PRIOR RESTRAINT

Near v. Minnesota
Facts. The Saturday Press (the Press) published attacks on local officials. The Press
claimed that the chief of police had illicit relations with gangsters. Minnesota
officials obtained an injunction in order to abate the publishing of the Press
newspaper under a state law that allowed this course of action. The state law
authorized abatement, as a public nuisance, of a malicious, scandalous and
defamatory newspaper, or other periodical. A state court order abated the Press and
enjoined the Defendants, publishers of the Press (Defendants), from publishing or
circulating such defamatory and scandalous periodicals.

Issue. Whether a statute authorizing such proceedings is consistent with the

conception of the liberty of the press as historically conceived and guaranteed.

Held. No. Judgment of the state court reversed. The fact that the liberty of press
may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not effect the requirement
that the press has immunity from previous restraints when it deals with official
misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the
appropriate remedy, consistent with the constitutional privilege. Therefore, a
statute authorizing such proceedings is not consistent with the conception of the
liberty of the press as historically conceived and guaranteed and is thus,
unconstitutional. The statute in question cannot be justified by reason of the fact
that the publisher is permitted to show, before injunction issues, that the matter
published is true and is published with good motives and for justifiable ends. This
statute, if upheld, could lead to a complete system of censorship. Thus, the statute
is a substantial infringement on the liberty of the press and in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Dissent. This statute does not operate as a previous restraint on publication within
proper meaning of that phrase.

New York Times Co. v. United States

Facts. The United States sought to enjoin the New York Times and Washington Post
from publishing contents of a confidential study about the Governments decision
making with regards to Vietnam policy. The District Court in the New York Times

case and the District Court and the Court of Appeals in the Washington Post case
held that the Government had not met the requisite burden justifying such a prior
restraint.

Issue. Whether the United States met the heavy burden of showing justification for
the enforcement of such a restraint on the New York Times and Washington Post to
enjoin them from publishing contents of a classified study.

Held. No. Judgments of the lower courts affirmed. The order of the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit is reversed and remanded with directions to enter a judgment
affirming the District Court. The stays entered June 25, 1971, by the Court are
vacated. The mandates shall issue forthwith.

Dissent. The scope of the judicial function in passing upon activities of the Executive
Branch in the field of foreign affairs is very narrowly restricted. This view is dictated
by the doctrine of Separation of Powers. The doctrine prohibiting prior restraints
does not prevent the courts from maintaining status quo long enough to act
responsibly.
The First Amendment is only part of the Constitution. The cases should be
remanded to be developed expeditiously.
Concurrence. To find that the President has inherent power to halt the publication
of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution [Constitution].
The First Amendment of the Constitution leaves no room for governmental restraint
on the press. There is, moreover, no statute barring the publication by the press of
the material that the Times and Post seek to publish.
The First Amendment of the Constitution tolerates no prior judicial restraints of the
press predicated upon surmise or conjecture that untoward consequences may
result. Thus, only governmental allegation and proof that publication must
inevitably, directly and immediately cause the occurrence of an event kindred to
imperiling the safety of a transport already at sea can support the issuance of an
interim restraining order. Unless and until the Government has clearly made its
case, the First Amendment of the Constitution commands that no injunction be
issued.
The responsibility must be where the power is. The Executive must have the large
duty to determine and preserve the degree of internal security necessary to
exercise its power effectively. The Executive is correct with respect to some of the
documents here, but disclosure of any of them will not result in irreparable danger
to the public.

The United States has not met the very heavy burden, which it must meet to
warrant an injunction against publication in these cases.
The ultimate issue in this case is whether this Court or the Congress has the power
to make this law. It is plain that Congress has refused to grant the authority the
Government seeks from this Court.

Alexander v. United States

Facts. The Petitioner owned 13 adult bookstores throughout Minnesota. He was

convicted on 17 obscenity counts and 3 RICO violations. The obscenity convictions
were based on the sale of 4 magazines and 3 videotapes. He was sentence to 6
years in prison, fined $100,000 and ordered to pay the cost of trial and incarceration
for the obscenity counts. In addition, he was ordered to forfeit his businesses and
nearly $9 million in profits.

