BILL OF RIGHTS is a declaration and enumeration of a persons fundamental civil and political rights.

It imposes safeguards against violations by the government, by individuals or groups of individuals. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. SECTION 1: DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. DUE PROCESS: There is no strict definition of due process. However, it has been variously described as: A law w/c hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. I. Substantive Due Process requires that the law made by the government must be reasonable; inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty or property a. The interests of the public, in general, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the intervention of the State. b. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive on individuals. Void for vagueness Doctrine A statute or act may be said to be vague if it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such instance, the statute becomes repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: 1. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid and 2. It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of government muscle Overbreadth Doctrine decrees that "a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. II. Procedural Due Process refers to the method or manner by w/c the law is enforced; refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty or property. Requisites Judicial Proceedings ajtj 1. An impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it

2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person or subject matter 3. The defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard 4. Judgment must be rendered upon a lawful hearing Requisites Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Proceedings rtds dtd Due process in administrative proceedings requires compliance w/ the following cardinal principles laid down in Ang Tibay v CIR: (1) the respondents right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit supporting evidence, must be observed; (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have some basis to support itself; (4) there must be substantial evidence; (5) the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) in arriving at a decision, the tribunal must have acted on its own consideration of the law and the facts of the controversy and must not have simply accepted the views of a subordinate; and (7) the decision must be rendered in such manner that respondents would know the reasons for it and the various issues involved.

Procedural Due Process contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered affecting ones person or property. (Aberca v Ver) The essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of ones defense. To be heard does not mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process. (Sandoval v HRET) In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain ones side (not solely verbal presentation, also pleadings). Actual hearing is not always an indispensable aspect of due process. As long as a party was given opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. Moreover, this constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. (Lumiqued v Exevea; Lumiqued was not accused of any crime, only determine whether he can be held administratively liable.)

Due process does not necessarily require a prior hearing; a hearing or an opportunity to be heard may be subsequent to the closure. Appeal to procedural due process cannot just outweigh the evil sought to be prevented (Central Bank v CA) Tan v Barrios open court doctrine???

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. (Garcia v Exec Secretary) Requisites of Valid Classification 1. 2. 3. 4.

The classification rests on substantial distinctions It is germane to the general purpose of the law; It is not limited or confined to existing conditions only; and It applies equally to all members of the same class. Citizens and aliens are covered by the EPC of the Constitution as regards all civil rights. However, aliens do not have the same rights as citizens as regards their political rights. Juridical persons are covered by the EPC but only as regards their property. Equality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is equality under the same conditions and among persons similarly situated; it is equality among equals, not similarity of treatment of persons who are classified based on substantial differences in relation to the object to be accomplished. When things or persons are different in fact or circumstance, they may be treated in law differently. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. The equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. (Abakada Guro v Purisima) What the Constitution prohibits is the singling out of a select person or group of persons within an existing class, to the prejudice of such a person or group or resulting in an unfair advantage to another person or group of persons. (PASEI v Drilon) Equal pay for equal work: persons who work with substantially equal qualification, skill, effort and responsibility under similar conditions should be paid similar salaries. (ISAE v Quisumbing) "Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification." In the present case, petitioner belongs to the class of those who have been convicted by any court, thus, he is entitled to the rights accorded to them. Clearly, there is no substantial distinction between those who are convicted of offenses which are criminal in nature under

military courts and the civil courts. Furthermore, following the same reasoning, petitioner is also entitled to the basic and time-honored principle that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. It must be remembered that the provisions of the Articles of War which the petitioner violated are penal in nature. (Garcia v Exec Sec) Relative Constitutionality The constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance, be determined by mere comparison of its provisions w/ applicable provisions of the Constitution since the statute may be constitutionally valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid in its application to another. A statute valid at one time may become void at another time because of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute, in its practical application becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of the changed conditions. Standards of Judicial Review In our jurisdiction, the standard and analysis of equal protection challenges in the main have followed the rational basis test, coupled with a deferential attitude to legislative classifications and a reluctance to invalidate a law unless there is a showing of a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. Rational basis - the command of equal protection was only that government must not impose differences in treatment except upon some reasonable differentiation fairly related to the object of regulation. focused solely on the means used by the legislature: it insisted merely that the classification in the statute reasonably relates to the legislative purpose. Congress retains its wide discretion in providing for a valid classification, and its policies should be accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except when they run afoul of the Constitution

