FRANCISCO CHAVEZ, vs. RAUL M. GONZALES I.

THE FACTS As a consequence of the public release of copies of the Hello Garci compact disc audiotapes involving a wiretapped mobile phone conversation between then-President Gloria Arroyo and Comelec Commissioner irgilio Garcillano! respondent "#$ %ecretary Gon&ales warned reporters that those who had copies of the C" and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could be held liable under the Anti-'iretapping Act( He also stated that persons possessing or airing said tapes were committing a continuing offense! sub)ect to arrest by anybody( *inally! he stated that he had ordered the +ational ,ureau of -nvestigation to go after media organi&ations found to have caused the spread, the playing and the printing of the contents of a tape( .eanwhile! respondent +/C warned in a press release all radio stations and / networ0 owners1operators that the conditions of the authori&ation and permits issued to them by government li0e the Provisional Authority and1or Certificate of Authority e2plicitly provides that they shall not use their stations for the broadcasting or telecasting of false information or willful misrepresentation( /he +/C stated that the continuous airing or broadcast of the Hello Garci taped conversations by radio and / stations is a continuing violation of the Anti'iretapping 3aw and the conditions of the Provisional Authority and1or Certificate of Authority( -t warned that their broadcast1airing of such false information and1or willful misrepresentation shall be a )ust cause for the suspension! revocation and1or cancellation of the licenses or authori&ations issued to the said media establishments( %ubsequently! a dialogue was held between the +/C and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas 45,P6 which resulted in the issuance of a $oint Press %tatement which stated! among others! that the supposed wiretapped tapes should be treated with sensitivity and handled responsibly( Petitioner Chave& filed a petition under 7ule 89 against respondents %ecretary Gon&ales and the +/C directly with the %upreme Court( II. THE ISSUES

press statement 4as concerned% /ike4ise, it voted 10- !C" Puno, #oined $y ""% &uisum$ing, 'nares-(antiago, (andoval-)utierre*, Carpio, +ustria-,artine*, Carpio ,orales, +*cuna, -eyes and 1elasco in the ma#ority, as against ""% Corona, Chico-.a*ario, .achura, /eonardo-0e Castro and Tinga in the minority2 in granting the same insofar as .TC3s press statement 4as concerned%5 1. NO, a purported violation of law such as the Anti-Wiretapping Law will NOT justify straitjac eting the e!ercise of freedo" of speech and of the press. A governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on content is given the str ctest scr!t n", with the #overn$ent %av n# t%e b!rden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality by the c&ear and 'resent dan#er r!&e( /his rule applies equally to a&& 0inds of media! nc&!d n# broadcast $ed a( 7espondents! who have the burden to show that these acts do not abridge freedom of speech and of the press! failed to hurdle the clear and present danger test( =/>he #reat ev & which government wants to prevent is the airing of a tape recording in alleged violation of the anti-wiretapping law( /he records of the case at bar however are confused and confusing! and respondents? evidence falls short of satisfying the clear and present danger test( F rst&"! the various statements of the Press %ecretary obfuscate the identity of the voices in the tape recording( Second&"! the integrity of the taped conversation is also suspect( /he Press %ecretary showed to the public two versions! one supposed to be a complete version and the other! an altered version( T% rd&"! the evidence of the respondents on the who?s and the how?s of the wiretapping act is ambivalent! especially considering the tape?s different versions( /he identity of the wire-tappers! the manner of its commission and other related and relevant proofs are some of the invisibles of this case( Fo!rt%&"! given all these unsettled facets of the tape! it is even arguable whether its airing would violate the anti-wiretapping law( 'e rule that not ever" v o&at on o( a &a) ) && *!st (" stra t*ac+et n# t%e e,erc se o( (reedo$ o( s'eec% and o( t%e 'ress ( #ur &a)s are o( d ((erent + ndsand doubtless! some of them provide norms of conduct which=!> even if violated=!> have only an adverse effect on a person?s private comfort but does not endanger national security( /here are laws of great significance but their violation! b" tse&( and ) t%o!t $ore! cannot support suppression of free speech and free press( -n fine! v o&at on o( &a) s *!st a (actor ! a vital one to be sure! which should be weighed in ad)udging whether to restrain freedom of speech and of the press( /he tota& t" o( t%e n*!r o!s e((ects of the violation to private and public interest must be calibrated in light of the preferred status accorded by the Constitution and by related international covenants protecting freedom of speech and of the press( -n calling for a careful and calibrated measurement of the circumference of all these factors to determine compliance with the clear and present danger test! t%e Co!rt s%o!&d not be $ s nter'reted as deva&! n# v o&at ons o( &a)( ,y all means! violations of law should be vigorously prosecuted by the %tate for they breed their own evil consequence( ,ut to repeat! t%e need to 'revent t%e r v o&at on cannot 'er se tr!$' t%e e,erc se o( (ree s'eec% and (ree 'ress, a 're(erred r #%t )%ose breac% can &ead to #reater ev &s. *or this failure of the respondents alone to offer proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test! the Court has no option but to uphold the e2ercise of free speech and free press( /here is no showing that the

