CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II -The law is aimed at the distribution of scandalous

material. Not the truth or falsity behind them. It

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging requires the proof by the state of malice.
the freedom of speech, of expression, or of -The object of the statute is not punishment, in
the ordinary sense, but suppression of the
the press, or the right of the people
offending newspaper or periodical. The reason for
peaceably to assemble and petition the the enactment, as the state court has said, is that
government for redress of grievances. prosecutions to enforce penal statutes for libel do
not result in 'efficient repression or suppression of
NEAR v. MINNESOTA the evils of scandal.'
F: Near is the owner of The Saturday Press. The -that it is better to leave a few of its noxious
county attorney of Hennepin brought this action branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by
to enjoin The Saturday Press for publishing pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those
articles charged, in substance, that a Jewish yielding the proper fruits.
gangster was in control of gambling, bootlegging, -Public officers, whose character and conduct
and racketeering in Minneapolis, and that law remain open to debate and free discussion in the
enforcing officers and agencies were not press, find their remedies for false accusations in
energetically performing their duties. Most of the actions under libel laws providing for redress and
charges were directed against the chief of police; punishment, and not in proceedings to restrain
he was charged with gross neglect of duty, illicit the publication of newspapers and periodicals.
relations with gangsters, and with participation in -The preliminary freedom, by virtue of the very
graft. The county attorney was charged with reason for its existence, does not depend, as this
knowing the existing conditions and with failure court has said, on proof of truth.
to take adequate measures to remedy them. The -Judgment reversed. We should add that this
mayor was accused of inefficiency and decision rests upon the operation and effect of
dereliction. On member of the grand jury was the statute, without regard to the question of the
stated to be in sympathy with the gangsters. A truth of the charges contained in the particular
special grand jury and a special prosecutor were periodical.
demanded to deal with the situation in general, -In the first place, the main purpose of such
and, in particular, to investigate an attempt to constitutional provisions is 'to prevent all such
assassinate one Guilford, one of the original previous restraints upon publications as had been
defendants, who, it appears from the articles, was practiced by other governments,' and they do not
shot by gangsters after the first issue of the prevent the subsequent punishment of such as
periodical had been published. There is no may be deemed contrary to the public welfare.
question but that the articles made serious -The preliminary freedom extends as well to the
accusations against the public officers named and false as to the true; the subsequent punishment
others in connection with the prevalence of may extend as well to the true as to the false.
crimes and the failure to expose and punish This was the law of criminal libel apart from
them. statute in most cases, if not in all.
Defendants claim that the facts arent sufficient -The exceptional nature of its limitations places in
to constitute a cause of action and that the a strong light the general conception that liberty
statute was in fact unconstitutional. of the press, historically considered and taken up
by the Federal Constitution, has meant,
Chapter 285 of the Session Laws of Minnesota for principally although not exclusively, immunity
the year 1925 provides for the abatement, as a from previous restraints or censorship.
public nuisance, of a malicious, scandalous and -"the protection even as to previous restraint is
defamatory newspaper, magazine or other not absolutely unlimited."
periodical. It criminalizes any person who is a
member, employee, participant in a corporation FREEDMAN v. MARYLAND
or business engaged in the circulation, F: Freedman is the owner of a Baltimore theatre
production, and publication of malicious, who showed Revenge at Daybreak in said
scandalous, and defamatory print materials. theatre. Maryland State Board of Sensors requires
that every movie to be shown within their
The Court found the publication in violation of the jurisdiction be screened for any obscenity, and
provision. An appeal was made with the Supreme because of his violation, Freedman was
Court: CONVICTED. The State admits that the unlicensed
movie does not violate any of the standards, only
I: W/N the Saturday Press and its freedom of that it was not subject to scrutiny and given the
speech are protected by the 14th Amendment approval for screening. The issue isnt about the
prevention of the first showing of a film (whether
H: Clause (b) of section one is unconstitutional. or not obscene), it is that the law presents PRIOR
RESTRAINT because it presents A DANGER of judicial determination in an adversary
unduly suppressing protected expression: proceeding ensures the necessary sensitivity
particularly on the procedure for an initial to freedom of expression, only a procedure
decision by the board which effectively, without requiring a judicial determination suffices to
judicial participation BARS the exhibition of the
impose a valid final restraint.
film, and even, in this case convicts the exhibitor.
-Therefore, the procedure must also assure a
I: W/N Maryland motion picture censorship prompt final judicial decision, to minimize the
stature is constitutional deterrent effect of an interim and possibly
erroneous denial of a license.
H: NO. The court reversed the decision of the -It is readily apparent that the Maryland
Court of Appeals of Maryland due to the fact procedural scheme does not satisfy these
that the statute presents prior restraints. criteria. First, once the censor disapproves
-In the area of freedom of expression it is the film, the exhibitor must assume the
well established that one has standing to burden of instituting judicial proceedings and
challenge a statute on the ground that it of persuading the courts that the film is
delegates overly broad licensing discretion to protected expression. Second, once the
an administrative office, whether or not his Board has acted against a film, exhibition is
conduct could be proscribed by a properly prohibited pending judicial review, however
drawn statute, and whether or not he applied protracted. Under the statute, appellant
for a license. could have been convicted if he had shown
-In substance his argument is that, because the film after unsuccessfully
the apparatus operates in a statutory context seeking a license, even though no court had
in which judicial review may be too little and ever ruled on the obscenity of the film. Third,
too late, the Maryland statute lacks sufficient it is abundantly clear that the Maryland
safeguards for confining the censor's action statute provides no assurance of prompt
to judicially determined constitutional limits, judicial determination. We hold, therefore,
and therefore contains the same vice as a that appellant's conviction must be reversed.
statute delegating excessive administrative The Maryland scheme fails to provide
discretion. adequate safeguards against undue
-The ability of the Censor Board to convict inhibition of protected expression, and this
goes well beyond their jurisdiction that it renders the 2 requirement of prior
steps on the right to freedom of expression. submission of films to the Board an invalid
-Applying the settled rule of our cases, we previous restraint.
hold that a noncriminal process which
requires the prior submission of a film to a
censor avoids constitutional infirmity only if it NEW YORK TIMES CO v. US
F: The New York Times and Washington Post were
takes place under procedural safeguards
enjoined from publishing contents of a highly-
designed to obviate the dangers of a classified study entitled "History of U.S.
censorship system. Decision- Making Process on Viet Nam Policy." The
-First, the burden of proving that the film is lower courts who adjudged the cases for New York
unprotected expression must rest on the and The Washington Post share the sentiments
censor. As we said in Speiser v. Randall, laid down in Organization for a Better Austin v.
"Where the transcendent value of speech is Keefe that: The Government "thus carries a heavy
involved, due process certainly requires . . . burden of showing justification for the imposition
that the State bear the burden of persuasion of such a restraint." Supreme Court agrees.
to show that the appellants engaged in
Background story: The Nixon administration tried
criminal speech." Second, while the State
to repress the leakage of pentagon papers as it
may require advance submission of all films, criminalized and besmirch the name and cause of
in order to proceed effectively to bar all Ellsberg.
showings of unprotected films, the
requirement cannot be administered in a I: W/N the prevention of the publication was legal
manner which would lend an effect of finality
to the censor's determination whether a film H: NO. The burden that the state bears to show
constitutes protected expression. The justification for the imposition of such restraint
teaching of our cases is that, because only a was not proved.
