Grosjean vs American Press

Co., Inc.
Facts: The case involved a
Louisiana law that imposed on
publishing companies a license
tax of 2% of the gross receipts
for the privilege of engaging in
advertising
in
newspapers,
magazines or periodicals if their
circulation is more than 20,000
copies per week. Nine Louisianabased publishers of newspapers,
with circulations of more than
20,000 copies per week each,
filed a suit to enjoin the
enforcement against them of
the said provision. They assailed
the validity of the act on the
ground, inter alia, that it
abridges the freedom of the
press in contravention of the
due process clause contained in
the Fourteenth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.
Issue: W/N it violates freedom of
the press
Held:
Yes.
As
applied
to
appellees, it is a tax of two
percent on the gross receipts
derived from advertisements
carried in their newspapers
when, and only when, the
newspapers of each enjoy a
circulation of more than 20,000
copies per week. It thus
operates as a restraint in a
double sense. First, its effect is
to curtail the amount of revenue
realized from advertising, and,
second, its direct tendency is to
restrict circulation. The tax here
involved is bad not because it
takes money from the pockets of

the appellees. If that were all, a

wholly different question would
be presented. It is bad because,
in the light of its history and of
its present setting, it is seen to
be a deliberate and calculated
device in the guise of a tax to
limit
the
circulation
of
information to which the public
is entitled in virtue of the
constitutional guaranties. A free
press stands as one of the great
interpreters
between
the
government and the people.
Jose Burgos vs Chief of Staf
Facts: Two warrants were issued
against petitioners for the
search on the premises of
Metropolitan Mail and We
Forum newspapers and the
seizure of items alleged to have
been
used
in
subversive
activities. Petitioners prayed
that a writ of preliminary
mandatory
and
prohibitory
injunction be issued for the
return of the seized articles, and
that respondents be enjoined
from using the articles thus
seized as evidence against
petitioner.
Petitioners
questioned
the
warrants for the lack of probable
cause and that the two warrants
issued indicated only one and
the same address. In addition,
the items seized subject to the
warrant were real properties.
Issue: W/N it violated freedom of
expression

Held: Yes. As heretofore stated,

the premises searched were the
business and printing offices of
the "Metropolitan Mail" and the
"We Forum newspapers. As a
consequence of the search and
seizure, these premises were
padlocked and sealed, with the
further result that the printing
and
publication
of
said
newspapers were discontinued.
Such closure is in the nature of
previous restraint or censorship
abhorrent to the freedom of the
press guaranteed under the
fundamental
law,
and
constitutes a virtual denial of
petitioners' freedom to express
themselves in print. This state of
being is patently anathematic to
a democratic framework where
a free, alert and even militant
press is essential for the political
enlightenment and growth of
the citizenry.
Pablito Sanidad vs COMELEC
Facts: On October 23, 1989, RA
6766,
entitled
AN
ACT
PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC
ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA
AUTONOMOUS REGION was
enacted into law;
Pursuant to said law, the City of
Baguio
and
Provinces
of
Benguet, Abra, Mt. Province,
Ifugao and Kalinga-Apayao, all
comprising
the
autonomous
region shall take part in a
plebiscite originally scheduled
for December 27, 1989 but was
reset to January 30, 1990
specifically for the ratification or
rejection of the said act;

By
virtue
of
the
1987
Constitution and the Omnibus
Election Code (BP 881), the
Comelec
issued
Comelec
Resolution No. 2167, Section 19
of which provides:
Section 19. Prohibition on
columnist,
commentators
or
announcers.During
the
plebiscite campaign period, on
the day before and on plebiscite
day, no mass media columnist,
commentator,
announcer
or
personality shall use his column
or radio or television time to
campaign for or against the
plebiscite issues.
On
November
20,
1989,
petitioner PABLITO V. SANIDAD
who
is
a
columnist
(OVERVIEW) for the Baguio
Midland
Courier,
a
weekly
newspaper circulated in the City
of Baguio and the Cordilleras,
filed a petition for Prohibition
with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order or a
writ of preliminary injunction
against the Comelec to enjoin
the latter from enforcing Section
19 of resolution No. 2167.
Petitioner claims that the said
provision is violative of his
constitutional
freedom
of
expression and of the press and
it also constitutes a prior
restraint because it imposes
subsequent
punishment
for
those who violate the same;
5. On November 28, 1989, the
Supreme
Court
issued
a
temporary
restraining
order