:( 'ill a purported violation of law such as the Anti-'iretapping 3aw )ustify strait)ac0eting the e2ercise of freedom of speech and of the press; <( "id the mere press statements of respondents "#$ %ecretary and the +/C constitute a form of content-based prior restraint that has transgressed the Constitution; III. THE RULING [The Court voted 10- !C" Puno, #oined $y ""% &uisum$ing, 'nares-(antiago, (andoval-)utierre*, Carpio, +ustria-,artine*, Carpio ,orales, +*cuna, -eyes and Tinga in the ma#ority, as against ""% Corona, Chico-.a*ario, .achura, /eonardo-0e Castro and 1elasco in the minority2 in granting the petition insofar as respondent (ecretary )on*ale*3s

feared violation of the anti-wiretapping law clearly endangers the nat ona& sec!r t" o( t%e State( #. $%&, the "ere press state"ents of respondents 'O( &ecretary and the NT) constituted a for" of content-*ased prior restraint that has transgressed the )onstitution. -I.t s not dec s ve t%at t%e 'ress state$ents $ade b" res'ondents )ere not red!ced n or (o&&o)ed !' ) t% (or$a& orders or c rc!&ars. It s s!(( c ent t%at t%e 'ress state$ents )ere $ade b" res'ondents )% &e n t%e e,erc se o( t%e r o(( c a& (!nct ons ( @ndoubtedly! respondent Gon&ales made his statements as %ecretary of $ustice! while the +/C issued its statement as the regulatory body of media( An" act done, s!c% as a s'eec% !ttered, (or and on be%a&( o( t%e #overn$ent n an o(( c a& ca'ac t" s covered b" t%e r!&e on 'r or restra nt. T%e conce't o( an /act0 does not & $ t tse&( to acts a&read" converted to a (or$a& order or o(( c a& c rc!&ar. Ot%er) se, t%e non (or$a& 1at on o( an act nto an o(( c a& order or c rc!&ar ) && res!&t n t%e eas" c rc!$vent on o( t%e 'ro% b t on on 'r or restra nt. /he press statements at bar are acts that should be struc0 down as they constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints on the right to free speech and press( Os$ena v. Co$e&ec 2Marc% 34, 45567 Facts8 -Amilio #smena and other petitioners are candidates in the +ational Alections( -7(A( +o( 88B8! the Alectoral 7eforms 3aw of :CDE! prohibits mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes! e2cept to the Commission on Alections( -/hey contend that events after the ruling in .ational Press Clu$ v% Commission on 6lections have called into question the validity of the very premises of that decision( -.PC v% C7,6/6C upheld the validity of 7(A( +o( 88B8 against claims that it abridged freedom of speech and of the press( -n urging a ree2amination of that ruling! petitioners claim that e2perience in the last five years since the decision in that case has shown the undesirable effects of the law because the ban on political advertising has not only failed to level the playing field! but actually wor0ed to the grave disadvantage of the poor candidate=s> by depriving them of a medium which they can afford to pay for while their more affluent rivals can always resort to other means of reaching voters li0e airplanes! boats! rallies! parades! and handbills( -However! no empirical data were presented by the petitioners to bac0 up their claim( /hey instead they ma0e arguments from which it is clear that their disagreement is with the opinion of the Court on the constitutionality of 7(A( +o( 88B8 and that what they see0 is a reargument on the same issue already decided in that case( Iss!e8 '#+ upholding the validity of 7A 88B8 actually wor0ed in favor of richer candidates He&d8 Petition "-%.-%%A"