Issue. Is the court order to shut down the adult bookstores an unconstitutional prior
restraint on speech?

Held. No. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) rejected the
argument that the sentence violated Petitioners First Amendment constitutional
rights, but remanded for reconsideration under the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution (Constitution).
The items were seized as punishment not a prior restraint.

Dissent. This is an authorization to suppress disfavored speech.

IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts: Petitioner has a television program entitled "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo" aired on
Channel 2 every Saturday and on Channel 13 every Sunday. The program presents
and propagates petitioner's religious beliefs, doctrines and practices often times in
comparative studies with other religions. Petitioner submitted to the respondent
Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television the VTR tapes of its TV program
Series Nos. 116, 119, 121 and 128. The Board classified the series as "X" or not for
public viewing on the ground that they "offend and constitute an attack against
other religions which is expressly prohibited by law." On November 28, 1992, it

appealed to the Office of the President the classification of its TV Series No. 128
which allowed it through a letter of former Executive Secretary Edelmiro A. Amante,
Sr., addressed for Henrietta S. Mendez reversing the decision of the respondent
Board. According to the letter the episode in is protected by the constitutional
guarantee of free speech and expression and no indication that the episode poses
any clear and present danger. Petitioner also filed Civil Case. Petitioner alleged that
the respondent Board acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
requiring petitioner to submit the VTR tapes of its TV program and in x-rating them.
It cited its TV Program Series Nos. 115, 119, 121 and 128. In their Answer,
respondent Board invoked its power under PD No. 19861 in relation to Article 201 of
the Revised Penal Code. The Iglesia ni Cristo insists on the literal translation of the
bible and says that our (Catholic) veneration of the Virgin Mary is not to be
condoned because nowhere it is found in the bible. The board contended that it
outrages Catholic and Protestant's beliefs. RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. CA
however reversed it hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or Not the "ang iglesia ni cristo" program is not constitutionally
protected as a form of religious exercise and expression.

Held: Yes. Any act that restrains speech is accompanied with presumption of
invalidity. It is the burden of the respondent Board to overthrow this presumption. If
it fails to discharge this burden, its act of censorship will be struck down. This is true
in this case. So-called "attacks" are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held
dogmas and tenets of other religions. RTCs ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's
freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. attack
is different from offend any race or religion. The respondent Board may disagree
with the criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that gives it no excuse to
interdict such criticisms, however, unclean they may be. Under our constitutional
scheme, it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by protecting it against
an attack by another religion. Religious dogmas and beliefs are often at war and to
preserve peace among their followers, especially the fanatics, the establishment
clause of freedom of religion prohibits the State from leaning towards any religion.
Respondent board cannot censor the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply
because it attacks other religions, even if said religion happens to be the most
numerous church in our country. The basis of freedom of religion is freedom of
thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas. It is
only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger
to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom
may be justified, and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger.
There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about
especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. Prior restraint on

speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only
by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil. It is inappropriate to apply the
clear and present danger test to the case at bar because the issue involves the
content of speech and not the time, place or manner of speech. Allegedly, unless
the speech is first allowed, its impact cannot be measured, and the causal
connection between the speech and the evil apprehended cannot be established.
The determination of the question as to whether or not such vilification,
exaggeration or fabrication falls within or lies outside the boundaries of protected
speech or expression is a judicial function which cannot be arrogated by an
administrative body such as a Board of Censors." A system of prior restraint may
only be validly administered by judges and not left to administrative agencies.

