Prof. Antonio G. M.

La Viña

Constitutional Law – XU LAW

Moot Court on The Great Freedoms

Litigating the following freedoms –

Press, speech, and expression

Instructions

ASSUMPTION:

This is a fictitious exercise based partially on actual situations and real

personalities. The Professor is solely responsible for imagining these situations
(although the personalities are real), with the following learning objectives: (1)
students are able to master the law and jurisprudence of the rights relevant to
exercise; (2) students are provided a glimpse of what actual advocacy and judicial
decision-making might be; (3) imagine better ways to achieve justice in our
imperfect democracy.

SCOPE OF THE EXERCISE

The constitutionality of two related (fictitious) laws: (1) RA 123456 - AN ACT
TO

PREVENT DISINFORMATION, SOCIAL CONFLICT, AND HATE LANGUAGE (2)
RA 123457 AN ACT CREATING AND EMPOWERING THE SOCIAL MEDIA
REGISTRATION AND REGULATORY BOARD.

These two laws were enacted as a legislative package and have overlapping
provisions, thus the Supreme Court consolidated the cases. See annexes for the
text of these laws.

These laws were enacted in October 2019 after the 2019 midterm elections. In that
election, weary of the acrimony of the country’s politics, the opposition have won
veto-proof majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. These new
laws were vetoed by the President but Congress voted to override his veto. (Note:
Ignore the statement regarding a military government in the explanatory note.)

The two laws were legislated as a reaction to the problem of fake news and the
deterioration of political discourse because of the weaponization of social media
that has sensationalized and exacerbated conflicts in the Philippines. They are
alarmed at the profileration of fake news and hate language that have pitted groups
against each other. The two laws are a response to this; they were enacted so that
hate speech does not lead to violence between groups.

In addition to these laws, a third law was issued making Facebook, Twitter,
WhatsAp, Instagram, and other internet/social media platforms subject to
pecuniary sanctions if if any posts it allowed in its platforms caused social conflict
and in particular result in death and defamation of individuals. They can also be
summarily shut down as decided by the government.

After the laws were enacted - Mocha Uson, Sass Sagot, Thinking PNoy, Pinoy Ako
Blog, The Professional Heckler, and Rappler were charged with violations of both
laws and have been banned from blogging and in the case of Rappler from further
publishing and operating as a mass media company. Facebook andTwitter have
also been shut down for violation of the third law.

The case is entitled Mocha Uson et. al. vs National Security Communications
Commission and Social Media Registration and Regulatory Board.

TEAMS:

9 students will act as Justices of the Supreme Court, including a designated Chief
Justice

There will be 6 litigation teams of 5 or more students each.

For Petitioners: The three litigation teams below are counsels of petitioners. All of
them are asking the Court to invalidate the two laws.

- Counsels of Mocha Uson, Sass Sagot,

- Counsels TP Pinoy Ako Blog and The Professional Heckler

- Counsels of Rappler

- Counsels of Facebook and Twitter which are sister companies.

For Respondents: The two litigation teams below are counsels of respondents.

- Solicitor General Team 1, Counsels of National Security Communications

Commission

- Solicitor General Team 2, Counsels of Social Media Registration and

Regulatory Board.

- Amicus Curiae in favor of the government

 -

LEGAL ISSUES:

(1) Does the police power of the state include the power to address hate
speech and take measures to prevent it?
(2) Does RA 123456 violate the Bill of Rights? (Please identify which
provisions.)
(3) Does RA 234567 violate the Bill of Rights? (Please identify which
provisions.)
(4) Does the third law on internat and social media platforms violate the Bill of
Rights? (Please identify which provisions.)

(5) Are these three laws unconstitutional?

The litigation teams might divide these issues, including the laws being questioned,
among themselves.

PROCESS:

Every litigation team will have 15 minutes each. The order will be according to the
issues indicated above with the petitioners speaking first. The teams may yield
time to their allied colleagues as agreed upon by them. Any member of the Court
may interrupt at any time to ask questions that must be immediately responded to
by the counsels concerned.

All Justices and counsels (while speaking) must wear black robes.

AFTER THE ORAL ARGUMENTS:

After the oral arguments, the Court shall immediately convene and vote on the
case, voting on each issue as outlined above and then deciding whether to grant
the remedies requested.

SUBMISSION OF LEGAL MEMORANDUMS AND OPINIONS

Each team must submit after the moot court exercise legal memorandums stating
their case. Each team will address all five legal issues up for adjudication and not
just their assigned issue.

The Justices must also prepare a decision, including majority, concurring, and
dissenting opinions as needed.

The deadline for the memorandums and opinions will be set later.