PEOPLE v. PEREZ Section 3 makes it unlawful to attempt to,
F: Perez was a municipal secretary of polar, conspire to, or actually do acts prohibited in the
Sorsogon. On April 1 1922, he was engaged in a provisions.
discussion with several persons about the then Petitioners were found conspiring to organize a
administration where he said "we must get bolos Communist Party, and teaching and advocating
and cut off Wood's head for having recommended the teachings that tend toward the overthrow of
a bad thing for the Philippines." He was charged the government. The evidence gathered
in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon with a amounted to 16,000 pages in record.
violation of article 256 of the Penal Code having
to do with contempt of ministers of the Crown or I: W/N the means employed, by Congress in
other persons in authority. 2 witnesses were enacting such laws, were in conflict with the First
presented for prosecution and 3 for defense. The Amendment
two witnesses reiterated that he did in fact say
things in violation of Art. 256. The witnesses to H: NO. We hold that 2 (a) (1), 2 (a) (3) and 3 of
the defense said that prior to that there was an the Smith Act do not inherently, or as construed
altercation with a severo Madrid. The latter or applied in the instant case, violate the First
saying the lack of independence and the situation Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of
of the Philippines is due to the Nacionalista Party, Rights, or the First and Fifth Amendments
while Perez retorted that it was Governor-General because of indefiniteness. Petitioners intended to
Wood as the one in charge, who brought the overthrow the Government of the United States
Philippines to its state. as speedily as the circumstances would permit.
Their conspiracy to organize the Communist Party
I: W/N Perez should be convicted for the violation and to teach and advocate the overthrow of the
of Art 256 Government of the United States by force and
violence created a "clear and present danger" of
H: No. He should be convicted for violating Art an attempt to overthrow the Government by force
292, committing acts of sedition. His words were and violence. They were properly and
not merely in contempt of the crown and it's constitutionally convicted for violation of the
ministers. It was seditious (and treasonous) in Smith Act. The judgments of conviction are
that it was inciting public disturbance. affirmed.
-It is of course fundamentally true that the
provisions of Act No. 292 must not be interpreted
so as to abridge the freedom of speech and the The law gives way to discussion, as what
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petitioners claim to have been doing. The law
petition the Government for redress of only punishes the advocacy of overthrowing the
grievances. Criticism is permitted to penetrate government. The basis of the First Amendment
even to the foundations of Government. Criticism, is the hypothesis that speech can rebut speech,
no matter how severe, on the Executive, the propaganda will answer propaganda, free debate
Legislature, and the Judiciary, is within the range of ideas will result in the wisest government
of liberty of speech, unless the intention and policies.
effect be seditious. But when the intention and -Justice Holmes: The question in every case is
effect of the act is seditious, the constitutional whether the words used are used in such
guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of circumstances and are of such a nature as to
assembly and petition must yield to punitive create a clear and present danger that they
measures designed to maintain the prestige of will bring about the substantive evils that
constituted authority, the supremacy of the Congress has the right to prevent.
constitution and the laws, and the existence of -The clear and present danger standard is not
the State. neat nor mathematical, but like all verbalizations
it is subject to criticism on the score of
indefiniteness.
DENNIS v. US -Success or the probability of success in
F: In1948, petitioners were indicted for the overthrowing the government should not be the
violation of the conspiracy provisions of the Smith criterion.
Act. The motion to quash that consequently
assails the constitutionality of the provisions was GONZALES v. COMELEC
dismissed both by lower court and the CA. F: An action for declaratory relief with
Section 2 makes unlawful the following acts: preliminary injunction was instigated by
advocating, teaching the duty or necessity to petitioners wherein the latter assails the
overthrow the government, prining such constitutionality of 2 new provisions in the
materials for the advocacy, and to organize a Revised Election code under RA 4880. The
group or society that advocate the same. assailed provisions were described to be limiting
of the campaign period as well as allowing of utterance be to bring about the substantive evil
early nomination of candidates. Petitioner which the legislative body seeks to prevent."
Gonzales came as a Filipino citizen, taxpayer, and - ". . . the evil apprehended is so imminent that it
voter, where hi co-petitioner Cabigao was running may befall before there is opportunity for full
for Vice Mayor of Manila. discussion. If there be time to expose through
-In the answer of the respondent as well as its discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert
memorandum, stress was laid on Republic Act No. the evil by the processes of education, the
4880 as an exercise of the police power of the remedy to be applied is more speech, not
state, designed to insure a free, orderly and enforced silence."
honest election by regulating "conduct which - The Bill of Rights as thus noted prohibits
Congress has determined harmful because if abridgment by law of freedom of speech or of the
unrestrained and carried for a long period before press. It likewise extends the same protection to
elections it necessarily entails huge expenditures the right of the people peaceably to assemble. As
of funds on the part of the candidates, was pointed out by Justice Malcolm in the case of
precipitates violence and even deaths, results in United States v. Bustos, 30 this right is a
the corruption of the electorate, and inflicts necessary consequence of our republican
direful consequences upon public interest as the institution and complements the right of free
vital affairs of the country are sacrificed to purely speech. Assembly means a right on the part of
partisan pursuits." Evidently for respondent that citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in
would suffice to meet the constitutional questions respect to public affairs. From the same Bustos
raised as to the alleged infringement of free opinion: "Public policy, the welfare of society, and
speech, free press, freedom of assembly and the orderly administration of government have
freedom of association. demanded protection for public opinion."
- Freedom of speech and of the press thus means
something more than the right to approve I: W/N the provisions of RA 4880 are violative of
existing political beliefs or economic the freedom of speech and freedom to assemble
arrangements, to lend support to official
measures, to take refuge in the existing climate H: PARTLY YES. (But the provisions were not
of opinion on any matter of public consequence. struck down)
So atrophied, the right becomes meaningless. Freedom to assemble VALID: the political parties
The right belongs as well, if not more, for those are given less freedom as to the time in choosing
who question, who do not conform, who differ. To their representatives or candidates because of
paraphrase Justice Holmes, it is freedom for the the time limit imposed by the law. BUT it does not
thought that we hate, no less than for the curtail their other rights to assemble.
thought that agrees with us. Freedom of speech VOID for VAGUENESS: to
- Thus: "These are the 'clear and present engage in an election campaign or partisan
danger' rule and the 'dangerous tendency' rule. political activity except during the period of one
The first, as interpreted in a number of cases, hundred twenty days immediately preceding an
means that the evil consequence of the election involving a public office voted for at large
comment or utterance must be 'extremely and ninety days immediately preceding an
serious and the degree of imminence election for any other elective public office. The
extremely high' before the utterance can be term 'candidate' refers to any person aspiring for
punished. The danger to be guarded against or seeking an elective public office regardless of
is the 'substantive evil' sought to be whether or not said person has already filed his
prevented." It has the advantage of establishing certificate of candidacy or has been nominated
according to the above decision "a definite rule in by any political party as its candidate. The term
constitutional law. It provides the criterion as to 'election campaign' of 'partisan political activity'
what words may be published." refers to acts designed to have a candidate
-The Cabansag case likewise referred to the other elected or not or promote the candidacy of a
test, the "dangerous tendency" rule and person or persons to a public office . . ."
