Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
III)
I.
Limitations
Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro
FACTS: Rubi and various other Manguianes (Mangyans) in the
province of Mindoro were ordered by the provincial governor
of Mindoro to remove their residence from their native habitat
and to established themselves on a reservation in Tigbao, still
in the province of Mindoro, and to remain there, or be punished
by imprisonment if they escaped. Manguianes had been
ordered to live in a reservation made to that end and for
purposes of cultivation under certain plans. The Manguianes
are a Non-Christian tribe who were considered to be of very
low culture.
One of the Manguianes, a certain Dabalos, escaped
from the reservation but was later caught and was placed in
prison at Calapan, solely because he escaped from the
reservation. An application for habeas corpus was made on
behalf by Rubi and other Manguianes of the province, alleging
that by virtue of the resolution of the provincial board of
Mindoro creating the reservation, they had been illegally
deprived of their liberty. In this case, the validity of Section
2145 of the Administrative Code, which provides:
With the prior approval of the Department Head, the
provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian
inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is
deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct
such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on
unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved
by the provincial board.
HELD:
1 | Page
II. No. Among other things, the term non-Christian should not
be given a literal meaning or a religious signification, but that
it was intended to relate to degrees of civilization. The term
non-Christian it was said, refers not to religious belief, but in
a way to geographical area, and more directly to natives of the
Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization. In this case, the
Manguianes were being reconcentrated in the reservation to
promote peace and to arrest their seminomadic lifestyle. This
will ultimately settle them down where they can adapt to the
changing times.
The Supreme Court held that the resolution of the
provincial board of Mindoro was neither discriminatory nor
class legislation, and stated among other things: . . . one
cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered
with when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is
considered. They are restrained for their own good and the
general good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due
process of law has not been followed. To go back to our
definition of due process of law and equal protection of the
laws, there exists a law; the law seems to be reasonable; it is
enforced according to the regular methods of procedure
prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.
ISSUE /S:
1. Whether or not mayor lukban who is an officer of the state,
to eradicate vices in its city have the right to deport said
women of ill-repute?
2. Whether or not the city of manila does not have a
jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus to davao city to
produce the body of the women since it is out of their
jurisdiction and thus, disobeying the writ issued by the court to
produce the body of the women?
HELD:
FACTS:
Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton
Hohmann, the city's Chief of Police, took custody of about 170
2 | Page
produce the body of the women and shall pay into the office of
the clerk of the Supreme Court within five days the sum of one
hundred pesos (P100)
RATIO:
1.
On the first issue, the courts decision is based on the
principle of Republicanism wherein Ours is a government of
laws and not of men
NOTE:
2.
On the second issue, the court believed that the true
principle should be that, if the respondent (Mayor Lukban) is
within the jurisdiction of the court and has it in his power to
obey the order of the court and thus to undo the wrong that he
has inflicted, he should be compelled to do so. The writ of
habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and
effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint,
and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal
freedom. Any further rights of the parties are left untouched by
decision on the writ, whose principal purpose is to set the
individual at liberty.
3.
In other words, If the mayor and the chief of police, acting
under no authority of law, could deport these women from the
city of Manila to Davao, the same officials must necessarily
have the same means to return them from Davao to Manila.
The respondents, within the reach of process, may not be
3 | Page
4 | Page
Issue:
WON the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion
and/or in excess of their rule-making authority in issuing said
circulars.
Ruling:
No. Article 36 of the Labor Code grants the Labor Secretary the
power to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement
activities. On the other hand, the scope of the regulatory
authority of the POEA, which was created by Executive Order
No. 797 on May 1, 1982 to take over the functions of the
5 | Page
ISSUE:
Whether, in the exercise of the powers granted by the
Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from
returning to the Philippines insofar as the powers enumerated
under scope of the Executive are concerned.
RULING:
Although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitation on
the exercise of the specific powers of the President, it
maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the
scope of the executive power. Corollarily, the powers of the
President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific
powers enumerated in the Constitution. Having sword to
defend and uphold the Constitution, the President has the
obligation under the Constitution to protect the people,
promote their welfare and advance the national interest. It
must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being
an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the
people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State
for common good. The State, through the Government, is not
precluded from taking pre-emptive action against threats to its
existence if, though still nascent, they are perceived as apt to
become serious and direct.
