Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
General Considerations
Near vs Minnesota
Facts: Mr. Near published a newspaper in Minnesota
called the Saturday Press, which reported certain
questionable conduct by the local police and officials,
and hinted at a perceived favoritism. An article
claimed that the police were turning their heads to the
criminal actions of a Jewish gangster. Minnesota
enacted a statute that made the publication of
malicious, scandalous and defamatory matters in the
print media a public nuisance.
Issue(s): Whether a state law authorizing proceedings
to restrain the publication of print media operates
within the bounds of the liberty of press protected by
the 1st and 14th
Holding: No. The law infringes upon the liberty of the
press,
guaranteed
through
the
14 th and
unconstitutionally restrains publication.
Procedure: Cnty Atty sought injunction.
Ct
permanently enjoined any further publications
containing M, S, and D material and from further
conducting nuisance under the title of The Saturday
Press or any other title. MN S Ct Affirmed. USSCt
Reversed.
Rule(s): 1st and 14th
Rationale: Liberty of Speech and Press are w/i the
liberties protected by 1st and 14th from state invasion.
(1) Will a purported violation of law such as the AntiWiretapping Law justify straitjacketing the exercise of
freedom of speech and of the press?
(2) Did the mere press statements of respondents DOJ
Secretary and the NTC constitute a form of contentbased prior restraint that has transgressed the
Constitution?
Held: (1) No, a purported violation of law such as the
Anti-Wiretapping Law will not justify straitjacketing the
exercise of freedom of speech and of the press. A
governmental action that restricts freedom of speech
or of the press based on content is given the strictest
scrutiny, with the government having the burden of
overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality by the
clear and present danger rule. This rule applies equally
to all kinds of media, including broadcast media.
Respondents, who have the burden to show that these
acts do not abridge freedom of speech and of the
press, failed to hurdle the clear and present danger
test. For this failure of the respondents alone to offer
proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test, the
Court has no option but to uphold the exercise of free
speech and free press. There is no showing that the
feared violation of the anti-wiretapping law clearly
endangers the national security of the State.
(2) Yes, the mere press statements of respondents DOJ
Secretary and the NTC constituted a form of contentbased prior restraint that has transgressed the
Constitution. It is not decisive that the press
statements made by respondents were not reduced in
or followed up with formal orders or circulars. It is
sufficient that the press statements were made by
respondents while in the exercise of their official
functions. Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for
3
Facts:
On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner,
as host of the program Ang Dating Daan, aired on
UNTV 37, made obscene remarks against INC. Two
days after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost
identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L.
Galapon and seven other private respondents, all
members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), against
petitioner in connection with the above broadcast.
Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly
alluded to in petitioners remark, was then a minister
of INC and a regular host of the TV program Ang
Tamang Daan.
Issue:
Are Sorianos statements during the televised Ang
Dating Daan part of the religious discourse and within
the protection of Section 5, Art.III?
Held:
No. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case,
therefore, and considering the adverse effect of
petitioners utterances on the viewers fundamental
rights as well as petitioners clear violation of his duty
as a public trustee, the MTRCB properly suspended
him from appearing in Ang Dating Daan for three
months.
The SC ruled that Sorianos statement can be treated
as obscene, at least with respect to the average child,
and thus his utterances cannot be considered as
protected speech. Citing decisions from the US
5
ii.)
Obscenity
Miller vs California
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Millers
(Defendant) conviction for mailing advertisements for
adult books to unwilling recipients was vacated and
remanded in an effort to shift the burden of obscenity
determinations to the state and local courts.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. In determining whether
speech is obscene, the basic guidelines for the trier of
fact must be: (a) whether the average person,
applying contemporary community standards would
find the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest of sex, (b) whether the work depicts
or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual
conduct specifically defined by the applicable state
law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value.
10
11
12
PUBLIC
ISSUES
AND
1. x x x
4. Public affairs program shall present public
issues free from personal bias, prejudice
and inaccurate and misleading information.
x x x Furthermore, the station shall strive to
present balanced discussion of issues. x x
x.
xxx
19
3.