explained it thus: "If the words uttered create -More specifically, in terms of the permissible
a dangerous tendency which the state has a scope of legislation that otherwise could be
right to prevent, then such words are justified under the clear and present danger
punishable. It is not necessary that some doctrine, it is the considered opinion of the
definite or immediate acts of force, violence, or majority, though lacking the necessary vote for
unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that an adjudication of invalidity, that the challenged
such acts be advocated in general terms. Nor is it statute could have been more narrowly drawn
necessary that the language used be reasonably and the practices prohibited more precisely
calculated to incite persons to acts of force, delineated to satisfy the constitutional
violence, or unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the requirements as to a valid limitation under the
natural tendency and probable effect of the clear and present danger doctrine.
-It is undeniable, therefore, that even though the On 21 December 1987, private respondent Enrile
governmental purposes be legitimate and replied that "[he] would not and will not approve
substantial, they cannot be pursued by means of the use, appropriation, reproduction and/or
that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties exhibition of his name, or picture, or that of any
when the end can be more narrowly achieved. For member of his family in any cinema or television
precision of regulation is the touchstone in an production, film or other medium for advertising
area so closely related to our most precious or commercial exploitation" and further advised
freedoms. petitioners that "in the production, airing,
Under the circumstances then, a majority of the showing, distribution or exhibition of said or
Court feels compelled to view the statutory similar film, no reference whatsoever (whether
provisions in question as unconstitutional on their written, verbal or visual) should be made to
face inasmuch as they appear to range too widely [him] or any member of his family, much less to
and indiscriminately across the fundamental any matter purely personal to them." The
liberties associated with freedom of the mind. petitioners obliged.
-that such provisions were deemed by the -However, Enrile had the crew and the production
legislative body to be part and parcel of the subject to a preliminary injunction for his
necessary and appropriate response not merely unwarranted involvement in the film. Ayer
to a clear and present danger but to the actual answered that Enrile was not in fact included. The
existence of a grave and substantive evil of court still issued a TRO partially enjoining the
excessive partisanship, dishonesty and corruption implementation of the respondent Judge's Order
as well as violence that of late has invariably of 16 March 1988 and the Writ of Preliminary
marred election campaigns and partisan political Injunction issued therein, and allowing the
activities in this country. He did invite our petitioners to resume producing and filming those
attention likewise to the well-settled doctrine that portions of the projected mini-series which do not
in the choice of remedies for an admitted malady make any reference to private respondent or his
requiring governmental action, on the legislature family or to any fictitious character based on or
primarily rests the responsibility. Nor should the bearing substantial resemblance or similarity to
cure prescribed by it, unless clearly repugnant to or identifiable as private respondent.
fundamental rights, be ignored or disregarded.
- We recognize the wide discretion accorded I: W/N petitioners right to freedom of speech is
Congress to protect vital interests. Considering being infringed
the responsibility incumbent on the judiciary, it is
not always possible, even with the utmost H:
sympathy shown for the legislative choice of -Motion pictures are important both as a medium
means to cure an admitted evil, that the for the communication of ideas and the
legislative judgment arrived at, with its possible expression of the artistic impulse.
curtailment of the preferred freedoms, be -Succinctly put, the right of privacy cannot be
accepted uncritically. There may be times, and invoked to resist publication and dissemination of
this is one of them, with the majority, with all the matters of public interest. 8 The interest sought
respect to a coordinate branch, unable to extend to be protected by the right of privacy is the right
their approval to the aforesaid specific provisions to be free from "unwarranted publicity, from the
of one of the sections of the challenged statute. wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and
The necessary two-third vote, however, not being activities of an individual which are outside the
obtained, there is no occasion for the power to realm of legitimate public concern."
annul statutes to come into play. - Another criterion for permissible limitation on
freedom of speech and of the press, which
AYER PROD PYT LTD. V. JUDGE CAPULONG includes such vehicles of the mass media as
F: Australian film maker and owner of Ayer radio, television and the movies, is the
Productions, Hal McElroy, envisioned, sometime 'balancing-of-interests test' (Chief Justice
in 1987, the filming for commercial viewing and Enrique M. Fernando on the Bill of Rights, 1970
for Philippine and international release, the ed., p. 79). The principle 'requires a court to
historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. take conscious and detailed consideration
-The proposed motion picture would be of the interplay of interests observable in a
essentially a reenactment of the events that given situation or type of situation.'
made possible the EDSA revolution; it is designed - Because of the preferred character of the
to be viewed in a six-hour mini-series television constitutional rights of freedom of speech and of
play, presented in a "docu-drama" style, creating expression, a weighty presumption of invalidity
four (4) fictional characters interwoven with real vitiates measures of prior restraint upon the
events, and utilizing actual documentary footage exercise of such freedoms. 14 The invalidity of a
as background. measure of prior restraint does not, of course,
mean that no subsequent liability may lawfully be
imposed upon a person claiming to exercise such Such portrayal may be carried out even without a
constitutional freedoms. license from private respondent.
- The subject matter of "The Four Day Revolution" -Lawyers of Honasan and Enrile not charged of
relates to the non-bloody change of government forum shopping.
that took place at Epifanio de los Santos Avenue
in February 1986, and the train of events, which
led up to that denouement. Clearly, such subject
matter is one of public interest and concern.
-The extent of the intrusion upon the life of ADIONG v. COMELEC
private respondent Juan Ponce Enrile that would F: 1992, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution
be entailed by the production and exhibition of No. 2347. The provisions provide: It is unlawful to
"The Four Day Revolution" would, therefore, be post in any place, whether public or private,
limited in character. The extent of that intrusion, mobile or stationary, except in the COMELEC
as this Court understands the synopsis of the common posted areas and/or billboards, at the
proposed film, may be generally described as campaign headquarters of the candidate or
such intrusion as is reasonably necessary to keep political party, organization or coalition, or at the
that film a truthful historical account. Private candidate's own residential house or one of his
respondent does not claim that petitioners residential houses, if he has more than one:
threatened to depict in "The Four Day Revolution" Provided, that such posters or election
any part of the private life of private respondent propaganda shall not exceed two (2) feet by three
or that of any member of his family. (3) feet in size."
- A public figure has been defined as a person -Petitioner, a senatorial candidate in the May 11,
who, by his accomplishments, fame, or mode of 1992 elections now assails the COMELEC's
living, or by adopting a profession or calling which Resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of
gives the public a legitimate interest in his decals and stickers in "mobile" places like cars
doings, his affairs, and his character, has become and other moving vehicles.
a 'public personage.'
