CASE NO.

496
Art. III, Sec. 4.
1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206020

MAINPOINT: A content-neutral regulation, i.e., which is merely concerned with the

incidents of the speech, or one that merely controls the time, place or manner, and
under well-defined standards, is constitutionally permissible, even if it restricts the right
to free speech, provided that the following requisites concur:
1.The government regulation is within the constitutional power of the Government;
2.It furthers an important or substantial governmental interest;
3.The governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and
4.The incidental restriction on freedom of expression is no greater than is essential to
the furtherance of that interest.

FACTS:
In 2013, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution 9615 providing rules that would
implement Sec 9 of RA 9006 or the Fair Elections Act. One of the provisions of the
Resolution provide that the posting of any election propaganda or materials during the
campaign period shall be prohibited in public utility vehicles (PUV) and within the
premises of public transport terminals. 1 UTAK, a party-list organization, questioned the
prohibition as it impedes the right to free speech of the private owners of PUVs and
transport terminals.
ISSUE: Whether Resolution 9615 is a violation against the right to free speech.
RULING:
Yes. Resolution No. 9615 unduly infringe on the fundamental right of the people to
freedom of speech. Central to the prohibition is the freedom of individuals, i.e., the
owners of PUVs and private transport terminals, to express their preference, through
the posting of election campaign material in their property, and convince others to agree
with them. Pursuant to the assailed provisions of Resolution No. 9615, posting an
election campaign material during an election period in PUVs and transport terminals
carries with it the penalty of revocation of the public utility franchise and shall make the
owner thereof liable for an election offense.

The restriction on free speech of owners of PUVs and transport terminals is not
necessary to a stated governmental interest. First, while Resolution 9615 was
promulgated by the COMELEC to implement the provisions of Fair Elections Act, the
prohibition on posting of election campaign materials on PUVs and transport terminals
was not provided for therein. Second, there are more than sufficient provisions in our
present election laws that would ensure equal time, space, and opportunity to
candidates in elections. Hence, one of the requisites of a valid content-neutral
regulation was not satisfied.
 CASE NO. 497
Art. III, Sec. 4.
Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015

MAINPOINT: It has been held that mere legislative preferences or beliefs respecting
matters of public convenience may well support regulation directed at other personal
activities, but be insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to
the maintenance of democratic institutions.

FACTS: Petitioner, Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS), is a private non-stock, non-
profit social research institution conducting surveys in various fields, including
economics, politics, demography, and social development, and thereafter processing,
analyzing, and publicly reporting the results thereof. On the other hand, petitioner
Kamahalan Publishing Corporation publishes the Manila Standard, a newspaper of
general circulation, which features news- worthy items of information including election
surveys. Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin the Commission on
Elections from enforcing Sec. 5.4 of RA. No.9006 (Fair Election Act), which provides:
Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days before an
election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published seven (7) days
be- fore an election. Petitioner SWS states that it wishes to conduct an election survey
throughout the period of the elections both at the national and local levels and release
to the media the results of such survey as well as publish them directly. Petitioner
Kamahalan Publishing Corporation, on the other hand, states that it intends to publish
election survey results up to the last day of the elections on May 14,2001

ISSUE: Whether the Comelec Resolutions prohibiting the holding of pre-polls and exit
polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media, valid and constitutional.
RULING:
No. The Court held that Section (5)4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on
the freedom of expression, (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a category of
expression even though such suppression is only for a limited period, and (3) the
governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than
suppression of freedom of expression.
 CASE NO. 497
Art. III, Sec. 4.
People v. Perez – 45 Phil. 599

MAINPOINT: Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and
the Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect be
seditious.
FACTS: Isaac Perez, the municipal secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon, and Fortunato
Lodovice, a citizen of that municipality, happening to meet on the morning of April 1,
1992, in the presidencia of Pilar, they became engaged in a discussion regarding the
administration of Governor-General Wood, which resulted in Perez shouting a number
of times: "The Filipinos, like myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for
having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed our independence."
Charged in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon with a violation of article 256 of the
Penal Code having to do with contempt of ministers of the Crown or other persons in
authority, and convicted thereof, Perez has appealed the case to this court.
ISSUE: Whether the remarks is protected by the constitutional freedom of speech and
whether Art. 256 of RPC is a violation against this right.
RULING:
No. In the words of the law, Perez has uttered seditious words. He has made a
statement and done an act which tended to instigate others to cabal or meet together
for unlawful purposes. He has made a statement and done an act which suggested and
incited rebellious conspiracies. He has made a statement and done an act which tended
to stir up the people against the lawful authorities. He has made a statement and done
an act which tended to disturb the peace of the community and the safety or order of the
Government. All of these various tendencies can be ascribed to the action of Perez and
may be characterized as penalized by section 8 of Act No. 292 as amended.
No. It is of course fundamentally true that the provisions of Act No. 292 must not be
interpreted so as to abridge the freedom of speech and the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. Criticism
is permitted to penetrate even to the foundations of Government. Criticism, no matter
how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary, is within the range of
liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect be seditious. But when the intention
and effect of the act is seditious, the constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and
press and of assembly and petition must yield to punitive measures designed to
maintain the prestige of constituted authority, the supremacy of the constitution and the
laws, and the existence of the State.