1. Chavez v.

Gonzales
F: Hello Garci; Chavez warned the broadcasting media
H: The press statements (warnings) of the DOJ and NTC constitutes a content based
prior restraint
- the content based is not justified because there is no clear and present danger
GOVT: Did content based prior restraint without clear and present danger

2. Diocese v. COMELEC
F: Team Patay and Team Buhay Tarp
H: COMELEC infringes the freedom of expression of private individual
GOVT: Did content based prior restraint without clear and present danger

3. Gonzales v. COMELEC
F: Petitioners assailed RA 4880 (law to limit period of campaigning and prohibit
early nomination)
H: RA 4880 is not unconstitutional.
- It is an exercise of PP to insure orderly election
- There is a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has a
right to prevent, i.e. the debasement of the electoral process
GOVT: Did content based prior restraint with clear and present danger (the
debasement of electoral process)

4. Guingging v. CA
F: Lim published the criminal records and photos of Radioman Torralba in the
"Sunday Post" owned by Guingging.
- Torralba filed libel case against Lim and Guingging
- RTC and CA held them guilty
- Editor-Publisher Guingging invoked that finding him guilty constitures
infringement of his right to FoS and FoP as a member of 4th Estate
H: Not Guilty of Libel (no actual malice proven)
- the statements were true, hence no conviction (if false or with reckless
disregard to publish WON true, then guilty)
D: Actual malice is material in libel against public figure (Torralba is a public
figure)
DOCTRINE: doctrine that libelous speech does not fall within the ambit of
constitutional protection

5. Disini v. Sec
F: Cybercrime
- PP to regulate access and use of cyberspace
R: Illegal Access-ok. No application of SSS, bec. no fundamental freedom, like
speech is involved. Ethical Hacking is bawal
- Data Interference-ok. No application of overbreatdh, bec. does not encroach any
freedoms. it punishes a form of vandalism
- Online Libel - for public figure, actual malice; for private individual,
presumed malice (mas mabigat). Libel is not constitutionally protected speech and
the govt has the duty to protect individuals from defamation.
DOCTRINE: strict scrutiny standard (SSS)- a legislative classification that
impermissiblyinterferes with the exercise of fundamental right or operates to the
peculiarclass disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional

6. Soriano v. Laguardia
F: Dating Daan nagmura
R: unprotected speech
GOVT: Did content based prior restraint with clear and present danger

7. Newsounds Broadcasting v. Dy
F: Newsounds operated their radio stations in Cauayan City. The lupa is
agricultural, kelangan commercial. Then the City Zoning Administrator refused to
issue zoning clearance, so the Newsounds cannot secure Mayor's Permit.
- Newsounds sought the COMELEC to implement Omnibus Election Code that prohibits
closure of Radio programs during election period.
- Nothing in the ordinance that requires the conversion to issue Mayor's permit
(may ill motives pla si mayor)
GOVT: Did content based prior restraint without clear and present danger