Such public figures were held to have lost, to I: W/N COMELEC can prohibit the posting of
some extent at least, their right of privacy. decals and stickers on "mobile" places, public or
- Private respondent is a "public figure" precisely private, and limit their location or publication to
because, inter alia, of his participation as a the authorized posting areas that it fixes.
principal actor in the culminating events of the
change of government in February 1986. Because H: NO.
his participation therein was major in character, a -The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's
film reenactment of the peaceful revolution that fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the
fails to make reference to the role played by Constitution (Sec. 4, Article III) There is no public
private respondent would be grossly unhistorical. interest substantial enough to warrant the kind of
- The line of equilibrium in the specific context of restriction involved in this case.
the instant case between the constitutional - It is difficult to imagine how the other provisions
freedom of speech and of expression and the of the Bill of Rights and the right to free elections
right of privacy, may be marked out in terms of a may be guaranteed if the freedom to speak and
requirement that the proposed motion picture to convince or persuade is denied and taken
must be fairly truthful and historical in its away.
presentation of events. There must, in other -The so-called balancing of interests individual
words, be no knowing or reckless disregard of freedom on one hand and substantial public
truth in depicting the participation of private interests on the other is made even more
respondent in the EDSA Revolution. 16 There difficult in election campaign cases because the
must, further, be no presentation of the private Constitution also gives specific authority to the
life of the unwilling private respondent and Commission on Elections to supervise the
certainly no revelation of intimate or conduct of free, honest, and orderly elections.
embarrassing personal facts. 17 The proposed -When faced with border line situations where
motion picture should not enter into what Mme. freedom to speak by a candidate or party and
Justice Melencio-Herrera in Lagunzad referred to freedom to know on the part of the electorate are
as "matters of essentially private concern." 18 To invoked against actions intended for maintaining
the extent that "The Four Day Revolution" limits clean and free elections, the police, local officials
itself in portraying the participation of private and COMELEC should lean in favor of freedom.
respondent in the EDSA Revolution to those For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the
events, which are directly and reasonably related citizen and the State's power to regulate are not
to the public facts of the EDSA Revolution, the antagonistic. There can be no free and honest
intrusion into private respondent's privacy cannot elections if in the efforts to maintain them, the
be regarded as unreasonable and actionable.
freedom to speak and the right to know are -In sum, the prohibition on posting of decals and
unduly curtailed. stickers on "mobile" places whether public or
-The posting of decals and stickers in mobile private except in the authorized areas designated
places like cars and other moving vehicles does by the COMELEC becomes censorship which
not endanger any substantial government cannot be justified by the Constitution.
interest. There is no clear public interest
threatened by such activity so as to justify the SWS v. COMELEC
curtailment of the cherished citizen's right of free F: RA 9006 is being assailed by petitioners for
speech and expression. Under the clear and section 5.4 which PROHIBITED the publication of
present danger rule not only must the danger be surveys affecting national candidates fifteen days
patently clear and pressingly present but the evil before an election, and surveys affecting local
sought to be avoided must be so substantive as candidates seven days before an election, was a
to justify a clamp over one's mouth or a writing prior restraint on the exercise of the freedom of
instrument to be stilled. speech without any clear and present danger to
-For these reasons any attempt to restrict those justify such restraint.
liberties must be justified by clear public interest, Petitioner is a private non-stock, non-profit social
threatened not doubtfully or remotely, but by research institution conducting surveys in various
clear and present danger. The rational connection fields, including economics, politics, demography,
between the remedy provided and the evil to be and social development, and thereafter
curbed, which in other context might support processing, analyzing, and publicly reporting the
legislation against attack on due process grounds, results thereof.
will not suffice. These rights rest on firmer -Election surveys refer to the measurement of
foundation. Accordingly, whatever occasion would opinions and perceptions of the voters as regards
restrain orderly discussion and persuasion, at a candidate's popularity, qualifications, platforms
appropriate time and place, must have clear or a matter of public discussion in relation to the
support in public danger, actual or impending. election, including voters' preference for
Only the greatest abuses, endangering candidates or publicly discussed issues during the
permanent interests, give occasion for campaign period (hereafter referred to as
permissible limitation. "Survey").
-Significantly, the freedom of expression curtailed
by the question prohibition is not so much that of I: W/N section 5.4 is unconstitutionally violating
the candidate or the political party. The regulation freedom of speech.
strikes at the freedom of an individual to express
his preference and, by displaying it on his car, to H: YES. 5.4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a
convince others to agree with him. A sticker may prior restraint on the freedom of expression, (2) it
be furnished by a candidate but once the car is a direct and total suppression of a category of
owner agrees to have it placed on his private expression even though such suppression is only
vehicle, the expression becomes a statement by for a limited period, and (3) the governmental
the owner, primarily his own and not of anybody interest sought to be promoted can be achieved
else. by means other than the suppression of freedom
-A statute is considered void for overbreadth of expression.
when "it offends the constitutional principle that a -It lays a prior restraint on freedom of speech,
governmental purpose to control or prevent expression, and the press by prohibiting the
activities constitutionally subject to state publication of election survey results affecting
regulations may not be achieved by means which candidates within the prescribed periods of
sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade fifteen (15) days immediately preceding a
the area of protected freedoms." national election and seven (7) days before a
-The resolution prohibits the posting of decals and local election. Because of the preferred status of
stickers not more than eight and one-half (8-1/2) the constitutional rights of speech, expression,
inches in width and fourteen (14) inches in length and the press, such a measure is vitiated by a
in any place, including mobile places whether weighty presumption of invalidity. Indeed, "any
public or private except in areas designated by system of prior restraints of expression comes to
the COMELEC. Verily, the restriction as to where this Court bearing a heavy presumption against
the decals and stickers should be posted is so its constitutional validity. . . . The Government
broad that it encompasses even citizen's private 'thus carries a heavy burden of showing
property, which in this case is a privately-owned justification for the enforcement of such
vehicle. restraint.'" 3 There is thus a reversal of the
-The provisions allowing regulations are so loosely normal presumption of validity that inheres in
worded that they include the posting of decals or every legislation.
stickers in the privacy of one's living room or -OBRIEN TEST- A government regulation is
bedroom. sufficiently justified:
[1] if it is within the constitutional power of the H: 1. The letters were enforcing a law, which is
Government; the subject matter of the case. The court can
[2] if it furthers an important or substantial determine whether those laws are impeding the
governmental interest; exercise of fundamental rights.
[3] if the governmental interest is unrelated to Political Question: to be sure, the force to impugn
the suppression of free expression; and the jurisdiction of this Court becomes more feeble
[4] if the incidental restriction on alleged First in light of the new Constitution which expanded
Amendment freedoms [of speech, expression and the definition of judicial power as including "the
press] is no greater than is essential to the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
furtherance of that interest. controversies involving rights which are legally
Under this test, even if a law furthers an demandable and enforceable, and to determine
important or substantial governmental interest, it whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
should be invalidated if such governmental discretion amounting to lack or excess of
interest is "not unrelated to the suppression of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
free expression." instrumentality of the Government."