Separate Opinions
6 | Page
7 | Page
entirely begs the issue. In the first place, one cannot overlook
that the right of Mr. Marcos, as a Filipino, to be buried in this
country, is asserted not for the first time after his death. It was
vigorously asserted long before his death. But, more
importantly, the right of every Filipino to be buried in his
country, is part of a continuing right that starts from birth and
ends only on the day he is finally laid to rest in his country.
This dissenting opinion does not pretend to deny the
Philippine government the right to lay down conditions for the
burial of Mr. Marcos in this country, but I submit that these
conditions must, as a fundamental postulate, recognize the
right of the man, as a Filipino, to be buried in this country NOW.
The majority resolution, in effect, bans Mr. Marcos'
burial in this country now. Without in any way affecting my
respect and regard for my brethren and sisters in the majority,
I am deeply concerned and greatly disturbed that, with their
decision banning a dead Marcos from burial in this country,
they have passed an opportunity to defuse a constitutional
crisis that, in my humble assessment, threatens to ignite an
already divided nation, Regrettably, they have ignored the
constitutional dimension of the problem rooted in the ageless
and finest tradition of our people for respect and deference to
the dead. What predictably follows will be a continuing strife,
among our people, of unending hatred, recriminations and
retaliations. God save this country!
My vote is for this Court to ORDER the respondents to
allow the immediate return and burial in the Republic of the
Philippines of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, subject to
such conditions as the Philippine government may impose in
the interest of peace and order.
8 | Page
9 | Page
Yes
REASONING
The majority, via Justice Black, held that schoolsponsored prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment. The majority stated that the provision allowing
students to absent themselves from this activity did not make
the law constitutional because the purpose of the First
Amendment was to prevent government interference with
religion. The majority noted that religion is very important to a
vast majority of the American people. Since Americans adhere
to a wide variety of beliefs, it is not appropriate for the
government to endorse any particular belief system. The
majority noted that wars, persecutions, and other destructive
measures often arose in the past when the government
involved itself in religious affairs.
CONCURRENCE
Justice Douglas
ISSUE
DISSENT
RULING
Justice Stewart
10 | P a g e
Issue:
Whether reimbursing parents for their childrens transportation
to and from religious schools violates the Establishment Clause
when it is part of a general transportation reimbursement
scheme.
Holding:
By a 5-4 vote, the Court held that the state does not violate
the Establishment clause when it reimburses parents, as the
money flows to the parents as part of a general secular policy
designed to keep children safe while en route to and from
school.
Reasoning:
The Court found that while the Establishment Clause requires
that the state remain neutral among religions and between
religion and non-religion, the New Jersey plan merely provided
money to parents as part of a general government service that
was not inherently religious in character, similar to providing
sewer and police services to churches.
Majority:
"The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment
means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal
Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which
aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over
another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to
remain away from church against his will or force him to
profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be
punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or
disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in
any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called,
or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations
or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause
against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect
a wall of separation between church and State." (Justice Hugo
Black)
11 | P a g e
Dissent:
Although the Court was unanimous in affirming the principle of
"neutrality" by the government toward religion, four Justices
disagreed
with
the
majoritys
view
that
allowing
reimbursement for bus transportation to parents of students in
parochial schools was not a breach of church-state separation.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Wiley B. Rutledge defined "no
establishment" this way: "The prohibition broadly forbids state
support, financial or other, of religion in any guise, form or
degree. It outlaws all use of public funds for religious
purposes."
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
Facts:
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes provided state aid to
church-related elementary and secondary schools. A group of
individual taxpayers and religious liberty organizations filed
suit, challenging the constitutionality of the program. They
claimed that, since the program primarily aided parochial
schools, it violated the Establishment Clause.
Issue:
Whether states can create programs that provide financial
support to nonpublic elementary and secondary schools by
way or reimbursement for the cost of teachers salaries,
textbooks, and instructional materials in specified secular
subjects (Pennsylvania) -- or pay a salary supplement directly
to teachers of secular subjects in religious schools (Rhode
Island).
Holding:
Majority:
"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither
advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not
foster 'excessive entanglement with religion.'" (Chief Justice
Warren Burger)
12 | P a g e
Majority:
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203
(1963)
Facts:
Pennsylvania state law required that "at least ten verses from
the Holy Bible shall be read, without comment, at the opening
of each public school on each school day." Two families sued,
claiming this violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.