But if the challenge to the statute is premised on the denial of a fundamental right, or the perpetuation of prejudice against persons favored by the Constitution with special protection, judicial scrutiny ought to be more strict. Strict Judicial Scrutiny - A legislative classification w/c impermissibly interferes w/ the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest. *Rational economic and social legislation

Strict Scrutiny denial of fundamental rights; when the classification has a suspect basis or directed to a suspect class (Suspect Classes classes subject to such a history or purposeful unequal treatment or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process) Intermediate Scrutiny/Middle Tier The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

SECTION 2: RIGHT AGAINST UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Concept General Rule: Search and seizures are unreasonable Exception: Authorized by a validly issued search warrant Requisites of valid warrant 1. It must be issued upon probable cause 2. The probable cause is determined personally by the judge 3. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce 4. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized 5. The warrant of arrest must refer to one specific offense PROBABLE CAUSE refers to such facts and circumstances, w/c would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested (warrant of arrest) or that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched (search warrant). Probable Cause Standard a. Fiscal: Whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon.

b. Judge: Determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused, i.e., whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Situations: 1. Notice and hearing before warrant of arrest (US v Purganan) There is no requirement (in the Constitution) to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest. To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the examination -- under oath or affirmation -- of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. 2. The warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized (Stonehill v Diokno; Pp v Estrada) 3. The warrant shall particularly describe the place to be searched (Pp v CA) The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers own personal knowledge of the premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant. Grounds to quash search warrant (Pp v Estrada) a. There was no probable cause for its issuance To establish the existence of probable cause sufficient to justify the issuance of a search warrant, the applicant must show facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. b. The place sought to be searched had not been described with sufficient particularity in the questioned search warrant. Knock and announce principle (Pp v Huang Zhen Hua and Jogy Lee) The police officers are obliged to give the accused notice, show their authority and demand that they be allowed entry. They may only break open any inner or outer door or window of a house to execute a search warrant if, after such notice and demand, the officers are refused entry to the place of directed search. Generally, the officers implementing a search warrant must: AIS Announce their presence Identify themselves to the accused or to the persons who rightfully have possession to the premises to be searched Show to them the search warrant to be implemented by them and explain to them such warrant in a language or dialect known to and understood by them.

Unannounced intrusion is permissible when:

A party whose premises or is entitled to the possession thereof refuses, upon demand, to open it Such person in the premises already knew of the identity of the officers and of their authority and persons The officers are justified in the honest belief that there is imminent peril to life or limb Those in the premises, aware of the presence of someone outside, are then engaged in activity which justifies the officers to believe that an escape or the destruction of evidence is being attempted

Whether the police waited long enough before entering the residence to execute a warrant, is when those inside should have been alerted that the police wanted entry to execute a warrant. Search incidental to a lawful arrest (Pp v Chua Ho San) A valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest which must precede the search. The law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made. The process cannot be reversed. Exception: A search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. An officer making an arrest MAY TAKE from the person: 1. Any money or property found upon his person w/c was used in the commission of the offense or 2. Was the fruit thereof or 3. Which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping or 4. Which may be used in evidence in the trial of the case

Consented Search (Pp v Leila Johnson) Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public. Airport Searches: Sec 9, RA 6235 holder and hand carried luggage are subject to search for and seizure of prohibited materials or substances. * To limit the action of the airport security personnel to simply refusing her entry into the aircraft and sending her home, and thereby depriving them of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including to further search w/o warrant, in light of such circumstances, would be to sanction impotence and ineffectivity in law enforcement, to the detriment of society (Pp v Canton). Plain View Doctrine (Pp v Doria)

Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even w/o a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. * Seizure of evidence in plain view applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Elements: (Pp v Abe Valdez) a. A prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties b. The evidence must be inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are c. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure d. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence w/o further search Stop and Frisk (Terry Search) (Sammy Malacat v CA)

Search on a moving vehicle (Pp v Jean Balingan)

Customs Search (Roldan v Arca; Papa v Mago) Persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws except in the case of the search of a dwelling house. 1. BOC acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported goods for the purposes of enforcement of the customs laws, from the moment the goods are actually in its possession or control, even if no warrant of seizure or detention had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs in connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings. 2. Agent deputized in writing by the Customs Commissioner could effect searches, seizures and arrests for the purpose of enforcing customs and tariff laws 3. The MPD Chief has authority to ask the assistance of any police officer to effect said search and seizure and the latter has the legal duty to render said assistance. Petitioner Martin Alagao and his companion policemen had authority to effect the seizure without any search warrant issued by a competent court. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant in the instant case.