-5.4 actually suppresses a whole class of 2. NO. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not
expression, while allowing the expression of an iron-clad rule. A direct resort to this court is
opinion concerning the same subject matter by allowed when there are genuine issues of
newspaper columnists, radio and TV constitutionality that must be addressed at the
commentators, armchair theorists, and other most immediate time.
opinion makers. In effect, 5.4 shows a bias for a 3.NO. Respondents considered the tarpaulin as a
particular subject matter, if not viewpoint, by campaign material in their issuances. The above
preferring personal opinion to statistical results. provisions regulating the posting of campaign
-The prohibition may be for a limited time, but the materials only apply to candidates and political
curtailment of the right of expression is direct, parties, and petitioners are neither of the two.
absolute, and substantial. It constitutes a total -These provisions show that election propaganda
suppression of a category of speech and is not refers to matter done by or on behalf of and in
made less so because it is only for a period of coordination with candidates and political parties.
fifteen (15) days immediately before a national The tarps werent paid for by any candidate.
election and seven (7) days immediately before a -In the case at bar, petitioners lost their ability to
local election. give a commentary on the candidates for the
2013 national elections because of the COMELEC
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC notice and letter. It was not merely a regulation
F: 2013, posted two tarpaulins within their on the campaigns of candidates vying for public
property but was within public view. One said office.
ibasura ang RH Law, and the other presented a -Communication exists when "(1) a speaker,
classification, coined Conscience Vote, of the seeking to signal others, uses conventional
candidates who were either TEAM BUHAY and actions because he or she reasonably believes
TEAM PATAY. The size of the tarps were 6x10 ft. that such actions will be taken by the audience in
The tarps werent sponsored by any candidate. the manner intended; and (2) the audience so
- Majarucon, in her capacity as Election Officer of takes the actions." "[I]n communicative action[,]
Bacolod City, issued a Notice to Remove the hearer may respond to the claims by . . .
Campaign Materials for being oversized either accepting the speech act's claims or
(requirements for campaign materials were 2x3), opposing them with criticism or requests for
within 3 days. Petitioners asked to be given a justification."
specific provision from COMELEC law and that Speech is not limited to vocal communication.
while pending, they be given the freedom to "[C]onduct is treated as a form of speech
continue displaying. Court issued a TRO. sometimes referred to as 'symbolic speech[,]'"
-In fear of being subject to prosecution, such that "'when 'speech' and 'nonspeech'
petitioners submitted a writ of certiorari and elements are combined in the same course of
prohibition. conduct,' the 'communicative element' of the
conduct may be 'sufficient to bring into play the
I: 1. W/N the letters sent to petitioners were final [right to freedom of expression].'"
and executory, determining the jurisdiction of the -We distinguish between political and commercial
court to try speech. Political speech refers to speech "both
2. W/N the hierarchy of courts was violated intended and received as a contribution to public
3. W/N the COMELEC had any jurisdiction at all deliberation about some issue," 200 "foster[ing]
with its acts threatening imminent criminal action informed and civic-minded deliberation." 201 On
effectively abridging meaningful political speech the other hand, commercial speech has been
defined as speech that does "no more than
propose a commercial transaction."
The expression resulting from the content of the (c) narrowly tailored to meet the objective of
tarpaulin is, however, definitely political speech. enhancing the opportunity of all candidates to be
-While the tarpaulin may influence the heard and considering the primacy of the
success or failure of the named candidates guarantee of free expression, and
and political parties, this does not (d) demonstrably the least restrictive means to
necessarily mean it is election propaganda. achieve that object.
The tarpaulin was not paid for or posted "in The regulation must only be with respect to the
return for consideration" by any candidate, time, place, and manner of the rendition of the
political party, or party-list group. message. In no situation may the speech be
-"speech serves one of its greatest public prohibited or censored on the basis of its content.
purposes in the context of elections when the free For this purpose, it will not matter whether the
exercise thereof informs the people what the speech is made with or on private property.
issues are, and who are supporting what issues." -Even though the tarpaulin is readily seen by the
-The right to freedom of expression is indeed not public, the tarpaulin remains the private property
absolute. Even some forms of protected speech of petitioners. Their right to use their property is
are still subject to some restrictions. The degree likewise protected by the Constitution.
of restriction may depend on whether the -Freedom of expression can be intimately
regulation is content-based or content-neutral. related with the right to property. There
223 Content-based regulations can either be may be no expression when there is no
based on the viewpoint of the speaker or the place where the expression may be made.
subject of the expression. COMELEC's infringement upon petitioners'
-Size limitations during elections hit at a core part property rights as in the present case also
of expression. The content of the tarpaulin is not reaches out to infringement on their
easily divorced from the size of its medium. fundamental right to speech.
Content-based regulation bears a heavy -With all due respect to the Catholic faithful, the
presumption of invalidity, and this court has used church doctrines relied upon by petitioners are
the clear and present danger rule as measure. not binding upon this court.
228 Thus, in Chavez v. Gonzales: -Embedded in the tarpaulin, however, are
A content-based regulation, however, bears a opinions expressed by petitioners. It is a species
heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured of expression protected by our fundamental law.
against the clear and present danger rule. The It is an expression designed to invite attention,
latter will pass constitutional muster only if cause debate, and hopefully, persuade. It may be
justified by a compelling reason, and the motivated by the interpretation of petitioners of
restrictions imposed are neither overbroad nor their ecclesiastical duty, but their parishioner's
vague. 229 (Citations omitted) actions will have very real secular consequences.
-Large tarpaulins, therefore, are not analogous to
time and place. They are fundamentally part of
expression protected under Article III, Section 4 of 1-UNITED v. COMELEC
the Constitution.
-Because of that, the size regulation is not SWS v. COMELEC
unrelated to the suppression of speech. Limiting F: In Feb 2013, SWS and Pulse Asia conducted a
the maximum size of the tarpaulin would render survey, asking voters which senators they would
ineffective petitioners' message and violate their vote for if on the day of the survey, it was the day
right to exercise freedom of expression. (in of casting votes.
violation of the OBrien test) -Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) Resolution
xxx No. 9674 directed Social Weather Stations, Inc.
-In an equality-based approach, "politically (SWS) and Pulse Asia, Inc. (Pulse Asia), as well as
disadvantaged speech prevails over regulation[,] "other survey firms of similar circumstance" 4 to
but regulation promoting political equality submit to COMELEC the names of all
prevails over speech." commissioners and payors of all surveys
-Regulation of election paraphernalia will still be published from February 12, 2013 to April 23,
constitutionally valid if it reaches into speech of 2013, including those of their "subscribers."
persons who are not candidates or who do not -Tiangco recounted that on February 28, 2013, he
speak as members of a political party if they are wrote to SWS requesting, among others, that he
not candidates, only if what is regulated is "be furnished the identity of persons who paid for
declarative speech that, taken as a whole, has for the [pre-election survey conducted from February
its principal object the endorsement of a 15 to February 17, 2013] as well as those who
candidate only. The regulation subscribed to it." 12 Sometime in March 2013,
(a) should be provided by law, SWS supposedly replied to Tiangco, "furnishing
(b) reasonable, [him] with some particulars about the survey but
[without] disclos[ing] the identity of the persons -behavior known as strategic voting where
who commissioned or subscribed to the survey." "voting is influenced by the chances of
-COMELEC issued the resolution ordering the winning[.]"
survey firms to release the names of all -theory of a free-will effect where "voters cast
commissioners and payors of the surveys. their ballots to prove the polls wrong[.]"