Issue:
Whether an official reading at the beginning of each school day
of Bible passages, without further comment, violates the
Establishment Clause.
Holding:
By a vote of 8-1, the Court held that state-sponsored
devotional Bible readings in public schools constitute an
impermissible religious exercise by government.
Reasoning:
The Court found that state-sponsored devotional exercises
violate the Establishment Clause. The Constitutional defects
are not corrected by allowing an opt-out provision. The
Establishment Clause constrains government from involving
itself in religious matters. Therefore, government action that
promotes or inhibits religion violates the Constitution. The
state may not draft or conduct religious prayers in schools
filled with captive audiences of children.
Zorach v. Clauson
13 | P a g e
program,
without
Dissent. Justices Hugo Black (J. Black) and Robert Jackson (J.
Jackson) wrote separate dissents, both standing for the
proposition that the majority had blurred the line between the
separation of church and state.
Discussion. While the establishment clause prohibits
governmental support of religion, it does not prohibit students
from exercising their religions.
Held. Affirmed.
The Supreme Court held for the Respondents, noting that
because instruction occurred away from the schools and did
not require school participation, no respect for a particular
establishment had occurred.
Additionally, the Supreme Court held that a philosophy of
hostility toward religion cannot be read into the Bill of Rights.
14 | P a g e
15 | P a g e
HELD:
FACTS:
Pursuant to Resolution No. 5 of the Barangay Council of
Valencia, Ormoc City, a wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer
was acquired by the barangay council with funds raised by
means of solicitations and cash, duly ratified by the barangay
assembly in a plebiscite, reviving the traditional socio-religious
celebration of the feast day of the saint. As per Resolution No.
6, the image was brought to the Catholic parish church during
the saint's feast day which also designated the hermano mayor
as the custodian of the image. After the fiesta, however,
petitioner parish priest, Father Sergio Marilao Osmea, refused
to return custody of the image to the council on the pretext
that it was the property of the church because church funds
were used for its acquisition until after the latter, by resolution,
filed a replevin case against the priest and posted the required
bond. Thereafter, the parish priest and his co-petitioners filed
an action for annulment of the council's resolutions relating to
the subject image contending that when they were adopted,
the barangay council was not duly constituted because the
chairman of the Kabataang Barangay was not allowed to
participate; and that they contravened the constitutional
provisions on separation of church and state, freedom of
ISSUE:
Whether the barangay council's resolution providing for
purchase of saint's image with private funds in connection with
barangay fiesta, constitutional.
16 | P a g e
II.
the
Facts:
1. Petitioner (Angel Gonzales) wanted to collect the
income from certain properties situated in Calle Rosario,
District of Binondo. He was assigned by the property
owner (Petronila de Guzman) for the maintenance of a
collative chaplaincy founded by her. The ownership
dates back to June 20, 1901.
17 | P a g e
Thus, from June 20, 1901 to the time the action was
instituted, the property in question is a sum of Php
12,500.00.
3. Respondents are the Archbishop of Manila (Msgr. Harty)
and the administrator of funds of the Sagrada Mitra
(Thomas Hartigan).
4. Going back to history, by virtue of the provisions
contained in the will executed by Donya Petronila de
Guzman on March 3, 1816, a collative chaplaincy was
founded in this archdiocese.
It entailed a certain
obligation of a spiritual character and possessed a
capital of Php 1,700. It was also provided that the first
executor of the estate of the testatrix should act as
administrator of the property subject to the chaplaincy
during the minority of Esteban de Guzman, the first
chaplain appointed for the foundation. Angel Gonzales,
a descent of Petronila, was appointed chaplain on
August 21, 1901.
5. Ruling:
1. Our attention has been invited to the fact that the
property affected by the chaplaincy should have been
administered by the chaplains and not by the
administrators of the Sagrada Mitra inasmuch as clause
11 of the foundress will so provided. To refute this
assertion, it suffices to say that the provisions of the
said will set forth that the first testamentary executor of
the estate of the testatrix should act as the
administrator of the property during the minority of the
first chaplain appointed in that document.
This
provision must be understood to be mandatory, except
as otherwise provided by the canonical laws and as,
pursuant therewith, the chief ecclesiastical authority
18 | P a g e
22.
III.
30.
Discussion. The majority focuses on the right of
persons to choose beliefs and act accordingly. As long
as the actions do not present a clear and present
danger of the kind the state is allowed to prevent, then
the Constitution encourages diversity of thought and
belief. The state has not power to mandate allegiance in
hopes that it will encourage patriotism. This is
something the citizens will choose or not.
