to quality education . . . and to make jurisdiction of the respondent MTRCB to review
such education accessible to all (Sec. 1, Art. XIV). petitioner’s TV program entitled “Ang Iglesia ni
Cristo.”]
4. IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. COURT OF 1. YES, respondent Board has the power to
APPEALS review petitioner’s TV program.
FACTS Petitioner contends that the term “television
Several pre-taped episodes of the TV program “Ang program” [in Sec. 3 of PD No. 1986 that the
Iglesia ni Cristo” of the religious group Iglesia ni respondent Board has the power to review and
Cristo (INC) were rated “X” – i.e., not for public classify] should not include religious programs like
viewing – by the respondent Board of Review for its program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.” A contrary
Moving Pictures and Television (now MTRCB). interpretation, it is urged, will contravene section 5,
These TV programs allegedly “offend[ed] and Article III of the Constitution which guarantees that
constitute[d] an attack against other religions which “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of
is expressly prohibited by law” because of petitioner religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
INC’s controversial biblical interpretations and its free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
“attacks” against contrary religious beliefs. and worship, without discrimination or preference,
shall forever be allowed.”
Petitioner INC went to court to question the actions
of respondent Board. The RTC ordered the [The Court however] reject petitioner’s postulate.
Petitioner’s public broadcast on TV of its religious
60
program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the State
Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes to favor any religion by protecting it against an
and ears of children. The Court iterates the rule attack by another religion. . . In fine, respondent
thatthe exercise of religious freedom can be board cannot squelch the speech of petitioner Iglesia
regulated by the State when it will bring about the ni Cristo simply because it attacks other religions,
clear and present danger of some substantive evil even if said religion happens to be the most
which the State is duty bound to prevent, i.e., serious numerous church in our country. In a State where
detriment to the more overriding interest of public there ought to be no difference between the
health, public morals, or public welfare. A laissez appearance and the reality of freedom of religion,
faire policy on the exercise of religion can be the remedy against bad theology is better theology.
seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels the The bedrock of freedom of religion is freedom of
Court against its blind adoption as religion is and thought and it is best served by encouraging the
continues to be a volatile area of concern in our marketplace of duelling ideas. When the luxury of
country today. . . [T]he Court] shall continue to time permits, the marketplace of ideas demands that
subject any act pinching the space for the free speech should be met by more speech for it is the
exercise of religion to a heightened scrutiny but we spark of opposite speech, the heat of colliding ideas
shall not leave its rational exercise to the that can fan the embers of truth.
irrationality of man. For when religion divides and
In x-rating the TV program of the petitioner, the
its exercise destroys, the State should not stand still.
respondents failed to apply the clear and present
2. YES, respondent Board gravely abuse its danger rule. In American Bible Society v. City of
discretion when it prohibited the airing of Manila, this Court held: “The constitutional
petitioner’s religious program. guaranty of free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship carries with it the right to
[A]ny act that restrains speech is hobbled by the
disseminate religious information. Any restraint of
presumption of invalidity and should be greeted with
such right can be justified like other restraints on
furrowed brows. It is the burden of the respondent
freedom of expression on the ground that there is
Board to overthrow this presumption. If it fails to
a clear and present danger of any substantive evil
discharge this burden, its act of censorship will be
which the State has the right to prevent.”
struck down. It failed in the case at bar.
In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, we
The evidence shows that the respondent Board x- further ruled that “. . . it is only where it is
rated petitioners TV series for “attacking” either unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and
religions, especially the Catholic Church. An grave danger to the security and welfare of the
examination of the evidence . . . will show that the community that infringement of religious freedom
so-called “attacks” are mere criticisms of some of may be justified, and only to the smallest extent
the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. necessary to avoid the danger.”
The videotapes were not viewed by the respondent
The records show that the decision of the respondent
court as they were not presented as evidence. Yet
Board, affirmed by the respondent appellate court, is
they were considered by the respondent court as
completely bereft of findings of facts to justify
indecent, contrary to law and good customs, hence,
the conclusion that the subject video tapes constitute
can be prohibited from public viewing under section
impermissible attacks against another religion. There
3(c) of PD 1986. This ruling clearly suppresses
is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the
petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its
tapes will bring about especially the gravity and
right to free exercise of religion. xxx.
imminence of the threatened harm. Prior restraint
on speech, including religious speech, cannot be
justified by hypothetical fears but only by the
The respondent Board may disagree with the showing of a substantive and imminent evil which
criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that has taken the life of a reality already on ground.
gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms,
however, unclean they may be. Under our