JESUS
G.
Ponente: Fernando, J.
Facts:
o January 1956 Front-page story on the Manila
Chronicle Fidel Cruz, sanitary inspector assigned to
the Babuyan Islands, sent distress signals to US
Airforce planes which forwarded such message to
Manila
o
An American Army plane dropped emergency
sustenance kits on the beach of the island which
contained, among other things, a two way radio set.
Using the radio set Cruz reported to the authorities in
Manila that the locals were living in terror due to a
series of killings committed on the island since
Christmas of 1955.
o
Philippine defense forces (scout rangers) were
immediately deployed to the babuyan claro. They were
led by Major Wilfredo Encarnacion who discovered that
Cruz only fabricated the story about the killings to get
attention. Cruz merely wanted transportation home to
Manila.
o
Major Encarnacion branded the fiasco as a hoax
the same word to be used by the newspapers who
covered the same
22
Issue:
o WON petitioners should be held liable for their error
in printing the wrong Fidel Cruzs photo in relation to
the hoax of the year?
o
WON such error is sufficient ground for an action
for libel to prosper?
Held:
Yes they are liable but damages awarded to Cruz is
reduced to P1,000.00
Ratio:
1.
Mistake is no excuse to absolve publishers
because libel is harmful on its face by the fact that it
exposes the injured party to more than trivial ridicule,
whether it is fact or opinion is irrelevant.
o
Citing Lu Chu Sing v. Lu Tiong Gui libel is
"malicious defamation, expressed either in writing,
printing, or by signs or pictures, or the like, ..., tending
to blacken the memory of one who is dead or to
impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation, or publish
the alleged or natural defects of one who is alive, and
thereby "pose him to public hatred, contempt, or
ridicule,"
o Citing standard treatise of Newell on Slander and
Libel "Publication of a person's photograph in
connection with an article libelous of a third person, is
a libel on the person whose picture is published, where
the acts set out in the article are imputed to such
person."
o
In this case 3rd person was Cruz his picture
being published beside the article imputes him as the
purveyor of the hoax of the year
23
2.
Libel cannot be used to curtail press freedom
however it also can not claim any talismanic immunity
form constitutional limitations
o State interest in press freedom citing Justice
Malcolm: Full discussion of public affairs is necessary
for the maintenance of good governance Public
officials must not be too thin-skinned with reference to
comments on official actsof course criticism does
not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as an
individual is less than the state, so must expected
criticism be born for the common good.
o So long as it was done in good faith, the press
should have the legal right to have and express their
opinions on legal questions. To deny them that right
would be to infringe upon freedom of the press.
o Last word on the subject Citing Quisumbing v.
Lopez: Press should be given leeway and tolerance as
to enable them to courageously and effectively
perform their important role in our democracy
o Freedom of the press ranks high in the hierarchy of
legal values
o TEST of LIABLITY must prove there was actual
malice in publishing the story/photo! (Note: but this
was not done in this case)
4.
Citing Concepcion, CJ. Correction of error in
publishing does not wipe out the responsibility arising
from the publication of the original article
o Correction = Mitigating circumstance not a justifying
circumstance!
GR No. 170141
Third Division
Reyes
FACTS:
Respondent needed to go to the US to donate
his kidney to his ailing cousin. Having obtained an
emergency US Visa, respondent purchased a round trip
ticket from petitioner JAL. He was scheduled to a flight
bound for LA via Japan. On the date of his flight,
respondent passed through rigid immigration and
security routines before being allowed to board a JAL
plane.
While inside the plane, respondent was asked to
show his travel documents. After which he was ordered
by the crew to leave the plane, imputing that
respondent is carrying falsified travel documents.
Respondent pleaded but was ignored and under
constraint he gets off the plane. The plane took off and
respondent was left behind.