31.Cantwell v. Connecticut
32. Brief Fact Summary. A Jehovahs Witnesses was
convicted on a charge of breach of the peace for
playing a phonograph record sharply critical of the
Catholic religion to persons he encountered on the
street.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A State may proscribe
speech if it amounts to a breach of the peace, which
encompasses not only violent acts, but also acts and
words likely to produce violence in others.
33.
Facts. Jesse
Cantwell
(Cantwell),
a
Jehovahs
Witnesses, was convicted on the charge of breach of
the peace for playing a phonograph record sharply
critical of the Catholic religion to persons he
encountered on the street. His intent was to proselytize
19 | P a g e
36.
37.Marsh v. Alabama
38. Brief
Fact
Summary. The
Appellant,
Marsh
(Appellant), distributed religious literature on the
sidewalks of a company owned town in violation of the
towns regulations. The Appellant claimed her freedom
of religion and press were violated and brought suit
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United
States
Constitution
(Constitution).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A state cannot, consistently
with the freedom of religion and the press guaranteed
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the
Constitution, impose criminal punishment on a person
for distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a
company-owned town contrary to regulations of the
towns management, where the town and its shopping
district are freely accessible to and freely used by the
public in general.
39.
Facts. The Appellant, a Jehovahs Witness, distributed
religious literature on the sidewalk of a company owned
town despite a sign forbidding this kind of conduct. The
Appellant was warned she could not distribute the
literature without a permit and that no permit would be
issued to her. When the Appellant refused to leave, she
was arrested and charged with violating a state statute
that makes it a crime to enter or remain on the
premises of another after having been warned not to do
so. The Appellant contended that to construe the state
statute, as applicagle to her activities, would abridge
her right to free of press and religion. The Supreme
20 | P a g e
Keyed
to
Sullivan
&
Gunther
43. CHAPTER I.
44.
45.American Bible Society v. City of Manila
46.The acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila
required the payment of a particular amount
from petitioner.
Respondent claims that
petitioners Philippine agency had distributed
and
sold
bibles
and/or
gospel
portions
throughout
the
country;
thus,
conducting
business of general merchandise.
47.Facts:
1. Petitioners Philippine agency has been distributing and
selling bibles and/or gospel portions throughout the
country and translating the same into several Philippine
dialects.
2. On May 29, 1953, the acting City Treasurer of the City of
Manila informed petitioner that it was conducting the
business of general merchandise since November 1945
without providing itself with necessary Mayors permit
and municipal license in violation of Ordinance No.
3000, as amended, and further required petitioner to
secure the corresponding permit and license fees,
together with compromise covering the period from 4 th
quarter of 1945 to 2nd quarter of 1953, within 3 days.
Sum of said fees amounted to Php 5,821.45.
21 | P a g e
48.Ruling:
1. Article III, Section 1(7) of the Constitution guarantees
the freedom of religious profession and worship. It has
reference to ones views of his relations to His Creator
and to the obligations they impose of reverence to His
being and character, and obedience to His Will. The
constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries
with it the right to disseminate religious information.
Any restraint of such right can only be justified like
other restraints of freedom of expression on the
grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any
substantive evil which the State has the right to
prevent.
2. It may be true that in the case at bar, the price asked
for the bibles and other religious pamphlets was in
some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of
the same but this cannot mean that petitioner was
engaged in the business or occupation of selling said
merchandise for profit. To have the City Ordinance in
question applied would impair its free exercise and
enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as
well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.
49.
50.
51.
52. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance
registration fee in the VAT law)
(re
validity
of
53. FACTS:
Tolentino
et
al
is
questioning
the
constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known as the
Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino
averred that this revenue bill did not exclusively
originate from the House of Representatives as required
by Section 24, Article 6 of the Constitution. Even though
RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it passed the
3 readings in the HoR, the same did not complete the 3
readings in Senate for after the 1 st reading it was
referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee
thereafter Senate passed its own version known as
Senate Bill 1630. Tolentino averred that what Senate
could have done is amend HB 11197 by striking out its
text and substituting it w/ the text of SB 1630 in that
way the bill remains a House Bill and the Senate
version just becomes the text (only the text) of the HB.
Tolentino and co-petitioner Roco [however] even signed
the said Senate Bill.
54.