Searches at checkpoints (Pp v Usana and Lopez)

WARRANTLESS ARRESTS a. Arrest in flagrante delicto (Pp v Molina) b. Arrest in hot pursuit 1. Section 5, Rule 113, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a) 2. Continuing offense (Umil v Ramos)

SECTION 3: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS; INADMISSIBILITY CLAUSE (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA 4200) Sec 1 Prohibitions: unlawful for any person not authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word

To tap any wire or cable or by using any other device or arrangement to secretly overhear, intercept or record such communication To knowingly possess any record of any communication or spoken word or to replay or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial to any other person

Sec 3 not covered by this prohibition Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition. Section 2 Penalty Section 3 A peace officer is authorized upon written order of the Court to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful by the Act in cases involving the crimes of: TEPP MRCI SCIK VO

Treason Espionage Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war Piracy Mutiny in the high seas Rebellion Conspiracy & proposal to commit rebellion Inciting to rebellion Sedition Conspiracy to commit sedition Inciting to sedition Kidnapping as defined by the RPC Violations of CA No. 616 punishing espionage Other offenses against national security

PROVIDED that such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing that: a. There are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated has been committed or is about to be committed (Only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition have actually been or are being committed) b. There are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes c. There are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence

The order shall specify: a) Identity of the person or persons whose communications are to be overheard, intercepted or recorded (telegraphic line, telephone numbers and location involved) b) Identity of the peace officer authorized c) Offense or offenses committed or sought to be prevented d) The period of the authorization (shall not exceed 60 days from date of issuance unless extended or renewed) Section 4 Inadmissibility of evidence obtained or secured by any person in violation of this Act in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence *to be+ inviolable is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husbands infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order *from a+ court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Zulueta v CA) Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200. (Salcedo-Ortanez v CA) The law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications. Since the exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape recording is not prohibited. (Navarro v CA) Sec 7, Human Security Act of 2007: Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications The provisions of RA 4200 to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the CA, listen to, intercept and record, w/ the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or w/ the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. Provided, that surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patient, journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized. Exclusionary Rule: Any evidence obtained in violation of this section cannot be used in any judicial proceeding as the fruit of a poisonous tree. Two-part test to determine reasonableness of persons expectation 1. That a person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and

2. That the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective). Private employees may have a reasonable expectation of privacy against intrusions by police, which equally applies to a government workplace. *i+ndividuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights merely because they work for the government instead of a private employer. (OConnor v Ortega cited in Pollo v David) A probable cause requirement for searches of the type at issue here would impose intolerable burdens on public employers. The delay in correcting the employee misconduct caused by the need for probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion will be translated into tangible and often irreparable damage to the agencys work, and ultimately to the public interest. Public employer intrusions on the constitutionally protected privacy interests of government employees for noninvestigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for investigations of workrelated misconduct, should be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances. Under this reasonableness standard, both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable: 1. One must consider whether theaction was justified at its inception, 2. One must determine whether the search as actually conducted was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. Balancing Test: government interests are weighed against the employees reasonable expectation of privacy. This reasonableness test implicates neither probable cause nor the warrant requirement, which are related to law enforcement. Ople v Torres: The factual circumstances of the case determine the reasonableness of the expectation. 1. Whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and 2. Whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable Trillanes v Cabuay : If the letters are marked confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers, the detention officials should not read the letters but only open the envelopes for inspection in the presence of the detainees. The right to privacy of those detained is subject to Section 4 of RA 7438, as well as to the limitations inherent in lawful detention or imprisonment. By the very fact of their detention, pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners have a diminished expectation of privacy rights. Pre-trial detainees do not forfeit their constitutional rights upon confinement. However, the fact that the detainees are confined makes their rights more limited than those of the public. RA 7438, which specifies the rights of detainees and the duties of detention officers, expressly recognizes the power of the detention officer to adopt and implement reasonable measures to secure the safety of the detainee and prevent his escape.

THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. SECTION 4: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND RIGHT TO PEACABLY ASSEMBLE No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. BASIS: Our society is a democratic society wherein the question on who will rule is ultimately based on public opinion. However, this is impossible unless everyone is allowed to speak out their mind and compete in the free market place of ideas. Freedom of speech/expression is NOT an absolute right. It is subject to the police power of the state which has the duty to protect (P M H O S G) public peace, morals, health, order, safety and general welfare. SCOPE:

Freedom of speech Freedom of expression Freedom of the press Right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances

1) Freedom from censorship or prior restraint PRIOR RESTRAINT means official government restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. Content-based - the subject of the speech or utterance is sought to be regulated. Any contentbased regulation must show that the government has a compelling or overriding interest in the subject of the regulation. (subject to strict scrutiny; bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured against the clear and present danger rule) Content-neutral - regulates only the incident of speech, such as the time, place and manner. Only a substantial government interest is required for its validity. (subject to intermediate review) Intermediate Approach: A governmental regulation is sufficiently justified if it:

is within the constitutional power of the Government,

furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incident restriction on alleged [freedom of speech & expression] is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.

A content-neutral restriction need only show an important government interest, as long as it leaves open alternative channels of communication. 2) Freedom from subsequent punishment SUBSESQUENT PUNISHMENT means official government acts that punish the press or other forms of expression after the fact of actual publication or dissemination * Uttering protected speech makes the speaker not only immune from punishment for his words after they have been uttered, but also protects him against prior restraints or regulations that censor his words before they are uttered. * Not all speech is constitutionally protected. Speech that incites lawless conduct, so-called fighting words (words that provoke physical retaliation), libelous or defamatory speech, and obscenity can legitimately be prohibited or punished by the government. OBrien Test A Government regulation is sufficiently justified [1] if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; [2] if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; [3] if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and [4] if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms of speech, expression and press is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. Under this test, even if a law furthers an important or substantial governmental interest, it should be invalidated if such governmental interest is "not unrelated to the suppression of free expression." Moreover, even if the purpose is unrelated to the suppression of free speech, the law should nevertheless be invalidated if the restriction on freedom of expression is greater than is necessary to achieve the governmental purpose in question. Facial Challenges (J. Mendoza concurring opinion in Estrada v Sandiganbayan)

A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible chilling effect upon protected speech. The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred

and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application only to free speech cases. They are inapt for testing the validity of penal statutes.

Hecklers Veto In First Amendment law, a heckler's veto is the suppression of speech by the government, because of [the possibility of] a violent reaction by hecklers. It is the government that vetoes the speech, because of the reaction of the heckler. Under the First Amendment, this kind of heckler's veto is unconstitutional. Privileged Communication Requisites: Kinds: a. Absolute Privileged Communication Art VI, Sec 11, 2nd sentence: Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith. b. Qualified Privileged Communication Qualifiedly privileged communications containing defamatory imputations are not actionable unless found to have been made without good intention or justifiable motive. To this genre belong "private communications" and "fair and true report without any comments or remarks."

Art 354, RPC: Requirement for publicity

Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases: 1) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and, 2) A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

Doctrine of Fair Comment (Borjal v CA)

The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed, malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not

necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. Tests for valid government interference to freedom of expression 1. Clean and Present Danger Rule: the evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be "extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high" before the utterance can be punished. The danger to be guarded against is the "substantive evil" sought to be prevented 2. Dangerous Tendency Rule: if the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent, then such words are punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms. Nor is it necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent. 3. Balancing of Interest Rule State Regulation of Mass Media 1. A government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the government, if it furthers an important or substantial government interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. (ABS-CBN v COMELEC) 2. Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendant's right to due process as well as to the fair and orderly administration of justice and considering further that the freedom of the press and the right of the people to information may be served and satisfied by less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means, live radio and television coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed. Video footages of court hearings for news purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots of the courtroom, the judicial officers, the parties and their counsel taken prior to the commencement of official proceedings. No video shots or photographs shall be permitted during the trial proper. (Re: Live TV & Radio Coverage of the Hearing of Pres. Aquino Libel Case) 3. Request Radio-TV Coverage Commercial Speech