Respondent was refunded with the cost of his
ticket minus 500 USD, when JAL found out eventually
that his travel documents were not falsified and in
order. Respondent filed an action for damages against
JAL.
RTC RULING:
RATIO:
Breach of contract of carriage
CA RULING:
Affirmed RTC decision with modification as to
amount of damages for being scandalously excessive.
500K MD, 250K ED and NO AT.
ISSUE:
WON JAL is guilty of breach of contract of
carriage.
WON Simangan
exemplary damages.
is
entitled
to
moral
and
HELD:
JAL is guilty of breach of contract of carriage and
is liable for damages. Petition of JAL was denied. CA
25
28
September 8, 2006
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
31
Bartnicki vs Vopper
34
v.
THE
38
No stated justification for this warrantfree unlimited incursion into the privacy
of citizens
4. The Respondent DOJ Secretarys Take Down
Authority under Section 19 of the Cybercrime
Act violates Due Process and is an Undue
Delegation of Legislative Authority
o The DOJ Secretarys overwhelming
powers to order the restriction or blocking
of access to certain content upon a mere
prima facie finding without any need for a
judicial determination is in clear violation
of petitioners Constitutionally protected
right to due process;
o The Cybercrime Act contemplates that
the respondent DOJ Secretary will be
judge, jury and executioner of all
cybercrime-related complaints;
o To consider that all penal provisions in all
specials laws are cybercrimes under
Section 6, it follows that:
1. Complaints filed by intellectual
property rights owners may be
acted upon the Respondent DOJ
Secretary to block access to
websites and content upon a
mere prima facie showing of an
infringement;
2. Foreign sites (e.g. Amazon.com)
offering
goods
on
retail
to
o
40
CASE
SUMMARY:
Background:
decision
would
then
be
final.
Opposing Side
(Respondent/Appellee)
Robert J. Collins and
Sydney R. Drebin
argued the cause for
respondents. With them
on the brief was John C.
Melaniphy.
41
C. The Arguments:
ACLU Side
(Petitioner/Appellant)
Unavailable
Opposing Side
(Respondent/Appellee)
Unavailable
42
Freedman vs Maryland
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965), is
a United States Supreme Court case that ended
government-operated rating boards with a decision
that a rating board could only approve a film and had
no power to ban a film. The ruling also concluded that
a rating board must either approve a film within a
reasonable time, or go to court to stop a film from
being shown in theatres. Other court cases determined
that television stations are federally licensed, so local
rating boards have no jurisdiction over films shown on
television. When the movie industry set up its own
rating systemthe Motion Picture Association of
Americamost state and local boards ceased
operating.
Ronald Freedman challenged the law of Maryland that
films must be submitted to the Maryland State Board
of Censors before being shown in theaters, claiming it
of
expression
43
44
45
46
Respondents: Yes.
SC: NO. It is not defined in PD 1986 but Websters
dictionary defines it as short motion picture films
portraying or dealing with current events; mostly
reenactments of events that had already happened.
The MTRCB Rules and Regulations define it as straight
news reporting, as distinguished from news analyses,
commentaries and opinions. The Inside Story is more
of a public affairs program, a variety of news
47
treatment; a cross between pure tv news and newsrelated commentaries, etc. within MTRCBs review
power.
proper party
actual case or controversy
question raised at the earliest possible
opportunity
the decision on the constitutional or legal
question
must
be
necessary
to
the
determination of the case itself
HELD:
No.
ISSUE #1:
WON Jurado can invoke the principles of press freedom
to justify the published writings.
HELD:
NO. Although honest utterances, even if inaccurate,
may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free
speech, it does not follow that the lie, knowingly and
deliberately published about a public official, should
enjoy a like immunity. The knowingly false statement
and the false statement made with reckless disregard
of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection.
The Civil Code, in its Article 19 lays down the norm
for the proper exercise of any right, constitutional or
otherwise, viz.: ARTICLE 19. Every person must, in the
52
ISSUE #2:
WON the court has the power to cite him for contempt.