55. ISSUE: Whether or not EVAT originated in the HoR.
56.
57. HELD: By a 9-6 vote, the SC rejected the challenge,
holding that such consolidation was consistent with the
power of the Senate to propose or concur with
amendments to the version originated in the HoR. What
the Constitution simply means, according to the 9
justices, is that the initiative must come from the HoR.
Note also that there were several instances before
where Senate passed its own version rather than having
the HoR version as far as revenue and other such bills
are concerned. This practice of amendment by
substitution has always been accepted. The proposition
22 | P a g e
23 | P a g e
60. Held:
The expulsion of the members of Jehovahs Witness
from the schools where they are enrolled will violate
their right as Philippine citizens, under the 1987
Constitution, to receive free education, for it is the duty
of the state to protect and promote the right of all
citizens to quality education, and to make such
education accessible to all (Sec. I, Art XIV).
Nevertheless, their right not to participate in the Flag
Ceremony does not give them a right to disrupt such
patriotic exercises. If they quietly stand at attention
during flag ceremony while their classmates and
teachers salute the flag, sing the national anthem and
recite the patriotic pledge, we do not see how such
conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or pose a
grave and present danger of a serious evil to public
safety, public morals, public health or any legitimate
24 | P a g e
25 | P a g e
I.
82.ABRAMS vs. US
83. Brief Fact Summary. The defendants convictions for
distributing leaflets advocating strikes during the
Russian Revolution were upheld because their speech
was not protected by the United States Constitution
(Constitution) based on the clear and present danger
test.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Men must be held to have
intended and to be accountable for the effects, which
their acts are likely to produce.
84.
Facts. The
Defendants,
Abrams
and
others
(Defendants) were Russian immigrants. The Defendant
were self-proclaimed revolutionists and anarchists who
wrote and distributed thousands of circulars advocating
a general strike and appealing to workers in
ammunitions factories to stop the production of
weapons to be used against Russian revolutionaries.
They were convicted under 1918 amendments to the
Espionage Act that prohibited the curtailment of
production of materials necessary to the prosecution of
war against Germany with intent to hinder its
prosecution.
85. Issue. Whether the Defendants speech was protected
by the First Amendment of the Constitution?
86. Held. No. Men must be held to have intended and to be
accountable for the effects which their acts are likely to
produce. The plain purpose of Defendants propaganda
was to excite, at the supreme crisis of war, disaffection,
II.
ELEMENTS
a. Freedom from Censorship
26 | P a g e
90.
91.
92. Issue: Is the First Amendment violated when the United
States, during wartime, prohibits a newspaper from
publishing sensitive articles which may cause security
concerns for the United States?
93. Holding: Yes. [6-3; Majority: J. Black, J. Douglas, J.
Brennan, J. Stewart, J. White, J. Marshall. Minority: C.J.
Burger, J. Harlan, J. Blackman]
94. Per Curiam Decision: The decision of the Court stated
that the government carries a heavy burden of
providing justification for restraining the freedom of
expression granted by the Constitution. The lower
courts held that the government had not met that
burden, with which the Supreme Court agreed. Thus,
the order of the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia was affirmed and the stays entered on June
25, 1971, were vacated.
95.
96.
97. Justices Stewart and White joined in concurring
opinions. They held that an alert, aware, and free
press most critically serves the purpose of the First
Amendment.
Further, they reasoned that in the
absence of an informed and free press, there cannot be
enlightened people. Finally, Stewart and White argued
that while a need for secrecy exists in many national
defense issues the responsibility must be where the
power is.
Since the Executive is given a large,
unshared power in foreign affairs and national security,
its duty must be to determine and preserve the degree
of internal security necessary to exercise that power
successfully.
98.
27 | P a g e
28 | P a g e
118.
119.
1. YES, respondent Board has the power to review
petitioners TV program.
120.
121.
Petitioner contends that the term television program
[in Sec. 3 of PD No. 1986 that the respondent Board has the
power to review and classify] should not include religious
programs like its program Ang Iglesia ni Cristo. A contrary
interpretation, it is urged, will contravene section 5, Article III of
the Constitution which guarantees that no law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
shall forever be allowed.
122.
123.
[The Court however] reject petitioners postulate.
