University of Cebu

College of Law
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
PRE-FINAL SEATWORK

INSTRUCTION: Briefly answer the following questions. Use the format of syllogisms if applicable.

1. Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC:

a. What do you understand by “safety valve theory”? “Market place of ideas”?
b. Was the COMELEC order to remove the subject tarpaulins valid?

2. Grosjean v. American Press Co.: Did the subject Louisiana law abridge the freedom of the
press?

3. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance: Was the registration provision of the EVAT law a form of
prior restraint?

4. New York Times v. U.S.: Elaborate on the Court’s pronouncement that any system of prior
restraint bears a heavy presumption against its constitutionality.

5. Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA:

a. In general, what is meant by censorship/prior restraint? How does it differ from subsequent
punishment for a speech/expression?
b. Is the MTRCB’s power to review pre-recorded TV programs prior to their airing a form of
censorship/prior restraint?
c. Did the MTRCB gravely abused its discretion when it prohibited the airing of the INC’s
religious program?

6. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty:

a. In general, what do you understand by the “clear and present danger” doctrine in free
speech cases?
b. How does the “clear and present danger” doctrine apply to expressions critical of judges
and judicial processes?
c. Did the Court’s Show Cause Resolution deny the respondents their freedom of
expression?

7. MVRS Publications v. Islamic Da’wah Council: Critique on the Court’s reversal of the CA
decision and reinstatement of the RTC decision dismissing the respondent’s civil case for
damages.

8. Disini v. Secretary of Justice:

a. Was the provision penalizing the transmission of “spam” unconstitutional?
b. Is liking an openly defamatory statement, commenting on it, or sharing it, a form of “aiding
or abetting” the defamatory statement?
c. Why are old parameters for enforcing the traditional form of libel “a square peg in a round
hole” when applied to cyberspace libel?
d. What is meant by a facial challenge? Void-for-vagueness doctrine? Overbreath doctrine?

9. Pita v. CA:
a. What do you understand by obscene, pornographic and indecent?
b. May law enforcement officers validly confiscate magazines they consider to be obscene,
pornographic and indecent?
c. Summarize the guidelines enunciated by the High Tribunal in obscenity cases.

10. In re Jurado: Critique on the Court’s finding that respondent Jurado was guilty of contempt of
court using the balancing of interests test.