-In the letter 24 dated April 30, 2013, SWS and -There is a self-aggrandizement scheme in
Pulse Asia informed COMELEC Chairman Brillantes politics that gives the elite the upper hand.
that they had not received a copy of Resolution -It is necessary that the Fair Election Act be
No. 9674. They also articulated their view that appreciated for what it is: a mechanism for
Resolution No. 9674 was tainted with ensuring equality.
irregularities, having been issued ultra vires (i.e., -IN AN EQUALITY-BASED APPROACH, "POLITICALLY
in excess of what the Fair Election Act allows) and DISADVANTAGED SPEECH PREVAILS OVER
in violation of the non-impairment of contracts REGULATION[,] BUT REGULATION PROMOTING
clause of the Constitution. They also expressed POLITICAL EQUALITY PREVAILS OVER SPEECH."
their intention to bring the matter before this -Concededly, what is involved here is not election
court on account of these supposed irregularities. propaganda per se. Election surveys, on their
Thus, they requested that COMELEC defer or hold face, do not state or allude to preferred
in abeyance Resolution No. 9674's enforcement. candidates. As a means, election surveys are
-COMELEC issued a notice enforcing the ambivalent. To an academician, they are an
resolution, and a subsequent subpoena for a aggrupation of data. To a journalist, they are
criminal case. matters for reportage. To a historian, they form
-The survey firms uphold that they never received part of a chronicle. Election surveys thus become
any of the documents pertaining to the decision unambiguous only when viewed in relation to the
of the COMELEC and the subsequent criminal end for which they are employed. To those whose
action filed against them. end is to get a candidate elected, election
-Petitioners file for a TRO, and they were given surveys, when limited to their own private
the chance to file their own Memoranda. consumption, are a means to formulate strategy.
When published, however, the tendency to shape
I: 1./W/N the Petitioners rights to due process voter preferences comes into play. In this respect,
were violated. published election surveys partake of the nature
2. W/N it was beyond the jurisdiction of COMELEC of election propaganda. It is then declarative
to ask for the names of the commissioners and speech in the context of an electoral
payors of the surveys campaign properly subject to regulation.
-WHILE IT DOES REGULATE EXPRESSION (I.E.,
H: 1. YES. The petitioners were not given any PETITIONERS' PUBLICATION OF ELECTION
copies of the Resolution and criminal complaint. SURVEYS), IT DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS TO
2.___. Congress . . . give[s] highest priority to the SUPPRESS DESIRED EXPRESSION. THERE IS
enactment of measures that . . . reduce . . . NEITHER PROHIBITION NOR CENSORSHIP
political inequalities . . . by equitably diffusing SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT ELECTION SURVEYS. THE
wealth and political power for the common good." FREEDOM TO PUBLISH ELECTION SURVEYS
-The inclusion of election surveys in the list of REMAINS. ALL RESOLUTION NO. 9674 DOES IS
items regulated by the Fair Election Act is a ARTICULATE A REGULATION AS REGARDS THE
recognition that election surveys are not a mere MANNER OF PUBLICATION, THAT IS, THAT THE
descriptive aggregation of data. Publishing DISCLOSURE OF THOSE WHO COMMISSIONED
surveys are a means to shape the preference of AND/OR PAID FOR, INCLUDING THOSE
voters, inform the strategy of campaign SUBSCRIBED TO, PUBLISHED ELECTION SURVEYS
machineries, and ultimately, affect the outcome MUST BE MADE.
of elections. Election surveys have a similar -Petitioners' free speech rights must be weighed
nature as election propaganda. They are in relation to the Fair Election Act's purpose of
expensive, normally paid for by those interested ensuring political equality and, therefore, the
in the outcome of elections, and have speech of others who want to participate
tremendous consequences on election results. unencumbered in our political spaces. On one
-bandwagon effect "electors rally to support hand, there are petitioners' right to publish and
the candidate leading in the polls." publications which are attended by the interests
-underdog effect where "electors rally to support of those who can employ published data to their
the candidate trailing in the polls." partisan ends.
-motivating effect where "individuals who had not -This case does not involve a "capricious,
intended to vote are persuaded to do so," whimsical, unjust or unreasonable" 140
-demotivating effect where "voters abstain from regulation. We have demonstrated that not only
voting out of certainty that their candidate or an important or substantial state interest, but
party will win. even a compelling one anchors Resolution No.
9674's requirement of disclosing subscribers to I: W/N CA erred in determining the officers to be
election surveys. It effects the constitutional at fault and in violation of Resolution No. 021316
policy of "guarantee[ing] equal access to H: NO. Resolution 021316 provides a specific
opportunities for public service" 141 and is guideline as to what constitutes a prohibited
impelled by the imperative of "fair" elections. concerted activity. A prohibited concerted activity
must be one undertaken by government
DAVAO CITY v. ARANJUEZ employees, by themselves or through their
F: Petitioner Davao City Water District (DCWD) is association, with the intent of effecting work
a government-owned and controlled corporation stoppage or service disruption, in order to realize
in Davao City represented by its General Manager their demands or force concessions.
Engr. Rodora N. Gamboa (GM Gamboa). -Though the appeal before the CSC lacked a
Petitioners are officers and members of notice of appeal as required by CSC Resolution
Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Davao City Water No. 991936 or the Uniform Rules on
District (NAMADACWAD). They were charged with Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
several administrative cases due to acts (URACCS), 27 the Consolidated Memorandum
committed during the anniversary celebration of filed by the private respondents was enough to
DCWD such as wearing of t-shirts with be considered as a sufficient compliance with the
inscriptions "CNA Incentive Ihatag Na, Dir. rules.
Braganza Pahawa Na!" and posting of bond -When substantial justice dictates it, procedural
papers outside the designated places. The rules may be relaxed in order to arrive at a just
inscriptions and postings bore employees' disposition of a case.
grievances. Said officers have been found prior -The operative phrases are "any collective
to said stunt to have staged pickets, airing their activity" and "work stoppage or service
grievances about the non-payment of their disruption." Without the intent at work stoppage
Collective Negotiation Payment. or service disruption, the concerted activity is not
-As a consequence of their actions, GM Gamboa prohibited.
sent a Memorandum dated 14 November 2007 -It is clear that the collective activity of joining
addressed to the officers and members of the fun run in t-shirts with inscriptions on CNA
NAMADACWAD, requiring them to explain the incentives was not to effect work stoppage or
reasons for the attire they wore during the disrupt the service. As pointed out by the
anniversary celebration. Through a collective respondents, they followed the advice of GM
letter dated 19 November 2007, the officers and Gamboa "to be there" at the fun run.
members explained that the Memorandum only Respondents joined, and did not disrupt the fun
required the employees to wear any sports attire, run. They were in sports attire that they were
though theirs were with additional inscriptions allowed, nay required, to wear. Else, government
containing grievances. They countered that the employees would be deprived of their
inscriptions were but manifestations of their constitutional right to freedom of expression.