enjoining the respondent from

enforcing
Section
19
of
Resolution No. 2167;
6. On January 9, 1990, Comelec
through the Solicitor General
filed its Comment and moved for
the dismissal of the petition on
the ground that Section 19 of
Resolution No. 2167 does not
absolutely bar the petitioner
from
expressing
his
views
because under Section 90 and
92 of BP 881, he may still
express his views or campaign
for or against the act through
the Comelec space and airtime.
Issue: W/N Section 19 of the
COMELEC Resolution 2167 is
constitutional
Held:
HOWEVER,
NEITHER
ARTICLE
IX-C
OF
THE
CONSTITUTION NOR SECTION
11(B), 2ND PAR. OF RA 6646
CAN BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN
THAT THE COMELEC HAS ALSO
BEEN GRANTED THE RIGHT TO
SUPERVISE AND REGULATE THE
EXERCISE
BY
MEDIA
PRACTITIONERS THEMSELVES OF
THEIR RIGHT TO EXPRESSION
DURING
THE
PLEBISCITE
PERIODS. Media practitioners
exercising their freedom of
expression during the plebiscite
periods are neither the franchise
holders nor the candidates. In
fact, there are no candidates in
a plebiscite.
While it is true that the
petitioner is not absolutely
barred from campaigning for or
against the Organic Act, said

fact
does
not
cure
the
constitutional
infirmity
of
Section 19, Comelec Resolution
No. 2167. This is so because IT
IS STILL A RESTRICTION ON HIS
CHOICE OF THE FORUM WHERE
HE MAY EXPRESS HIS VIEW.
Plebiscite issues are matters of
public concern and importance.
The peoples right to be
informed and to be able to freely
and
intelligently
make
a
decision would be better served
by access to an unabridged
discussion
of
the
issues,
INCLUDING THE FORUM. The
people affected by the issues
presented in a plebiscite should
not be unduly burdened by
restrictions on the forum where
the right to expression may be
exercised.
Amelito Mutuc vs COMELEC
Facts: Petitioner Mutuc was a
candidate for delegate to the
Constitutional Convention. He
filed a special civil action
against
the
respondent
COMELEC
when
the
latter
informed
him
through
a
telegram that his certificate of
candidacy was given due course
but he was prohibited from
using jingles in his mobile units
equipped with sound systems
and
loud
speakers.
The
petitioner accorded the order to
be violative of his constitutional
right to freedom of speech.
COMELEC justified its prohibition
on the premise that the
Constitutional Convention act

provided that it is unlawful for

the candidates to purchase,
produce, request or distribute
sample ballots, or electoral
propaganda gadgets such as
pens, lighters, fans (of whatever
nature),
flashlights,
athletic
goods or materials, wallets,
bandanas, shirts, hats, matches,
cigarettes, and the like, whether
of domestic or foreign origin.
COMELEC contended that the
jingle or the recorded or taped
voice of the singer used by
petitioner
was
a
tangible
propaganda material and was,
under the above statute, subject
to confiscation.
Issue: W/N the usage of the
jingle by the petitioner form part
of the prohibition invoked by the
COMELEC
Held: The Court held that the
general words following any
enumeration being applicable
only to things of the same kind
or class as those specifically

referred to. The COMELECs

contention that a candidates
jingle
form
part
of
the
prohibition, categorized under
the phrase and the like, could
not merit the courts approval
by principle of Ejusdem Generis.
It is quite apparent that what
was contemplated in the Act
was the distribution of gadgets
of the kind referred to as a
means of inducement to obtain
a favorable vote for the
candidate responsible for its
distribution.
Furthermore,
the
COMELEC
failed to observe construction of
the statute which should be in
consonance to the express
terms of the constitution. The
intent of the COMELEC for the
prohibition may be laudable but
it should not be sought at the
cost
of
the
candidates
constitutional rights.
Ejusdem Generis of the same
kind