Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano G.R. No. L-59524 Feb. 18, 1985 Gutierrez, Jr., J.

: FACTS:Jovito Salonga was charged with the violation of the Revised AntiSubversion Act after he wasimplicated, along with other 39 accused, by Victor Lovely in the series of bombings in Metro Manila. Hewas tagged by Lovely in his testimony as the leader of subversive organizations for two because of his remarks during the party of RaulDaza in Los Angeles. He allegedly opined about the likelihood of a violent struggle in the Philippines if reforms are not instituted immediately by then President Marcos. ISSUE: Whether or not Salonga;s alleged remarks are protected by the freedom of speech.HELDYes. The petition is dismissed.RATIOThe thought andexpression. Protection is especially mandated for political discussions. Political discussion is essential tothe ascertainment of political truth. It cannot be the basis of criminal indictments. The constitutionalguaranty may only be proscribed when such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminentlawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. In the case at bar, there is no threat againstthe government.In PD 885, political discussion will only constitute prima facie evidence of membership in asubversive organization if such discussion amounts to conferring with officers or other members of suchassociation or organization in furtherance of any plan or enterprise thereof. In the case, there is noproof that such discussion was in furtherance of any plan to overthrow the government through illegalmeans. Lovely also declared that his bombing mission was not against the government, but directedagainst a particular family. Such a statement negates any politically motivated or subversive assignment. OBITER DICTUM:To withhold the right to preliminary investigation, it would be to transgress constitutional dueprocess. However, it is not enough that the preliminary investigation is conducted to satisfy the dueprocess clause. There must be sufficient evidence to sustain a prima facie case or that probable causeexists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.