Petitioners public broadcast on TV of its religious program
brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. Television is a
medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children. The
Court iterates the rule thatthe exercise of religious freedom can
be regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and
present danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty
bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more
overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public
welfare. A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion can be
seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels the Court
against its blind adoption as religion is and continues to be a
volatile area of concern in our country today. . . [T]he Court]
shall continue to subject any act pinching the space for the free
exercise of religion to a heightened scrutiny but we shall not
leave its rational exercise to the irrationality of man. For when
religion divides and its exercise destroys, the State should not
stand still.
124.
125.
2. YES, respondent Board gravely abuse its
discretion when it prohibited the airing of petitioners religious
program.
126.
127.
[A]ny act that restrains speech is hobbled by the
presumption of invalidity and should be greeted with furrowed
brows. 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. It failed in the case at bar.
128.
129.
The evidence shows that the respondent Board x-rated
petitioners TV series for attacking either religions, especially
the Catholic Church. An examination of the evidence . . . will
show that the so-called attacks are mere criticisms of some
of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. The
videotapes were not viewed by the respondent court as they
were not presented as evidence. Yet they were considered by
the respondent court as indecent, contrary to law and good
customs, hence, can be prohibited from public viewing under
section 3(c) of PD 1986. This ruling clearly suppresses
petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its right to
free exercise of religion. xxx.
130.
131.
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. . . In fine, respondent board cannot squelch 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. In a State where there ought
to be no difference between the appearance and the reality of
freedom of religion, the remedy against bad theology is better
theology. The bedrock of freedom of religion is freedom of
thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace
of duelling ideas. When the luxury of time permits, the
marketplace of ideas demands that speech should be met by
more speech for it is the spark of opposite speech, the heat of
colliding ideas that can fan the embers of truth.
132.
29 | P a g e
133.
In x-rating the TV program of the petitioner, the
respondents failed to apply the clear and present danger rule.
In American Bible Society v. City of Manila, this Court held:
The constitutional guaranty of free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship carries with it the right to
disseminate religious information. Any restraint of such right
can be justified like other restraints on freedom of expression
on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of any
substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.
In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, we further ruled
that . . . 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.
134.
135.
The records show that the decision of the respondent
Board, affirmed by the respondent appellate court, is
completely bereft
of
findings
of
facts to
justify
the conclusion that the subject video tapes constitute
impermissible attacks against another religion. 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 which has taken
the life of a reality already on ground.
136.
137.
PRIMICIAS V FUGOSO
138.
139.
Facts: An action was instituted by the petitioner for
the refusal of the respondent to issue a permit to them to hold
a public meeting in Plaza Miranda for redress of grievances to
the government. The reason alleged by the respondent in his
defense for refusing the permit is, "that there is a reasonable
ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon
the fact that passions, specially on the part of the losing
groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will be
30 | P a g e
148.
Facts
149.
The petitioner, Amelito Mutuc was a candidate
for delegate to the Constitutional Convention (1970).
His candidacy has been given due course by the
Commission
on
Elections
(COMELEC)
but
the
commission prohibited the petitioner from using "taped
jingles" in his mobile units for campaign purposes
because according to COMELEC, such act is a clear
violation on the provision of the Constitutional
Convention Act, which made it unlawful for 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." It was COMELEC's argument that the
jingle proposed to be used by the petitioner is the
recorded or taped voice of a singer and therefore
a tangible propaganda material, under the phrase "and
the like". Mutuc protested and invoked his right to
freedom
of
speech.
150.
151.
Issue
152.
Whether or not the said rule which is "prohibiting
the use of taped jingles" denied petitioner of his
freedom of speech.
153.
Decision
154.
Doctrinally, courts always ruled in favor of the
freedom of expression. Moreover, any act that restrains
speech should be greeted with furrowed brows.
COMELEC shall not exercise any authority in conflict
with the law. It must also be remembered that there is
no
higher
law
than
the
Constitution.
Regarding the petitioner's invocation of his right to free
speech, the Court has constantly held that this
preferred freedom calls all the more for the utmost
respect. What respondent Commission did, in effect,
was to impose censorship on petitioner, an evil aginst
which this constitutional right is directed. Nor could
respondent Commission justify its action by the
assertion that petitioner, if he would not resort to taped
jingle, would be free, either by himself or through
others, to use his mobile units (loudspeakers). Precisely,
the constitutional guarantee is not to be weakened by
confining it to a speaker having his say, but not
perpetuating what is uttered by him through tape or
other mechanical contrivances. If courts were to sustain
respondent Commission, then the effect would hardly
be distinguishable from a previous restraint. That
cannot be validly done. It would negate indirectly what
the
Constitution
in
express
terms
assures.
