Freedom of Speech, Expression, of the Press, Right of the People Peaceably to

Assemble
Constitutional Law
Twitter
Case Doctrines Section 4- Constitution. No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
A. Prior Restraint
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans The test of limitations on freedom of expression
continues to be the CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE that words are used in
such a circumstance and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantial evils that a lawmaker has a right to
prevent. Government has a right to be protected against broadcasts which incite
listeners to overthrow it
Chavez v. Gonzales Hello Garci Case Tests for restraint dangerous tendency
doctrine, clear and present danger rule and balancing of interest test; aspects of
freedom of the press freedom from prior restraint and freedom from subsequent
punishment

B. Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez seditious remarks Criticisms against the branches of government
within the range of liberty and speech unless the intention and the effect be
seditious
Gonzales v. COMELEC prolonged political campaigns freedom of expression not
absolute; The 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 no previous restraint to the communication of views
or subsequent punishment unless there be a clear and present danger of
substantive evil that Congress has the right to prevent.

C. Freedom of Expression and the electoral process

Sanidad v. COMELEC prohibition regarding certain forms of propaganda a valid
exercise of police power of the state to prevent perversion and prostitution of
electoral process

Adiong v. COMELEC using stickers to campaign ed

ABS-CBN v. COMELEC exit polls allowed

SWS v. COMELEC releasing surveys results before the election allowed

D. Freedom of Expression and the Courts

IN RE: EMIL JURADO journalist and lawyer at the same time - Right to private
reputation. Judges are commonly and rightly regarded as voluntarily subjecting
themselves to norms of conduct which embody more stringent standards of
honesty, integrity, and competence than are commonly required from private
persons. 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.

PEOPLE V. GODOY - cited for contempt based on the latters article in the newspaper
- (1) Theres a need to make a distinction between adverse criticism of the court's
decision after the case is ended and
"scandalizing the court itself." The latter is not criticism; it is personal and scurrilous
abuse of a judge as such, in which case it shall be dealt with as a case of contempt.
Contempt proceedings dismissed. Such comments may constitute a libel against the
judge, but it cannot be treated as in contempt of the court's authority. (2) In case of
a post-litigation newspaper publication, fair criticism of the court, its
proceedings and its members, are allowed. However, there may be a contempt of
court, even though the case has been terminated, if the publication is attended by
either of these two circumstances:

a. Where it tends to bring the court into disrespect or, in other words, to scandalize
the court; or
b. Where there is a clear and present danger that the administration of justice
would be impeded. And this brings us to the familiar invocation of freedom of
expression usually resorted to as a defense in

contempt proceedings.
IN RE: RESOLUTION A.M. 98-7-02 SC - resolution prohibiting demonstrations within a
radius of 200 meters from the boundary of any hall of Justice. - The Court, it would
seem, has the power to
promulgate rules concerning conduct of demonstrations in the vicinity of the courts
to assure the people of an impartial and orderly administration of justice. It was
anchored on Art. VIII Sec. 5 (5)
RE: RADIO/TV COVERAGE OF ESTRADA TRIAL - Can the trial of Estrada in the
Sandiganbayan or any other court be broadcasted in TV or radio? NO. An accused
has a right to a public trial, but it is
not synonymous with a publicized trial. Freedom of the press and the accuseds
protection from a possible prejudicial publicized trial must be taken into
consideration. And unless there are safety nets to prevent this event, broadcast
media cannot be allowed to publicize the trial.

E. UNPROTECTED SPEECH LIBEL, OBSCENITY

BORJAL V. COURT OF APPEALS - Borjal published in his editorial column in the
Philippine Star about certain anomalous activities of an organizer of a conference (1) Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a
valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The
doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation
p