61
 5. WINSCONSIN VS. YODER, 406 U.S. values their children would learn at home would
205, 32 L ED 2D 15, 92 S CT 1526 (1972) surpass the worldly knowledge taught in school.
[AMISH RELIGION AND WORLDLY
ISSUE:
EUDCATION]
RULING:
FACTS:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Yoder in
Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of
its decision. Justice William O. Douglas filed a
the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a
partial dissent, but voted with the court regarding
member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite
Yoder's case. Justices Lewis F. Powell,
Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that
Jr. and William H. Rehnquist took no part in the
required all children to attend public schools until
consideration or decision of the case.
age 16. The three parents refused to send their
children to such schools after the eighth grade, The Wisconsin Supreme Court "sustained
arguing that high school attendance was contrary to respondents' claim that application of the
their religious beliefs. compulsory school-attendance law to them violated
their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of
Three Amish students from three different families
the First Amendment, made applicable to the States
stopped attending New Glarus High School in
by the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme
the New Glarus, Wisconsin school district at the end
Court held as follows:
of the eighth grade, all because of their parents'
religious beliefs. 1. States cannot force individuals to attend
The three families were represented by Jonas Yoder school when it infringes on their First
(one of the fathers involved in the case) when the Amendment rights. In this case, the state of
case went to trial. They were convicted in the Green Wisconsin interfered with the practice of a
County Court. Each defendant was fined the nominal legitimate religious belief.
sum of $5. Thereafter the Wisconsin Supreme 2. Not all beliefs rise to the demands of the
Court found in Yoder's favor. At this religious clause of the First Amendment.
point Wisconsin appealed that ruling in the U.S. There needs to be evidence of true and
Supreme Court. objective religious practices, instead of an
The Amish did not believe in going to court to settle individual making his or her standards on
disputes but instead follow the biblical command to such matters. The Amish way of life is one
"turn the other cheek." Thus, the Amish are at a of deep religious convictions that stems
disadvantage when it comes to defending themselves from the Bible. It is determined by their
in courts or before legislative committees. However, religion, which involves their rejection of
a Lutheran minister, Reverend William C. worldly goods and their living in the
Lindholm, took an interest in Amish legal Biblical simplicity. The modern compulsory
difficulties from a religious freedom perspective and secondary education is in sharp conflict
founded The National Committee for Amish with their way of life.
Religious Freedom (partly as a result of this case) 3. With respect to the State of Wisconsin’s
and then provided them with legal counsel. argument that additional modern education
beyond 8th grade is necessary to prepare
Under Amish church standards, higher education citizens to participate effectively and
was deemed not only unnecessary for their simple productively in America’s political system,
way of life, but also endangering to their salvation. the Court disagreed. It argued that the State
These men appealed for exemption from compulsory provided no evidence showing any great
education under the basis of these religious benefit to having two extra years in the
convictions. They sincerely held to the belief that the public schools. Furthermore, the Court