COMELEC is restrained and prohibited from enforcing
such rule.
155.
31 | P a g e
156.
166.
157.
Facts:
167.
158.
-Suit brought by nine publishers of newspapers
within the State of Louisianato enjoin the enforcement
against them of the provisions of ACT No. 23.
168.
169.
159.
-ACT No. 23 requires everyone subject to the tax
to file a sworn report every three months showing the
amount and the gross receipts from the business
described in 1. The resulting tax must be paid when
the report is filed. Failure to file the report or pay the
tax as thus provided constitutes a misdemeanor and
subjects the offender to a fine not exceeding $500, or
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, for
each violation. Any corporation violating the act
subjects itself to the payment of $50 to be recovered by
suit.
170.
Facts:
171.
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.
161.
Issue: WON the act abridges the freedom of the
press.
172.
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.
162.
173.
160.
-Appellees contend that the said Act abridges
the freedom of the press.
Held:
163.
-The tax imposed was declared invalid because it
tended to limit the circulation of any such periodical
seeking to avoid the payment of the tax.
164.
-Characterizing the tax as tax on knowledge is
an indirect attempt to restrict the dissemination of
ideas.
174.
Issue:
175.
Whether or not the two warrants were valid to
justify seizure of the items.
176.
177.
Held:
165.
32 | P a g e
178.
The defect in the indication of the same address
in the two warrants was held by the court as a
typographical error and immaterial in view of the
correct determination of the place sought to be
searched set forth in the application. The purpose and
intent to search two distinct premises was evident in
the issuance of the two warrant.
179.
As to the issue that the items seized were real
properties, the court applied the principle in the case
of Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo, ruling that machinery
which is movable by nature becomes immobilized when
placed by the owner of the tenement, property or plant,
but not so when placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or
any other person having only a temporary right, unless
such person acted as the agent of the owner. In the
case at bar, petitioners did not claim to be the owners
of the land and/or building on which the machineries
were placed. This being the case, the machineries in
question, while in fact bolted to the ground remain
movable property susceptible to seizure under a search
warrant.
180.
However, the Court declared the two warrants
null and void.
181.
Probable cause for a search is defined as such
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to
be searched.
182.
The Court ruled that the affidavits submitted for
the application of the warrant did not satisfy the
requirement of probable cause, the statements of the
witnesses having been mere generalizations.
183.
Furthermore,
jurisprudence
tells
of
the
prohibition on the issuance of general warrants.
(Stanford vs. State of Texas). The description and
enumeration in the warrant of the items to be searched
and seized did not indicate with specification the
subversive nature of the said items.
184.
ADIONG VS COMELEC
185.
Facts:
186.
- On January 13, 1992, the COMELEC promulgated
Resolution No. 2347 pursuant to its powers granted by the
Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Republic Acts Nos.
6646 and 7166 and other election laws.
187.
188.
Sec. 15. Lawful Election Propaganda. The following
are lawful election propaganda:
189.
(a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers,
handwritten or printed letters, or other written or printed
materials not more than eight and one-half (8-1/2) inches in
width and fourteen (14) inches in length. Provided, That
decals and stickers may be posted only in any of the
authorized posting areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section
21 hereof.
190.
191.
192.
It is unlawful:
33 | P a g e
193.
194.
(f) To draw, paint, inscribe, post, display or publicly
exhibit any election propaganda in any place, whether public
or private, mobile or stationary, except in the COMELEC
common posted areas and/or billboards, at the campaign
headquarters of the candidate or political party, organization
or coalition, or at the candidate's own residential house or
one of his residential houses, if he has more than one:
Provided, that such posters or election propaganda shall not
exceed two (2) feet by three (3) feet in size.
195.
-Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial candidate
in the May 11, 1992 elections now assails the COMELEC's
Resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and
stickers in "mobile" places like cars and other moving
vehicles. According to him such prohibition is violative of
Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 11(a) of
Republic Act No. 6646. In addition, the petitioner believes that
with the ban on radio, television and print political
advertisements, he, being a neophyte in the field of politics
stands to suffer grave and irreparable injury with this
prohibition. The posting of decals and stickers on cars and
other moving vehicles would be his last medium to inform the
electorate that he is a senatorial candidate in the May 11,
1992 elections. Finally, the petitioner states that as of
February 22, 1992 (the date of the petition) he has not
received any notice from any of the Election Registrars in the
entire country as to the location of the supposed "Comelec
Poster Areas."