HELD:
YES. The Supreme Court has inherent power to
punish for contempt, to control in the furtherance of
justice the conduct of ministerial officers of the Court
including lawyers and all other persons connected in
any manner with a case before the Court. The power to
punish for contempt is "necessary for its own
protection against improper interference with the due
administration of justice." Contempt is punishable,
even if committed without relation to a pending
case.
53
Gonzales v. COMELEC
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 4880 on
the grounds that it violates their rights such as
freedom of speech, of assembly, to form associations
or societies. More so, they question the forms of
election campaigns enumerated in the act.
Facts:
1. Congress passed a statute (RA 4880) which was
designed to maintain the purity and integrity of
the electoral process and calling a halt to the
undesirable practice of prolonged political
campaigns, bringing in their wake serious evils
not the least of which is the ever-increasing cost
of seeking public office.
2. Cabigao was an incumbent council in the 4 th
district of Manila and the official candidate of
the Nacionalista Party for the position of Vice
Mayor. He was subsequently elected to that
position.
Meanwhile, Gonzales is a private
individual, a registered voter in the City, and a
political leader.
3. They claim that the enforcement of RA 4880
would prejudice their basic rights such as
freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and
right to form associations or societies for
purposes not contrary to law. Specifically, they
challenge the validity of two new sections
included in the Revised Election Code under RA
4880 which was approved and took effect on
June 17, 1967. The said sections prohibit the
too early nomination of candidates and limit the
period of election campaign and political
activity.
More so, after defining the terms
56
Ruling:
1. The Court held that the challenged statute
cannot be declared unconstitutional on several
grounds. First, it is premature to challenge the
statutes validity. Second, the required number
of votes was not met when the Court
deliberated on the scope of election campaigns
or partisan political activities. Precisely, the
Court declared that RA 4880 could have been
narrowly drawn and practices prohibited be
more precisely delineated to satisfy the
constitutional requirements as to a valid
limitation under the clear and present danger
doctrine.
2. The primacy, the high estate accorded freedom
of expression is a fundamental postulate of our
constitutional system. No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
What does it embrace? At the very least, free
speech and free press may be identified with the
liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any
matter of public interest without censorship or
punishment. There is to be then to previous
restraint on the communication of views or
subsequent liability whether in libel suits,
prosecution for sedition, or action for damages
or contempt proceedings unless there be a clear
and present danger of substantive evil that
Congress has a right to prevent.
3. The vital need in a constitutional democracy for
freedom of expression is undeniable whether as
a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment, of
attaining the truth, of securing participation by
the people in social including political decisionmaking, and of maintaining the balance
57
HELD:
FACTS:
COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 was promulgated due to
the enacted RA No. 6766 (An Act Providing for an
Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region) last
October 23, 1989, which paved for a call of a
plebescite fo its ratification (original schedule was
reset from December 27, 1989 to January 30, 1990.
Allegations of Sanidad:
1.Unconsitutional as it it violates the constitutional
guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the
press
2.Constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionallyguaranteed freedom of the press bause of its penal
provsions in case of violation
Responses of COMELEC
-Not violative of the constitutional guarantees of the
freedom of expression and of the press but only a valid
implementation of the power of the Comelec to
supervise and regulate media during election or
plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C, Section
4 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of RA 6646
-Does Not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his
views and/or from campaigning for or against the
Organic Act. He may still express his views or
campaign for or against the act through the Comelec
space and airtime (magazine/periodical in the
province)
67
70
The
majority
opinion,
written
by
Associate
Justice Stephen Breyer, relied heavily on the Courts
2009 decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum,
which stated that a city in Utah was not obliged to
place a monument from a minor religion in a public
park, even though it had one devoted to the Ten
Commandments. The court ruled that refusing the
minor monument was a valid expression of
government which did not infringe on the First
Amendment's guarantee of free speech.[1]
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, arguing that
specialty license plates are more commonly regarded
as a limited public forum for private expression,
consisting of "little mobile billboards on which
motorists can display their own messages". Therefore,
rejecting the design basically amounts to viewpoint
discrimination
Bayan, et al., Vs. Eduardo Ermita, et al.,
G.R. No. 169838
April 25, 2006
Facts: The petitioners, Bayan, et al., alleged that they
are citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and that
their right as organizations and individuals were
violated when the rally they participated in on October
6, 2005 was violently dispersed by policemen
implementing Batas Pambansa No. 880.