constitutional rights of free speech and freedom -Pursuant to this mandate, the former General
of expression. Administrative cases were filed Manager of DCWD issued an office memorandum
against them for the violation of civil service laws. designating the bulletin board at the motorpool
Respondent filed an MR. He then filed for the area below the Office of the Purchasing Division
violation of fundamental and constitutional rights and the side of the office building beside the
with the CSC. guard house where the bundy clock is located as
CSC said the act of wearing the t-shirts werent the designated areas for posting of grievances.
punishable since it doesnt fall within the ambit of 45 Clearly, the DCWD Office Memorandum hews
prohibited mass action for there was no stoppage close and faithfully to MC No. 33. It is a
of work. However, posting papers of their reasonable rule issued by the heads of the
grievances were in violation of the office rules. . agencies in order to regulate posting of
On the other hand, and contrary to the assertions grievances of the employees.
of DCWD, the violations committed by the private -It is correct to conclude that those who enter
respondents are not serious in nature due to the government service are subjected to a different
lack of any abusive, vulgar, defamatory or degree of limitation on their freedom to speak
libelous language. CA affirmed and said: The their mind; however, it is not tantamount to the
appellate court was likewise in agreement with relinquishment of their constitutional right of
the CSC which considered as simple violation of expression otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by
office rules the posting of banners outside the reason of their employment. 45 Unarguably, a
designated posting areas by Cagula. Also like the citizen who accepts public employment "must
CSC, it ruled that such offense is not punishable accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."
with the penalty of dismissal. DCWD now files this But there are some rights and freedoms so
petition with the SC. fundamental to liberty that they cannot be
bargained away in a contract for public
employment. It is the Court's responsibility to -The Government here has a significant interest in
ensure that citizens are not deprived of these protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its
fundamental rights by virtue of working for the citizens by preventing brewers from competing
government. on the basis of alcohol strength, which could lead
-Thus, in line with the civil service rules and to greater alcoholism and its attendant social
jurisprudence, we conclude that a violation of an costs. Both panels of the Court of Appeals that
office memorandum, which was issued as an heard this case concluded that the goal of
internal rule to regulate the area for posting of suppressing strength wars constituted a
grievances inside the office premise, is only a substantial interest, and we cannot say that their
light offense punishable by reprimand. conclusion is erroneous. We have no reason to
think that strength wars, if they were to occur,
RUBIN v. COORS BREWING would not produce the type of social harm that
F: Because 5(e)(2) of the Federal Alcohol the Government hopes to prevent.
Administration Act (FAAA or Act) prohibits beer -One State's decision to permit brewers to
labels from displaying alcohol content, the federal disclose alcohol content on beer labels will not
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) preclude neighboring States from effectively
rejected respondent brewer's application for banning such disclosure of that information within
approval of proposed labels that disclosed such their borders.
content. Respondent filed suit for relief on the - IT DID NOT PASS THE TEST OF THE
ground that the relevant provisions of the Act GOVERNMENT INTERESTS FURTHERED WITH
violated the First Amendment's protection of REASONABLE MEANS EMPLOYED.
commercial speech. The Government argued that -As only 18 States at best prohibit disclosure of
the labeling ban was necessary to suppress the content in advertisements, App. to Brief for
threat of "strength wars" among brewers, who, Respondent 1a-12a, brewers remain free to
without the regulation, would seek to compete in disclose alcohol content in advertisements, but
the marketplace based on the potency of their not on labels, in much of the country. The failure
beer. The District Court invalidated the labeling to prohibit the disclosure of alcohol content in
ban, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Although advertising, which would seem to constitute a
the latter court found that the Government's more influential weapon in any strength war than
interest in suppressing "strength wars" was labels, makes no rational sense if the
"substantial," the court held that the ban violates government's true aim is to suppress strength
the First Amendment because it fails to advance wars.
that interest in a direct and material way. -Other provisions of the FAAA and its regulations
similarly undermine 205(e)(2)'s efforts to prevent
I: W/N the FAAA was in violation of commercial strength wars. While 205(e)(2) bans the
speech disclosure of alcohol content on beer labels, it
allows the exact opposite in the case of wines and
H: YES. We conclude that the ban infringes spirits. Thus, distilled spirits may contain
respondent's freedom of speech, and we statements of alcohol content, 27 CFR 5.37
therefore affirm. (1994), and such disclosures are required for
-For commercial speech to come within [the First wines with more than 14 percent alcohol, 27 CFR
Amendment], it at least must concern lawful 4.36 (1994). If combatting strength wars were the
activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask goal, we would assume that Congress would
whether the asserted governmental interest is regulate disclosure of alcohol content for the
substantial. If both inquiries yield positive strongest beverages as well as for the weakest
answers, we must determine whether the ones.
regulation directly advances the governmental -Even if 205(e)(2) did meet the Edenfield
interest asserted, and whether it is not more standard, it would still not survive First
extensive than is necessary to serve that Amendment scrutiny because the Government's
interest." regulation of speech is not sufficiently tailored to
-The Government identifies two interests it its goal. The Government argues that a sufficient
considers sufficiently "substantial" to justify "fit" exists here because the labeling ban applies
205(e)(2)'s labeling ban. First, the Government to only one product characteristic and because
contends that 205(e)(2) advances Congress' goal the ban does not prohibit all disclosures of alcohol
of curbing "strength wars" by beer brewers who content - it applies only to those involving
might seek to compete for customers on the labeling and advertising.
basis of alcohol content.
-THE GENERAL THRUST OF FEDERAL ALCOHOL
POLICY APPEARS TO FAVOR GREATER POLICARPIO v. MANILA TIMES
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION, RATHER THAN F: Policarpio, a member of the Philippine Bar and
LESS. was also executive secretary of the local UNESCO
National Commission., seeks to recover moral, presented the plaintiff in a more unfavorable light
exemplary and correctional damages for the than she actually was.
publication in the Saturday Mirror of August 11, It goes without saying that newspapers must
1956, and in The Daily Mirror of August 13, 1956, enjoy a certain degree of discretion in
of two (2) articles or news items which are determining the manner in which a given event
claimed to be per se defamatory, libelous and should be presented to the public, and the
false, and to have exposed her to ridicule, importance to be attached thereto as a news
jeopardized her integrity, good name and item, and that its presentation in a sensational
business and official transactions, and caused her manner is not per se illegal. NEWSPAPER MAY
grave embarrassment, untold and extreme moral, PUBLISH NEWS ITEMS RELATIVE TO JUDICIAL,
mental and physical anguish and incalculable LEGISLATIVE OR OTHER OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS,
material, moral, professional and business WHICH ARE NOT OF CONFIDENTIAL NATURE,
damages. BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE
The subject of grievance comes from a strained TRUTH WITH RESPECT TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS,
relationship with a subordinate, Reyes who is a WHICH, BEING OFFICIAL AND NON-
confidential assistant. She filed charges against CONFIDENTIAL, ARE OPEN TO PUBLIC
Reyes that caused the latters separation from CONSUMPTION. BUT, TO ENJOY IMMUNITY, A
UNESCO. Ryes filed counter-charges for alleged PUBLICATION CONTAINING DEROGATORY
malversation of public funds and another INFORMATION MUST BE NOT ONLY TRUE, BUT,
complaint for alleged estafa thru falsification of ALSO, FAIR, AND IT MUST BE MADE IN GOOD
public documents. It was scheduled for FAITH AND WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS OR
investigation. Saturday Mirror and The Daily REMARKS.