196.
Issue: WON the COMELEC may prohibit the posting of
decals and stickers on "mobile" places, public or private, and
limit their location or publication to the authorized posting
areas that it fixes.
197.
Held:
198.
-The prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on
mobile places whether public or private except in authorized
areas designated by the COMELEC becomes censorship which
cannot be justified by the Constitution.
199.
-The posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas,
tricycles, pedicabs and other moving vehicles needs the
consent of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the preference of
the citizen becomes crucial in this kind of election propaganda
not the financial resources of the candidate. Whether the
candidate is rich and, therefore, can afford to doleout more
decals and stickers or poor and without the means to spread
out the same number of decals and stickers is not as
important as the right of the owner to freely express his
choice and exercise his right of free speech. The owner can
even prepare his own decals or stickers for posting on his
personal property. To strike down this right and enjoin it is
impermissible encroachment of his liberties.
200.
III.
201.
SCHENCK V. US
202.
Brief Fact Summary. The distribution of
leaflets using impassioned language claiming that the
draft was a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution (Constitution) and
encouraging people to assert your opposition to the
draft was held not to be protected speech.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The character of every act
depends on the circumstances in which it is done. The
question in every case is whether the words are used in
such circumstances and are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring
34 | P a g e
GONZALES V. COMELEC
207.
Facts: RA 4880 which took effect on June 17, 1967,
prohibiting the too early nomination of candidates and limiting
the period of election campaign or partisan political activity
was challenged on constitutional grounds. More precisely, the
basic liberties of free speech and free press, freedom of
assembly and freedom of association are invoked to nullify the
act. Petitioner Cabigao was, at the time of the filing the
petition, an incumbent councilor in the 4th District of Manila
and the Nacionalista Party official candidate for Vice-Mayor of
Manila to which he was subsequently elected on November
11, 1967; petitioner Gonzales, on the other hand, is a
private individual, a registered voter in the City of Manila and
a political leader of his co-petitioner. There was the further
allegation that the nomination of a candidate and the fixing of
period of election campaign are matters of political
expediency and convenience which only political parties can
regulate or curtail by and among themselves through selfrestraint or mutual understanding or agreement and that the
regulation and limitation of these political matters invoking
the police power, in the absence ofclear and present danger
to the state, would render the constitutional rights of
petitioners meaningless and without effect. Senator Lorenzo
M. Taada was asked to appear as amicus curiae, and
elucidated that Act No. 4880 could indeed be looked upon as
a limitation on the preferred rights of speech and press, of
assembly and of association. He did justify its enactment
however under the clear and present danger doctrine, there
being the substantive evil of elections, whether for national or
local officials, being debased and degraded by unrestricted
35 | P a g e
208.
Held: Yes. As held in Cabansag v. Fernandez there are
two tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for
permissible restriction on freedom of speech. These are the
clear and present danger rule and the 'dangerous tendency'
rule. The first, means that the evil consequence of the
comment or utterance must be extremely serious and the
degree of imminence extremely high before the utterance can
be punished. The danger to be guarded against is the
'substantive evil' sought to be prevented. It has the
advantage of establishing according to the above decision a
definite rule in constitutional law. It provides the criterion as
to what words may be publicly established. The "dangerous
tendency rule" is such that If the words uttered create a
dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent,
then such words are punishable. It is not necessary that
some definite or immediate acts of force, violence, or
unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be
advocated in general terms. Nor is it necessary that the
language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons
to acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the
natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to
bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body
seeks to prevent.
209.
The challenged statute could have been more
narrowly drawn and the practices prohibited more precisely
delineated to satisfy the constitutional requirements as to a
valid limitation under the clear and present danger doctrine.
As the author Taada clearly explained, such provisions were
210.
The prohibition of any speeches, announcements or
commentaries, or the holding of interviews for or against the
election of any party or candidate for public office and the
prohibition of the publication or distribution of campaign
literature or materials, against the solicitation of votes
whether directly or indirectly, or the undertaking of any
campaign literature or propaganda for or against
any candidate or party is repugnant to a constitutional
command.
211.
REYES V. BAGATSING
212.
Facts:
36 | P a g e
215.
216.
37 | P a g e