62
 contended that the Amish community was a attendance could result in not only great
very successful social unit in American psychological harm to Amish children but ultimately
society, a self-sufficient, law-abiding the destruction of the Old Order Amish church
member of society, which paid all of the community.
required taxes and rejected any type of
public welfare. The Amish children, upon The State has the power to impose reasonable
leaving the public school system, continued regulations for the control and duration of basic
their education in the form of vocational education. Previous precedent has held that this
training. power must yield to the right of parents to provide
4. The Court found no evidence that by leaving an equivalent education in a privately operated
the Amish community without two system. The State’s power is subject to a balancing
additional years of schooling, young Amish test when it impinges on fundamental rights such as
children would become burdens on society. those protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the
To the contrary, the Court argued that they First Amendment and the traditional interest of
had good vocational background to rely parents with respect to the religious upbringing of
upon. It was the State’s mistaken their children.
assumption that Amish children were
ignorant. Compulsory education after In order for Wisconsin to compel such attendance, it
elementary school was a recent movement must follow that either the State does not deny the
that developed in the early 20th century in free exercise of religious belief by its requirement or
order to prevent child labor and keep that there is a state interest of sufficient magnitude to
children of certain ages in school. The State override the interest claiming protection under the
of Wisconsin’s arguments about compelling Free Exercise Clause. This Court determines that the
the school attendance were therefore less Amish objection to the attendance is rooted in
substantial. religious beliefs that directly conflict with the
5. Responding to Justice Douglas's dissent, the compulsory school attendance law.
Court argued that the question before it was
about the interests of the parents to exercise The State advances two arguments. First, it notes
free religion, and did not relate to the child's that some degree of education is necessary to
First Amendment's rights. As such, the prepare citizens to participate effectively and
argument pertaining to the child's right to intelligently in our open political system. Second,
exercise free religion was irrelevant in this education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and
case. self-sufficient participants in society. We accept
these propositions. However, the evidence adduced
Ruling 2nd version: shows that an additional one or two years of formal
high school would do little to serve those interests.
The application of the law is unconstitutional as Such education may be necessary for preparation for
applied to the Amish. the modern society in which we live, but is not for
the separated agrarian community of the Amish
The Amish object to the high school education faith.
because the values taught there are in marked
variance from the Amish values and way of life. It The State attacks respondents’ position as fostering
places Amish children in an environment hostile to ignorance from which children must be protected by
their beliefs and takes them away from their the State. However, the record shows that the Amish
community during a crucial period in their life. The community has been a highly successful social unit
Amish do not object to elementary education. Expert within our society, producing productive and law-
Dr. Hostetler testified that the compulsory abiding citizens. The State also supports its position

63
on the possibility that some children will choose to Religious practices are not the only method by
leave the Amish community. This argument is which a violation of the Free Exercise Clause can
highly speculative on the record, and the practical occur. In West Virginia State Board of Education v.
agricultural training and habits of industry would Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed.
support children that did choose to leave. 1628 (1943), the Supreme Court held that a public
school could not expel children because they refused
The requirement for compulsory high school on religious grounds to comply with a requirement
education is a fairly recent development, designed to of saluting the U.S. flag and reciting the Pledge of
not only provide educational opportunities, but also Allegiance. In that case, the children were Jehovah's
to avoid child labor or forced idleness. In these Witnesses, and they believed that saluting the flag
terms, Wisconsin’s interest in compelling school fell within the scope of the biblical command against
attendance is less substantial for Amish children worshipping false gods.
than for children generally.

The State finally argues that exempting the Amish 6. ESTRADA VS. ESCRITOR, 408 SCRA 1
children fails to recognize the children’s substantive (2003) > 492 SCRA 1 (2006)
right to a secondary education, giving due regard to
the power of the State as parens patriae. On this FACTS:
record there is no need to decide an issue in which
Soledad S. Escritor, a court interpreter, admittedly
the Amish parent’s are preventing children who wish
while still married to another, cohabited to Luciano
to further their education from attending school.
Quilapio, Jr. since 1980, who was himself married to
another. Escritor and Quilapio had a nineteen-year
*Free Exercise Clause
old son. Alejandro Estrada, the private complainant
herein, was not personally related to Escritor nor did
The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a person the
he personally know her. However, he wanted the
right to practice a religion and propagate it without
Court to declare the relationship of Escritor with
government interference. This right is a liberty
Quilapio as immoral in consonance with the
interest that cannot be deprived without due process
pertinent provision of the Administrative Code.
of law. Although the government cannot restrict a
person's religious beliefs, it can limit the practice of In her defense, Escritor contended that under the
faith when a substantial and compelling state interest rules of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious sect of
exists. The courts have found that a substantial and whom she is a member, the act of signing a
compelling state interest exists when the religious Declaration Pledging Faithfulness, is sufficient to
practice poses a threat to the health, safety, or legitimize a union which would otherwise be
welfare of the public. classified as adulterous and bigamous. Escritor and
Quilapio's declarations are recorded in the Watch
For example, the government could legitimately Tower Central office. They were executed in the
outlaw the practice of polygamy that was formerly usual and approved form prescribed by the Watch
mandated by the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Tower Bible and Tract Society which was lifted
Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) but could not from the article, "Maintaining Marriage in Honor
outlaw the religion or belief in Mormonism itself Before God and Men," in the March 15, 1977 issue
(Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. of the Watch Tower magazine, entitled The
244 [1878]). The Supreme Court has invalidated Watchtower.
very few actions of the government on the basis of Escritor alleged that in compliance with the
this clause. foregoing rules, she and her partner signed the
Declaration Pledging Faithfulness in 1991, and by
virtue of such act, they are for all purposes, regarded

