Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SEC. 4. No LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF EXPRESSION, OR OF THE
PRESS, OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
What are the two conditions in the abridgement of freedom of speech, of expressions, and of the press.
- prior restraint
- Subsequent punishment
Is the warning against media against airing of the conversation between the president and other personalities
constitute prior restraint?
- YES. Discuss by the case Chavez vs Gonzales
Chavez vs Gonzales- In the aftermath of the 2004 elections when there was wide talk about election cheating,
one of the topics that hugged the headlines was the alleged telephone conversation between President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo and Election Commissioner Garcillano. The government warning addressed to media against
airing the alleged wiretapped conversation was deemed by the Court to constitute unconstitutional prior restraint
on the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press.
When is the right of free speech and press collides with the right of the accused to a fair trial. How will the court
dispose of the conflict.?
Is the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press absolute? NO. there are exceptions
May these right be lawfully restraint? YES. There must be standard for restraint.
If so what are the requirements for the lawful restraint.?
Dangerous Tendency Rule
Clear and present danger rule
Balancing interest rule
as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress
has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.
In dangerous tendency rule if the speech is uttered in such a way that there is a tendency to bring
about the evil sought to be prevented then speech may be curtailed. Under the clear and present
danger rule there must be a clear and present danger of the evil before the right to speech, of
expression, or of the press to be curtailed.
BALANCING INTEREST RULE
Courts have the duty to balance the evil sought to be prevented as against the rights. If general
welfare is the reason for the curtailment of speech then speech maybe prevented.
- It gives the court the duty to balance the conflicting interest sasabihin ng court kung papayagan ba
natin to ano ang mangyayari. it will allow the demonstration . if we curtail the demonstration the right
to free speech will suffer . in that case who loses. All of this thing the court must consider that is why
it is balancing of interest of demonstration. All interests will be scrutinized by the court.
Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to support their position that they had the power
to regulate the tarpaulin. However, the Court held that all of these provisions pertain to candidates and
political parties. Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they belong to any political party. COMELEC does
not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of the preferred right to freedom of expression exercised by
a non-candidate in this case.
Under this rule, the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive, extremely serious and
the degree of imminence extremely high. Only when the challenged act has overcome the clear and present
danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the government having the burden of overcoming the
presumed unconstitutionality.
Even with the clear and present danger test, respondents failed to justify the regulation. There is no
compelling and substantial state interest endangered by the posting of the tarpaulin as to justify curtailment
of the right of freedom of expression. There is no reason for the state to minimize the right of non-candidate
petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private property. The size of the tarpaulin does not affect anyone
elses constitutional rights.
Freedom of speech has never been understood to be an absolute right. Some forms of speech are not protected by
constitution.
LIBEL- is defined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code. A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or
of a vice or a defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
ELEMENTS
The allegation of discreditable act or condition concerning another.
Publication of the charge
Identity of the person defamed
Existence of malice
If the speech is not malicious even if defamatory it is privileged. The rule on privileged communication is that a
communication made in good faith on any subject matter in which the communicator has an interest, or concerning
which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding interest, although it contains
incriminatory matter which, without the privilege, would be libelous and actionable.
Alonzo vs. CA
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true if no good intention and justifiable motive
for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social
duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or
other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement,
report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise
of their function.
People vs. del Rosario define who is injured in cases of libel. In criminal law, in the
commission of the crime, it is the state who is injured, in libel it is not the disturbance of
public order coxed by defamatory language but its tendency to injure the person defamed.
And it has been held that the evil which the law on libel seeks to punish is not the disturbance
of public order caused by defamatory language but "its tendency ... to injure the person
defamed, regardless of its effect upon the public."
When the object of criticism is his strictly private life, defamatory imputations are not constitutionally
protected expression. True criticism, therefore, of a person's fitness for office is always fair and, therefore, privileged;
false criticism is not privileged if malicious, that is, when used as a cloak for assaults on a person's private life. Hence,
good faith is always a valid defense in a suit for defamatory imputations against a person's moral, mental or physical
fitness for office.
Policarpio v. Manila Times Publishing Co.- It goes without saying that newspapers must enjoy a certain degree of
discretion in determining the manner in which a given event should be presented to the public, and the importance to
be attached thereto as a news item, and that its presentation in a sensational manner is not per se illegal.
Newspapers may publish news items relative to judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings, which are not of a
confidential nature, because the public is entitled to know the truth with respect to such proceedings, which, being
official and non-confidential, are open to public consumption. But to enjoy immunity, a publication containing
derogatory information must be not only true but, also, fair, and it must be made in good faith and without comments
or remarks.
Feremin vs. People. public figures are not unprotected. Although a wide latitude is given to critical utterances made
against public officials in the performance of their official duties, or against public figures on matters of public interest,
such criticism does not automatically fall within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech. If the utterances are
false, malicious or unrelated to a public officer's performance of his duties or irrelevant to matters of public interest
involving public figures, the same may give rise to criminal and civil liability. While personalities in the entertainment
business, media people, including gossip and intrigue writers and commentators, do not have the unbridled license to
malign their honor and dignity by indiscriminately airing fabricated and malicious comments.
SECOND PART OF SECTION 4, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. (it can be curtail)
US. v. Apurado which involved a spontaneous gathering of some five hundred men to demand the ouster of certain
municipal officials. No permit was involved. But the significant point was that, in a
prosecution for sedition, the Court, invoking the right of assembly and petition, was willing to allow for a certain
amount of disorder. (page 311 of bernas book)
Evangelista v. Earnshaw - must be considered that the respondent mayor, whose sworn duty it is "to see that
nothing should occur which would tend to provoke or excite the people to disturb the peace of the community or the
safety or order of the Government," did only the right thing under the circumstances....
Instead of being condemned or criticized, the respondent mayor should be praised and commended for having taken a
prompt, courageous, and firm stand towards the said Communist Party of the Philippines before the latter could do
more damage by its revolutionary propaganda, and by the seditious speeches and utterances of its members.(page
312)
Primicias v. Fugoso - In rejecting the Mayor's contention, the Court said that the right of the
applicant to a permit was subject only to the Mayor's "reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or
public places to be used for the purpose, with a view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of
the streets and public places by others, and to provide
adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder." It rejected the notion that "comfort and convenience in
the use of streets or parks [was] the standard of official action."(page 313)
Which rule is more in keeping with the spirit of the constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful
assembly, and petition?
o Not answered. WHY?