Mirror published the same articles with her -In the case at bar, aside from containing
picture. information derogatory to the plaintiff, the article
Plaintiff alleges that the portions "WOMAN published on August 11, 1956, presented her in a
OFFICIAL SUED" and "PCAC RAPS L. POLICARPIO worse predicament than that in which she, in fact,
ON FRAUD" are not true. Similarly, the statement was. In other words, said article was not a fair
in the first paragraph of the article, to the effect and true report of the proceedings therein alluded
that plaintiff "was charged with malversation and to.
estafa in complaints filed with the city fiscal's -Defendants maintain that their alleged malice in
office by the Presidential Complaints and Action publishing the news items in question has not
Commission" otherwise known as PCAC is been established by the plaintiff. However, Article
untrue, the complaints for said offenses having 354 of the Revised Penal Code, provides:
been filed by Miss Reyes. Neither is it true that "Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
said "criminal action was initiated as a result of malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention
current administrative investigation" as stated in and justifiable motive for making it is shown,
the second paragraph of the same article. Plaintiff except in the following cases:
maintains that the effect of these false "1. A private communication made by any
statements was to give the general impression person to another in the performance of any
that said investigation by Col. Alba had shown legal, moral or social duty; and
that plaintiff was guilty, or, at least, probably "2. A fair and true report, made in good faith,
guilty of the crimes aforementioned, and that, as without any comments or remarks of any judicial,
a consequence, the PCAC had filed the legislative or other official proceedings which are
corresponding complaints with the city fiscal's not of confidential nature, or of any statement,
office. report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or
of any other act performed by public officers in
I: W/N The defendants published in bad faith the exercise of other functions."

H: YES. LOPEZ v. CA
-Again, it is obvious that the filing of criminal F: Petitioner Lopez is the owner of The Manila
complaints with the city fiscal's office by another Chronicle. On January 1956, an article was
agency of the Government, like the PCAC, published front page about a a sanitary inspector
particularly after an investigation conducted by assigned to the Babuyan Islands, Fidel Cruz
the same, imparts the idea that the probability of sending a distress signal to a passing United
guilt on the part of the accused is greater than States Airforce plane which in turn relayed the
when the complaints are filed by a private message to Manila. He was not ignored, an
individual, specially when the latter is a former American Army plane dropping on the beach of
subordinate of the alleged offender, who was an island an emergency-sustenance kit
responsible for the dismissal of the complainant containing, among other things, a two-way radio
from her employment. It is only too apparent that set. He utilized it to inform authorities in Manila
the article published on August 11, 1956, that the people in the place were living in terror,
due to a series of killings committed since above statement, he made reference to several
Christmas of 1995. Losing no time, the Philippines cases. 9 Other decisions to the same effect have
defense establishment rushed to the island a been promulgated since the fourth edition of
platoon of scout rangers led by Major Wilfredo Newell published in 1924. 10 Why libel law has
Encarnacion. Upon arriving at the reported killer- both a criminal and a civil aspect is explained by
menaced Babuyan Claro, however, Major Hale in his Law of the Press thus: "On the one
Encarnacion and his men found, instead of the hand, libeling a person results in depriving him of
alleged killers, a man, the same Fidel Cruz, who his good reputation. Since reputation is a thing; of
merely wanted transportation home to Manila. In value, truly rather to be chosen than great riches,
view of this finding, Major Wilfredo Encarnacion an impairment of it is a personal wrong.
branded as a "hoax," to use his own descriptive -"The interest of society and the maintenance of
word, the report of Fidel Cruz. That was the term good government demand a full discussion of
employed by the other newspapers when public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on
referring to the above-mentioned incident the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case
-The newspaper then edited by petitioner Juan T. of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe
Gatbonton, devoted a pictorial article to it in its relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in
issue of January 15, 1956. Mention was made that public life may suffer under a hostile and an
while Fidel Cruz story turned out to be false, if unjust accusation: the wound can be assuaged
brought to light the misery of the people living in with the balm of a clear conscience. A public
that place, with almost everybody sick, only two officer must not to be too thin-skinned with
individuals able to read and write, food and reference to comment upon his official acts. Only
clothing being scarce. Then in the January 29, thus can the intelligence and dignity of the
1956 issue of This Week Magazine, the "January individual be exalted. Of course, criticism does
News Quiz" included an item on the central figure not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as an
in what was known as the Calayan Hoax, who individual is less than the State, so must
nevertheless did the country a good turn by expected criticism be born for the common
calling the government's attention to that good."
forsaken and desolate corner of the Republic. -"SO LONG AS IT IS DONE IN GOOD FAITH,
-The magazine on both occasions carried NEWSPAPERS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE
photographs of the person purporting to be Fidel AND EXPRESS OPINIONS ON LEGAL QUESTIONS.
Cruz. Unfortunately, the pictures that were TO DENY THEM THAT RIGHT WOULD INFRINGE
published on both occasions were that of private UPON THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS."
respondent Fidel G. Cruz, a businessman- -A newspaper, it is stressed, "should not be held
contractor from Santa Maria, Bulacan. to account to a point of suppression for honest
- The newspaper sent out a correction, however. mis takes or imperfection in the choice of words."
BUT
I: W/N the petitioners are liable for libel -there is the added requirement of reasonable
care imposed by such decision which from the
H:YES facts here found, appeared not to be satisfied. It
-It is on the freedom of the press that petitioners cannot be concluded then that the plea of
would stake their case to demonstrate that no petitioners is sufficiently persuasive. The
action for libel would lie arising from the mandate of press freedom is not ignored, but
publication of the picture of respondent Cruz here it does not speak unequivocally. It is not
identified as responsible for the hoax of the year, decisive of the basic issue. By itself, it does not
when such was not the case at all. It is easily have a controlling significance.
understandable why. No liability would be
incurred if it could be demonstrated that it comes MILLER v. CALIFORNIA
within the wellnigh all-embracing scope of F:
freedom of the press. Included therein is the I:
widest latitude of choice as to what items should H:
see the light of day so long as they are relevant
to a Matter of public interest, the insistence on GONZALES v/ KALAW-KATIGBAK
the requirement as to its truth yielding at times to F:
unavoidable inaccuracies attendant on I:
newspapers and other publications being subject H:
to the tyranny of deadlines.
-"Publication of a person's photograph in
connection with an article libelous of a third PITA v. CA
person, is a libel on the person whose picture is F:
published, where the acts set out in the article I:
are imputed to such person." 8 In support of the H:
BAYAN v. ERMITA H:
F:
I: