G.R. No.

L-59524 February 18, 1985

JOVITO R. SALONGA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal Branch XVIII (Quezon City), HON. JUDGE
RODOLFO ORTIZ, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXI (Quezon City) CITY FISCAL SERGIO
APOSTOL of Quezon City; COL. BALBINO DIEGO and COL. ROMAN MADELLA, respondents.

FACTS: The petitioner invokes the constitutionally protected right to life and liberty guaranteed by the due process clause,
alleging that no prima facie case has been established to warrant the filing of an information for subversion against him.
Petitioner asks this Court to prohibit and prevent the respondents from using the iron arm of the law to harass, oppress, and
persecute him, a member of the democratic opposition in the Philippines.

Jovito Salonga was charged with the violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Act after he was implicated, along with other 39
accused, by Victor Lovely in the series of bombings in Metro Manila. He was tagged by Lovely in his testimony as the leader of
subversive organizations for two reasons (1)because his house was used as a contact point; and (2) because of his remarks
during the party of Raul Daza in Los Angeles. He allegedly opined about the likelihood of a violent struggle in the Philippines if
reforms are not instituted immediately by then President Marcos.

When arrested, he was not informed of the nature of the charges against him. Neither was counsel allowed to talk to him until
this Court intervened through the issuance of an order directing that his lawyers be permitted to visit him. Only after four
months of detention was the petitioner informed for the first time of the nature of the charges against him. After
the preliminary investigation, the petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint but the same was denied. Subsequently, the
respondent judge issued a resolution ordering the filing of an information after finding that a prima facie case had been
established against the forty persons accused.

ISSUE: Whether or not Salonga’s alleged remarks are protected by the freedom of speech.

HELD: YES. The petitioner’s opinion is nothing but a legitimate exercise of freedom of thought and expression. Protection is
especially mandated for political discussions. Political discussion is essential to the ascertainment of political truth. It cannot be
the basis of criminal indictments. The constitutional guaranty may only be proscribed when such advocacy is directed to inciting
or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. In the case at bar, there is no threat against
the government. In PD 885, political discussion will only constitute prima facie evidence of membership in a subversive
organization if such discussion amounts to conferring with officers or other members of such association or organization in
furtherance of any plan or enterprise thereof. In the case, there is no proof that such discussion was in furtherance of any plan
to overthrow the government through illegal means. Lovely also declared that his bombing mission was not against the
government, but directed against a particular family. Such a statement negates any politically motivated or subversive
assignment.

G.R. No. 80806 October 5, 1989

LEO PITA doing business under the name and style of PINOY PLAYBOY, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON BAGATSING, and NARCISO CABRERA, respondents

Facts: On December 1 and 3, 1983, pursuing an Anti-SmutCampaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Ramon D.
Bagatsing, elements of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group, AuxilliaryServices Bureau, Western Police District, INP of
the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila, seized and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers
along Manila sidewalks, magazines, publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and
indecent and later burned the seized materials in public at the University belt along C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila, in the presence
of Mayor Bagatsing and several officers and members of various student organizations.

Among the publications seized, and later burned, was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita.
Plaintiff filed a case for injunction with prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and
Narcisco Cabrera, as superintendent of Western Police District of the City of Manila, seeking to enjoin said defendants and their
agents from confiscating plaintiff’s magazines or from preventing the sale or circulation thereof claiming that the magazine is a
decent, artistic and educational magazine which is not per se obscene, and that the publication is protected by the
Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. Plaintiff also filed an Urgent Motion for issuance of
a temporary restraining order against indiscriminate seizure, confiscation and burning of plaintiff's "Pinoy Playboy" Magazines,
pending hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction. The Court granted the temporary restraining order. The case was set
for trial upon the lapse of the TRO. RTC ruled that the seizure was valid. This was affirmed by the CA.

Issue: Whether or Not the seizure violative of the freedom of expression of the petitioner.

Held: YES. Freedom of the press is not without restraint as the state has the right to protect society from pornographic
literature that is offensive to public morals, as indeed we have laws punishing the author, publishers and sellers of
obscene publications. However, It is easier said than done to say, that if the pictures here in question were used not exactly for
art's sake but rather for commercial purposes, the pictures are not entitled to any constitutional protection. Using the Kottinger
rule: the test of obscenity is "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose
minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being obscene may
fall." Another is whether it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency. Ultimately "whether a picture is
obscene or indecent must depend upon the circumstances of the case and that the question is to be decided by the "judgment
of the aggregate sense of the community reached by it." The government authorities in the instant case have not shown the
required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the literature First of all, they were not possessed of a lawful court
order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography, and (2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure, by way of a
search warrant. The court provides that the authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge, if in their
opinion an obscenity seizure is in order and that;

1. The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are obscene and pose a clear and present
danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and action;
2. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed obscene. The question is to be resolved on a case-to-case
basis and on the judge’s sound discretion.

Eastern Broadcasting Corp (DYRE) v. Dans Jr.

137 SCRA 628
L-59329
July 19, 1985

Facts: A petition was filed to reopen the Radio Station DYRE. DYRE was “summarily closed” on grounds of national security. The
radio station was allegedly used to incite people to sedition. Petitioner, DYRE contends that they were denied due process.
There was no hearing to establish factual evidence for the closure. Furthermore, the closure of the radio station
violates freedom of expression. Before the court could even promulgate a decision upon the Issue raised, Petitioner, through its
president Mr. Rene Espina, filed a motion to withdraw the petition. The rights of the station were sold to a new owner, Manuel
Pastrana; who is no longer interested in pursuing the case. Despite the case becoming moot and academic, (because there are
no longer interested parties, thus the dismissal of the case) the Supreme Court still finds that there is need to pass a
“RESOLUTION” for the guidance of inferior courts and administrative tribunals in matters as this case.

Issue:

Whether or not the closure of DYRE is a violation of the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Expression.

Held: YES. The court finds that the closure of the Radio Station in 1980 as null and void. The absence of a hearing is a violation
of Constitutional Rights. The primary requirements in administrative proceedings are laid down in the case of Ang Tibay v. Court
of Industrial Relation (69 Phil.635). The Ang Tibay Doctrine should be followed before any broadcast station may be closed. The
Ang Tibay Doctrine provides the following requirements:

(1) The right to hearing, includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence presented.

(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented

(3) The decision must have something to support itself.

(4) Evidence must be substantial (reasonable evidence that is adequate to support conclusion)

(5) Decision must be based on the evidence presented at hearing

(6) The tribunal body must act on its own independent consideration of law and facts and not simply accept subordinate’s views

(7) Court must render decision in such a manner that the proceeding can know the various issued involved and reasons for
decisions rendered.

The court stresses that while there is no controlling and precise definition of Due Process, it gives an unavoidable standard that
government actions must conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty and property is valid.

The closure of the radio station is likewise a violation of the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression. The court
stresses that all forms of media, whether print or broadcast are entitled to this constitutional right. Although the government
still has the right to be protected against broadcasts which incite the listeners to violently overthrow it. The test for the
limitation of freedom of expression is the “clear and present danger” rule. If in the circumstances that the media is used in such
nature as to create this danger that will bring in such evils, then the law has the right to prevent it. However, Radio and
television may not be used to organize a rebellion or signal a start of widespread uprising. The freedom to comment on public
affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy. The people continues to have the right to be informed on public
affairs and broadcast media continues to have the pervasive influence to the people being the most accessible form of media.
Therefore, broadcast stations deserve the the special protection given to all forms of media by the due process and freedom of
expression clauses of the Constitution.

G.R. No. 132922 April 21, 1998

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. and GMA NETWORK, INC., petitioners,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent

Facts: Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) is an organization of lawyers
of radio and television broadcasting companies. It was declared to be without legal standing to sue in this case as, among other
reasons, it was not able to show that it was to suffer from actual or threatened injury as a result of the subject law. Petitioner
GMA Network, on the other hand, had the requisite standing to bring the constitutional challenge. Petitioner operates radio
and television broadcast stations in the Philippines affected by the enforcement of Section 92, B.P. No. 881.

Petitioners challenge the validity of Section 92, B.P. No. 881 which provides:
“Comelec Time- The Commission shall procure radio and television time to be known as the “Comelec Time” which shall be
allocated equally and impartially among the candidates within the area of coverage of all radio and television stations. For this
purpose, the franchise of all radio broadcasting and television stations are hereby amended so as to provide radio or television
time, free of charge, during the period of campaign.”

Petitioner contends that while Section 90 of the same law requires COMELEC to procure print space in newspapers and
magazines with payment, Section 92 provides that air time shall be procured by COMELEC free of charge. Thus it contends that
Section 92 singles out radio and television stations to provide free air time.
Petitioner claims that it suffered losses running to several million pesos in providing COMELEC Time in connection with the
1992 presidential election and 1995 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer even more should it be required to do so
again this year. Petitioners claim that the primary source of revenue of the radio and television stations is the sale of air time to
advertisers and to require these stations to provide free air time is to authorize unjust taking of private property. According to
petitioners, in 1992 it lost P22,498,560.00 in providing free air time for one hour each day and, in this year’s elections, it stands
to lost P58,980,850.00 in view of COMELEC’s requirement that it provide at least 30 minutes of prime time daily for such.

Issues:
Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws.

Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 constitutes taking of property without due process of law and without just
compensation.

Held: NO. All broadcasting, whether radio or by television stations, is licensed by the government. Airwave frequencies have to
be allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast that there are frequencies to assign. Radio and television
broadcasting companies, which are given franchises, do not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit
broadcast signals and images. They are merely given the temporary privilege to use them. Thus, such exercise of the privilege
may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service. In granting the privilege to
operate broadcast stations and supervising radio and television stations, the state spends considerable public funds in licensing
and supervising them.

The argument that the subject law singles out radio and television stations to provide free air time as against newspapers and
magazines which require payment of just compensation for the print space they may provide is likewise without merit.
Regulation of the broadcast industry requires spending of public funds which it does not do in the case of print media. To
require the broadcast industry to provide free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the industry gets.

As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private property is taken by the requirement that they
provide air time to the COMELEC.

G.R. No. L-26549 July 31, 1970

EUGENIO LOPEZ, publisher and owner of the "MANILA, CHRONICLE and JUAN T. GATBONTON,petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FIDEL G. CRUZ, respondents.

FACTS: In the early part of January, 1956, there appeared on the front page of The Manila Chronicle, of which petitioner
Eugenio Lopez was the publisher, as well as on other dailies, a news story of a sanitary inspector assigned to the Babuyan
Islands, Fidel Cruz by name, sending a distress signal to a passing United States Airforce plane which in turn relayed the
message to Manila. He was not ignored, an American Army plane dropping on the beach of an island an emergency-sustenance
kit containing, among other things, a two-way radio set. He utilized it to inform authorities in Manila that the people in the
place were living in terror, due to a series of killings committed since Christmas of 1955. Losing no time, the Philippines defense
establishment rushed to the island a platoon of scout rangers led by Major Wilfredo Encarnacion. Upon arriving at the reported
killer-menaced Babuyan Claro, however, Major Encarnacion and his men found, instead of the alleged killers, a man, the same
Fidel Cruz, who merely wanted transportation home to Manila. In view of this finding, Major Wilfredo Encarnacion branded as a
"hoax," to use his own descriptive word, the report of Fidel Cruz. That was the term employed by the other newspapers when
referring to the above-mentioned incident.

This “Week Magazine” of the Manila Chronicle, then edited by petitioner Juan T. Gatbonton, devoted a pictorial article to it in
its issue of January 15, 1956. Mention was made that while Fidel Cruz story turned out to be false if brought to light the misery
of the people living in that place, with almost everybody sick, only two individuals able to read and write, food and clothing
being scarce.

Then in the January 29, 1956 issue of This Week Magazine, the "January News Quiz" included an item on the central figure in
what was known as the Calayan Hoax, who nevertheless did the country a good turn by calling the government's attention to
that forsaken and desolate corner of the Republic. Earlier in its Special Year End Quiz appearing in its issue of January 13, 1956,
reference was made to a health inspector who suddenly felt "lonely" in his isolated post, cooked up a story about a murderer
running loose on the island of Calayan so that he could be ferried back to civilization. He was given the appellation of "Hoax of
the Year."

The magazine on both occasions carried photographs of the person purporting to be Fidel Cruz. Unfortunately, the pictures that
were published on both occasions were that of private respondent Fidel G. Cruz, a businessman contractor from Santa Maria,
Bulacan. It turned out that the photographs of respondent Cruz and that of Fidel Cruz, sanitary inspector, were on file in the
library of the Manila Chronicle in accordance with the standard procedure observed in other newspaper offices, but when the
news quiz format was prepared, the two photographs were in advertently switched.

As soon, however, as the inadvertent error was brought to the attention of petitioners, the following correction was
immediately published in This Week Magazine on January 27, 1957: "While we were rushing to meet: the deadline for January
13th issue of This Week, we inadvertently published the picture of former Mayor Fidel G. Cruz of Sta. Maria, Bulacan,
businessman and contractor, in 'Our Own Who's Who feature in the Year End Quiz' of This Week in lieu of the health inspector
Fidel Cruz, who was connected with a story about a murderer running loose on Calayan Island. We here express our profound
regrets that such an error occurred." Together with the foregoing correction, petitioners published the picture of Fidel Cruz; the
photographs and the correction moreover were enclosed by four lines the type used was bolder than ordinary, and the item
was placed in a conspicuous place in order to call the attention of the readers to such amends being made. 1

Respondent Fidel G. Cruz sued petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of damages alleging the
defamatory character of the above publication of his picture. After trial duly had, he was awarded five thousand pesos as actual
damages, another five thousand pesos as moral damages, and one thousand pesos for attorney's fees. That judgment was
affirmed on appeal to respondent Court. Hence, this petition for certiorari with the result, as already announced at the opening
of this opinion, that while respondent Cruz is entitled to Prevail, the damages awarded him should be reduced.

G.R. No. L-62992 September 28, 1984

ARLENE BABST, ODETTE ALCANTARA CERES P. DOYO, JO ANN Q. MAGLIPON, DOMINI TORREVILLAS SUAREZ, LORNA KALAW-
TIROL, CIELO BUENAVENTURA, SYLVIA MAYUGA, SHEILA S. CORONEL, ET AL.,petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE BOARD, SPECIAL COMMITTEE NO. 2, BRIG. GEN. WILFREDO ESTRADA (ret.), COL. RENATO ECARMA,
NBI ASST. DIRECTOR PONCIANO FERNANDO, COL. BALBINO DIEGO, COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, COL. EUSTAQUIO PERALTA, ET
AL., respondents

FACTS: Petitioners are columnists, feature article writers and reporters of various local publications. Since July 1980, some of
them have allegedly been summoned by military authorities who have subjected them to sustained interrogation on various
aspects of their works, feelings, sentiments, beliefs, associations and even their private lives. The invitations were contained in
letters sent by the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) and were of the following tenor:
Madam:

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by law, you are hereby requested to appear before this Special Committee at
Philippine Army Officer’s Clubhouse, Fort Bonifacio, Metro Manila (sketch attached), 9:00 A.M., December 22, 1982, to shed
light on confidential matters being looked into by this Committee.
Your failure to appear on the specified date and place shall be considered as a waiver on your part and this Committee will be
constrained to proceed in accordance with law.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO C. ESTRADA

Brig. General, AFP (Ret.)
Chairman
Petitioners argued that the respondents do not have the authority to conduct the proceeding above-described which are
violative of the constitutional guarantee on freedom of expression since they have the effect of imposing restrictive guidelines
and norms on mass media. Petitioners further claim that such proceedings are a punitive ordeal or subsequent punishment for
lawful publications and that they amount to a system of censorship, curtailing the “free flow of information and petition and
opinion,” indispensable to the right of the people to know matters of public concern guaranteed the Constitution. Finally they
claim that such coercive invitations constitute intrusions into spheres of individual liberty.
Respondents countered by claiming that no issue of jurisdiction exists since they do not pretend to exercise jurisdiction over
the petitioners. They claimed that what were sent to petitioners were neither subpoenas nor summonses, but mere invitations
to dialogues which were completely voluntary, without any compulsion employed on petitioners. The dialogues themselves
were designed simply to elicit information and exchange of ideas. Respondents contended that the that the expression of
personal preferences and opinions by members of the respondent Board is not equivalent to the imposition of norms and
guidelines to be followed by petitioners. Finally, they argued that the petition filed is moot and academic because the
proceedings before NIB Special Committee No. 2 (which conducted the interrogations) have already been ordered terminated
by General Fabian C. Ver in his capacity as Director General and Chairman of the NIB, and said proceedings have in fact been
terminated.

ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance of letters of invitations and the subsequent interrogations that are conducted thereafter
are valid under the Constitution.

HELD: NO. A MERE INVITATION TO ATTEND A HEARING WHICH A PERSON MAY REFUSE IS NOT ILLEGAL, HOWEVER, AN
INVITATION WHICH HAS AN APPEARANCE OF COERCION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY OBJECTIBLE

Invitation with coercion is constitutionally objectionable – Be that as it may, it is not idle to note that ordinarily, an invitation
to attend a hearing and answer some questions, which the person invited may heed or refuse at his pleasure, is not illegal or
constitutionally objectionable. Under certain circumstances, however, such an invitation can easily assume a different
appearance. Thus, where the invitation comes from a powerful group composed predominantly of ranking military officers
issued at a time when the country has just emerged from martial rule and when the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus has not entirely been lifted and the designated interrogation site is a military camp, the same can easily be
taken, not as a strictly voluntary invitation which it purports to be, but as an authoritative command which one can only defy at
his peril, especially where, as in the instant case, the invitation carries the ominous seaming that “failure to appear . . . shall be
considered as a waiver . . . and this Committee will be constrained to proceed in accordance with law.” Fortunately, the NIB
director general and chairman saw the wisdom of terminating the proceedings and the unwelcome interrogation.