64
as husband and wife by the religious denomination on the compelling interest of the state. The burden of
of which they are devout adherents. Although in evidence should be discharged by the proper agency
1998 Escritor was widowed, thereby lifting the legal of the government which is the Office of the
impediment to marry on her part, her mate is still not Solicitor General”.
capacitated to remarry.
In order to properly settle the case at bar, it is
Thus, their declarations remain valid. Once all legal essential that the government be given an
impediments for both are lifted, the couple can opportunity to demonstrate the compelling state
already register their marriage with the civil interest it seeks to uphold in opposing the
authorities and the validity of the declarations respondent’s position that her conjugal arrangement
ceases. The elders in the congregations can then is not immoral and punishable as it is within the
solemnize their marriage as authorized by Philippine scope of free exercise protection. The Court could
law. In sum, therefore, insofar as the congregation is not prohibit and punish her conduct where the Free
concerned, there is nothing immoral about the Exercise Clause protects it, since this would be an
conjugal arrangement between Escritor and Quilapio unconstitutional encroachment of her right to
and they remain members in good standing in the religious freedom. Furthermore, the court cannot
congregation. simply take a passing look at respondent’s claim of
religious freedom but must also apply the
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be found “compelling state interest” test.
guilty of the administrative charge of “gross and Accordingly, respondent Soledad S. Escritor is
immoral conduct” and be penalized by the State for suspended for six months and one day without pay
such conjugal arrangement, violating her right to for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
religious freedom, in light with the Free Exercise service. However, the suspension shall be lifted
Clause. immediately upon Escritor's manifestation to this
RULING: Court that she has ceased cohabiting with Luciano
D. Quilapio, Jr. Moreover, respondent Escritor is
A distinction between public and secular morality warned that her continued cohabitation with
and religious morality should be kept in mind. The Quilapio, during or after her suspension and while
jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and Quilapio's marriage with his legal wife still subsists,
secular morality. shall merit the penalty of dismissal from the service.
The Court states that our Constitution adheres the IN VIEW WHEREOF, the case is REMANDED to
benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for the Office of the Court Administrator. The Solicitor
accommodation of religious exercises as required by General is ordered to intervene in the case where it
the Free Exercise Clause. This benevolent neutrality will be given the opportunity (a) to examine the
could allow for accommodation of morality based on sincerity and centrality of respondent's claimed
religion, provided it does not offend compelling religious belief and practice; (b) to present evidence
state interests. on the state's "compelling interest" to override
The state’s interest is the preservation of the respondent's religious belief and practice; and (c) to
integrity of the judiciary by maintaining among its show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its
ranks a high standard of morality and decency. interest is the least restrictive to respondent's
“There is nothing in the OCA’s (Office of the Court religious freedom. The rehearing should be
Administrator) memorandum to the Court that concluded thirty (30) days from the Office of the
demonstrates how this interest is so compelling that Court Administrator's receipt of this Decision.
it should override respondent’s plea of religious The SC held that, Erictor's sincerity is beyond
freedom. Indeed, it is inappropriate for the serious doubt. She procured the certificate 10 years
complainant, a private person, to present evidence after their union began and not merely after being
65
implicated. The free exercise of religion is a 1968 and Pastor in the West Visayan Mission in
fundamental right that enjoys a preferred position in 1972. Finally in 1989, he was promoted as District
the hierarchy of rights. The state's broad interest in Pastor of the Negros Mission of the SDA.
protecting the institution sof marriage and the family
On various occasions from August to October 1991,
is not a compelling interest in protecting the
Austria received several communications from Mr.
institution sof marriage and the family is not a
Ibesate, treasurer of the Negros Mission, asking the
compelling interest enforcing the concubinage
former to admit accountability and responsibility for
charges against Escritor. The constitution adheres to
the church tithes and offerings collected by his wife,
the beneveolent neutrality approach that gives room
Thelma Austria, in his district and to remit the same
for accommodation of religious exercises as required
to the Negros Mission.
by the Free Exercise Clause. Even assuming that
there was a compelling state interest, the state failed In his answer, petitioner said that he should not be
to show evidence that the means the state adopted in made accountable since it was private respondent
pursuing this compelling interest is the least Pastor Buhat and Mr. Ibesate who authorized his
restrictive to Escritor's religious freedom. wife to collect the tithes and offerings since he was
very sick to do the collecting at that time.
Hence, Escritor's conjugal arrangement cannot be
penalized as she made out a case for exemption from Thereafter, petitioner went to the office of Pastor
the law based on her right to religous freedom. Buhat, president of the Negros Mission, and asked
for a convention to settle the dispute between
7. RE: REQUEST OF MUSLIM
petitioner and Pastor Rodrigo. Pastor Buhat denied
EMPLOYEES IN THE DIFFERENT
the request of petitioner because there was no
COURTS IN ILIGAN CITY (RE:
quorum. The two exchanged heated arguments until
OFFICE HOURS), 477 SCRA 648 (2005)
petitioner left the office. However, while on his way
*see pdf out, he heard Pastor Buhat saying, "Pastor daw
inisog na ina iya (Pador you are talking tough)”
which prompted him to go back and overturn Pastor
Buhat’s table, scatter books in the office, bang
Buhat’s attaché case and throw the phone.