Petitioners contended that Batas Pambansa No. 880 is
clearly a violation of the Constitution and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
other human rights treaties of which the Philippines is
74
Facts:
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, thru its president
Jose Anselmo Cadiz filed a letter application for a
permit to rally at the foot of Mendiola Bridge on June
22, 2006 from 2:30 to 5:30 PM, before the Office of the
City Mayor of Manila, Mayor Jose Atienza. The latter
granted a permit but changed the venue to Plaza
Miranda, which permit the IBP received on June 19,
2006. The IBP, Attys. Harry Roque, Joel Butuyan, and
Anselmo Cadiz then filed a petition for certiorari with
the Court of Action. Having been unacted within 24
hours from its filing, the petitioners filed a petition for
certiorari with the Supreme Court, which it denied
because of the pendency of the CA petition. The rally
pushed thru on June 22, 2006 at the foot of the
Mendiola Bridge, despite the Manila Police District
barring them from doing so. After the rally, they
voluntarily dispersed. On June 22, 2006, the MPD filed
a criminal case against Atty. Cadiz for violation of the
Public Assembly Act for staging a rally not indicated in
the permit, which he answered.
In the meantime, the Court of Appeals denied the
petition for certiorari initially filed by the petitioners for
being moot and academic and lacking merit. It ruled
that the city mayor did not abuse his discretion when
76
xxx
Section 6 of the Public Assembly Act reads:
Section 6. Action to be taken on the application (a) It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official
acting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless
there is clear and convincing evidence that the public
assembly will create a clear and present danger to
public order, public safety, public convenience, public
morals or public health.
(b) The mayor or any official acting in his behalf shall
act on the application within two (2) working days from
the date the application was filed, failing which, the
permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason
the mayor or any official acting in his behalf refuse to
accept the application for a permit, said application
shall be posted by the applicant on the premises of the
office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been
filed.
(c) If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent
and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the
denial or modification of the permit, he shall
immediately inform the applicant who must be heard
on the matter.
(d) The action on the permit shall be in writing and
served on the application [sic] within twenty-four
hours.
(e) If the mayor or any official acting in his behalf
denies the application or modifies the terms thereof in
77
xxx
In modifying the permit outright, respondent gravely
abused his discretion when he did not immediately
inform the IBP who should have been heard first on the
matter of his perceived imminent and grave danger of
a substantive evil that may warrant the changing of
the venue. The opportunity to be heard precedes the
action on the permit, since the applicant may directly
go to court after an unfavorable action on the permit.
78
80
caused
his
automatic
82
ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not the Show Cause Resolution
denies respondents their freedom of
expression
2.) Whether or not the Show Cause Resolution
violates respondents academic freedom as
law professors
HELD:
Petition DENIED.
The Show Cause Resolution does not deny
respondents their freedom of expression
A reading of the Show Cause Resolution will
plainly show that it was neither the fact that
respondents had criticized a decision of the Court nor
that they had charged one of its members of
plagiarism that motivated the said Resolution. It was
the manner of the criticism and the contumacious
language by which respondents, who are not parties
nor counsels in the Vinuya case, have expressed their
opinion in favor of the petitioners in the said pending
case for the proper disposition and consideration of
the Court that gave rise to said Resolution. The Show
Cause Resolution painstakingly enumerated the
statements that the Court considered excessive and
uncalled for under the circumstances surrounding the
issuance, publication, and later submission to this
Court of the UP Law facultys Restoring Integrity
Statement.
83
84
85