DAVID vs ARROYO
Facts : On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of
Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national
emergency, she cited that over the past three months, element in the political
opposition have conspired with authoritarians of the extreme left represented by the
NDF-CPP-NPA and the extreme, right, represented by military adventurist the
historical enemies of the democratic Philippine State who are now in a tactical
alliance and engaged in a concerted systematic conspiracy, over a broad front, to
bring down the duly constituted Government elected in May 2004, On the same
day, The President issued G.O. No. 5 implementing PP 1017. By the virtue of power
vested upon the President by the Constitution and Commander in chief of the
Republic of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1017 dated February
24, 2006, the president call upon the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Philippine National Police, to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless
violence in the country.

The Office of the President announced the cancellation of all programs and activities
related to the 20th anniversary celebration of edsa people power 1; and revoked the
permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local governments. Justice Secretary
Raul Gonzales stated that political rallies, which to the Presidents mind were
organized for purpose of destabilization, are cancelled. Presidential Chief of Staff
Michael Defensor announced that warrantless arrest and take-over of facilities,
including media, can already be implemented.

Undeterred by the announcements that rallies and public protest would not be
allowed, members of Kilusang Mayo Uno and National Federation of Labor Unions,
marched from various parts of Metro Manila with the intention of converging at the
EDSA shrine. Those who where already near EDSA were violently dispersed by huge
cluster of anti-riot police. The same police action was used against the protesters
marching forward to Cubao, Quezon City and the corner of Santolan street and

EDSA. That same evening, hundreds of riot police broke up an EDSA celebration
rally held along Ayala Avenue and Paseo de Roxas street in Makaty City.

During the dispersal of the rallyist along EDSA, police arrested without warrant
petitioner Randolf S. David, a Proffesor of the University of the Philippines and
newspaper columnist. Also arrested was his companion, Ronald Llamas, president of
party-list Akbayan.

At around 12:20 in the early morning of February 25, 2006, operatives of the
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group of the PNP, on the basis of PP 1017 and
G.O. No. 5, raided the Daily Tribune Offices in Manila. The raiding team confiscated
news stories by reporters, documents, pictures, and mock-ups of the Saturday
issue.

A few minutes later after the search and seizure at the Daily Tribune. The police
surrounded the premises of another pro-opposition paper, Malaya and its sister
publication, tabloid Abante.

Also, on February 25, 2006, the police arrested Congressman Crispin Beltran,
representing the Anakpawis party and Chairman of Kilusang Mayo Uno, while
leaving his farmhouse in Bulacan. The police showed a warrant for his arrest gated
1985. Beltrans lawyer explained that the warrant, which stemmed form a case of
inciting to rebellion filed during the Marcos regime, had long been quashed. When
members of petitioner KMU went to Camp Crame to visit beltran, they were told
they could not be admitted because PP 1017 and G.O. No.5. Bayan Muna
Representative Satur Ocampo eluded arrest when the police went after him during a
public forum at the Sulo Hotel in Quezon City. Retired Major General Ramon Montao,
former head of the Philippine Constabulary, were arrested while with his wife and
golfmates at the Orchard Golf and Country Club in Dasmarias, Cavite. Attempts
were made to arrest Bayan Muna Represenatative Satur Ocampo, Teodoro Casio,
Anakpawis Representative Rafael Mariano, Gabriela Representative Liza Maza,
Bayan Muna Representative Jose Virador was arrested at a PAL ticket Office in
Davao City, Later, he was turned to the custody of the House of Representative
where the Batasan % decided to stay indefinitely.

March 3, 2006, exactly one week after the declaration of a state of national
emergency and after all these petitions had been filed, the president lifted PP 1017,
and issued Proclamation No. 1021.

Issue: Whether or not the issuance of PP 1017 is a form of prior restraint.

Held: On the basis of the relevant and uncontested facts narrated earlier, it is also
pristine clear that the warrantless arrest of petitioners Randolf S. David and Ronald
Llamas; the dispersal of rallies and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU
members; the imposition of standard on media or any prior restraint on the press;
and the warrantless search of the tribune offices and whimsical seizure of some
article for publication and other materials, are not authorized by the Constitution,
the law and jurisprudence. Not even by the valid provisions of PP 1017 and G.O. No.
5.