Petitioner received a letter inviting him and his wife

C. RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS AND SECULAR to attend the meeting to discuss the non-remittance
JURISDICTION of church collection and the events that transpired
between him and Pastor Buhat. A fact-finding
8. AUSTRIA V. NLRC, 312 SCRA 410 (1999) committee was created to investigate petitioner.
Subsequently, petitioner received a letter of
FACTS: dismissal citing misappropriation of denominational
Private respondent Central Philippine Union Mission funds, willful breach of trust, serious misconduct,
Corporation of the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA) is gross and habitual neglect of duties, and commission
a religious corporation under Philippine law and is of an offense against the person of employer's duly
represented by the other private respondents. authorized representative, as grounds for the
Petitioner was a pastor of SDA until 1991, when his termination of his services.
services were terminated. 1) Petitioner filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter
Austria worked with SDA for 28 years. He started as for illegal dismissal. = decision rendered in favor of
petitioner
a literature evangelist in 1963 then got promoted
several times. He became the Assistant Publishing 2) SDA appealed to NLRC = decision rendered in
Director in the West Visayan Mission of the SDA in favor of respondent
66
3) Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration = The case at bar does not even remotely concern any
reinstated decision of Labor Arbiter of the given examples. What is involved here is the
relationship of the church as an employer and the
4) SDA filed motion for reconsideration = decision
minister as an employee. It is purely secular and has
rendered in favor of respondent
no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith,
Hence, this recourse to the court by the petitioner. worship or doctrines of the church. The matter of
terminating an employee, which is purely secular in
ISSUES: nature, is different from the ecclesiastical act of
expelling a member from the religious congregation.
1) WON the Labor Arbiter/NLRC has jurisdiction to
try and decide the complaint filed by petitioner 9. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines,
against the SDA; Inc. vs. Office of the Secretary, 405 SCRA 497
(2003)
2) WON the termination of the services of petitioner
is an ecclesiastical affair, and, as such, involves the FACTS:
separation of church and state; Petitioner is a non-governmental organization that
extends voluntary services to the Filipino people,
RULING: especially to Muslim Communities. Petitioner began
1) YES. to issue, for a fee, halal certifications to qualified
products and food manufacturers on account of the
2) NO. actual need to certify food products as halal and also
due to halal food producers' request. Subsequently,
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Executive Order (EO) 46 was issued creating the
The principle of separation of church and state finds Philippine Halal Certification Scheme and
no application in this case. The rationale of the designating respondent Office of Muslim Affairs
principle of the separation of church and state is (OMA) to oversee its implementation. In this
summed up in the familiar saying, "Strong fences petition for prohibition, petitioner alleged, among
make good-neighbors." The idea advocated by this others, that the subject EO violates the constitutional
principle is to delineate the boundaries between provision on the separation of Church and State.
the two institutions and thus avoid
encroachments by one against the other because In granting the petition, the Supreme Court
of a misunderstanding of the limits of their ruled that freedom of religion was accorded
respective exclusive jurisdictions. preferred status by the framers of the fundamental
law and it has consistently affirmed this preferred
The case at bar does not concern an ecclesiastical or status. Without doubt, classifying a food product as
purely religious affair as to bar the State from taking halal is a religious function because the standards
cognizance of the same. An ecclesiastical affair is used are drawn from the Qur'an and Islamic beliefs.
"one that concerns doctrine, creed, or form of By giving the OMA the exclusive power to classify
worship of the church, or the adoption and food products as halal, EO 46 encroached on the
enforcement within a religious association of needful religious freedom of Muslim organizations like
laws and regulations for the government of the herein petitioner to interpret for Filipino Muslims
membership, and the power of excluding from such what food products are fit for Muslim consumption.
associations those deemed unworthy of membership. Also, by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal
Examples of this so-called ecclesiastical affaits are certifications, the State has in effect forced Muslims
proceedings for excommunication, ordinations of to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and
religious ministers, administration of sacraments and Sunnah on halal food.
other activities with attached religious significance.

67
 The Court further ruled that only the can justify the infringement of religious freedom. If
prevention of an immediate and grave danger to the the government fails to show the seriousness and
security and welfare of the community can justify immediacy of the threat, State intrusion is
the infringement of religious freedom. In the case at constitutionally unacceptable. In a society with a
bar, the Court found no compelling justification for democratic framework like ours, the State must
the government to deprive Muslim organizations, minimize its interference with the affairs of its
like herein petitioner, of their religious right to citizens and instead allow them to exercise
reasonable freedom of personal and religious
classify a product as halal, even on the premise that
activity.
the health of Muslim Filipinos can be effectively
protected by assigning to OMA the exclusive power In the case at bar, we find no compelling
to issue halal certificates. justification for the government to deprive Muslim
organizations, like herein petitioner, of their
religious right to classify a product as halal, even on
ISSUE: Whether or not Executive Order 46 violates the premise that the health of Muslim Filipinos can
the constitutional provision on the separation of be effectively protected by assigning to OMA the
Church and State. exclusive power to issue halal certifications.
RULING: No. In granting the petition, the Supreme The protection and promotion of the Muslim
Court ruled that freedom of religion was accorded Filipinos' right to health are already provided for in
preferred status by the framers of the fundamental existing laws and ministered to by government
law and it has consistently affirmed this preferred agencies charged with ensuring that food products
status. Without doubt, classifying a food product as released in the market are fit for human
halal is a religious function because the standards consumption, properly labeled and safe. Unlike EO
used are drawn from the Qur'an and Islamic beliefs. 46, these laws do not encroach on the religious
By giving the OMA the exclusive power to classify freedom of Muslims.
food products as halal, Executive Order 46
encroached on the religious freedom of Muslim
organizations like herein petitioner to interpret for
Filipino Muslims what food products are fit for
Muslim consumption. Also, by arrogating to itself
the task of issuing halal certifications, the State has
in effect forced Muslims to accept its own
interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah on halal
food.

The Court further ruled that only the prevention of

an immediate and grave danger to the security and
welfare of the community can justify the
infringement of religious freedom. In the case at bar,
the Court found no compelling justification for the
government to deprive Muslim organizations, like
herein petitioner, of their religious right to classify a
product as halal, even on the premise that the health
of Muslim Filipinos can be effectively protected by
assigning to OMA the exclusive power to issue halal
certificates.

Only the prevention of an immediate and grave

danger to the security and welfare of the community
68