Rat o8 -t is incorrect to claim that the purpose of 7A 88B8 is equality of the candidates when what its provisions really spea0 of is equality in opportunity( /he main purpose of the 7A is regulatory( Any restriction on speech is only incidental! and it is no more than is necessary to achieve its purpose of promoting equality of opportunity in the use of mass media for political advertising( /he restriction on speech! as pointed out in .PC! is limited both as to time and as to scope( Assuming that rich candidates can spend for parades! rallies! motorcades! airplanes and the li0e in order to campaign while poor candidates can only afford political ads! the gap between the two will not necessarily be reduced by allowing unlimited mass media advertising because rich candidates can spend for other propaganda in addition to mass media advertising( .oreover! it is not true that F::4b6 has abolished the playing field( 'hat it has done! as already stated! is merely to regulate its use through C#.A3AC-sponsored advertising in place of advertisements paid for by candidates or donated by their supporters( A9IONG v. COMELEC G.R. No. 4:35;<, Marc% 34, 455= FACTS8 #n $anuary :G! :CC<! the C#.A3AC promulgated 7esolution +o( <GBE pursuant to its powers granted by the Constitution! the #mnibus Alection Code! 7epublic Acts +os( 88B8 and E:88 and other election laws( %ection :94a6 of the resolution providesH %ec( :9( /a4ful 6lection Propaganda% IJ /he following are lawful election propagandaH 4a6 Pamphlets! leaflets! cards! decalsIJK Provided! /hat decals and stic0ers may be posted only in any of the authori&ed posting areas provided in paragraph 4 f6 of %ection <: hereof( %ection <: 4f6 of the same resolution providesH %ec( <:4f6( Prohibited forms of election propaganda( -t is unlawfulHIJK 4f6 /o draw! paint! inscribe! post! display or publicly e2hibit any election propaganda in any place! whether public or private! mobile or stationary! e2cept in the C#.A3AC common posted areas and1or billboardsIJK Petitioner ,lo @mpar Adiong! a senatorial candidate in the .ay ::! :CC< elections assails the C#.A3AC?s 7esolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and stic0ers in mobile places li0e cars and other moving vehicles( According to him such prohibition is violative of %ection D< of the #mnibus Alection Code and %ection ::4a6 of 7epublic Act +o( 88B8( ISSUE8 'hether or not the C#.A3AC may prohibit the posting of decals and stic0ers on mobile places! public or private! and limit their location or publication to the authori&ed posting areas that it fi2es( HEL98 /he petition is hereby G7A+/A"( /he portion of %ection :9 4 a6 of 7esolution +o( <GBE of the C#.A3AC providing that decals and stic0ers may be posted only in any of the

authori&ed posting areas provided in paragraph 4 f6 of %ection <: hereof is "AC3A7A" +@33 and #-"( /he C#.A3AC?s prohibition on posting of decals and stic0ers on mobile places whether public or private e2cept in designated areas provided for by the C#.A3AC itself is null and void on constitutional grounds( /he prohibition unduly infringes on the citi&en?s fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the Constitution 4%ec( B! Article ---6( %ignificantly! the freedom of e2pression curtailed by the questioned prohibition is not so much that of the candidate or the political party( /he regulation stri0es at the freedom of an individual to e2press his preference and! by displaying it on his car! to convince others to agree with him( Also! the questioned prohibition premised on the statute 47A 88B86 and as couched in the resolution is void for overbreadth( /he restriction as to where the decals and stic0ers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citi&en?s private property! which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle 4/he provisions allowing regulation are so loosely worded that they include the posting of decals or stic0ers in the privacy of one?s living room or bedroom(6 -n consequence of this prohibition! another cardinal rule prescribed by the Constitution would be violated( %ection :! Article --- of the ,ill of 7ights provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law( 4/he right to property may be sub)ect to a greater degree of regulation but when this right is )oined by a liberty interest! the burden of )ustification on the part of the Government must be e2ceptionally convincing and irrefutable( /he burden is not met in this case(6 Additionally! the constitutional ob)ective to give a rich candidate and a poor candidate equal opportunity to inform the electorate as regards their candidacies! mandated by Article --! %ection <8 and Article L---! section : in relation to Article -L 4c6 %ection B of the Constitution! is not impaired by posting decals and stic0ers on cars and other private vehicles( -t is to be reiterated that the posting of decals and stic0ers on cars! calesas! tricycles! pedicabs and other moving vehicles needs the consent of the owner of the vehicle( Hence! the preference of the citi&en becomes crucial in this 0ind of election propaganda not the financial resources of the candidate( -n sum! the prohibition on posting of decals and stic0ers on mobile places whether public or private e2cept in the authori&ed areas designated by the C#.A3AC becomes censorship which cannot be )ustified by the Constitution( NATIONAL >RESS CLU? VS. COMELEC Facts8 Petitioners in these cases consist of representatives of the mass media which are prevented from selling or donating space and time for political advertisementsM two 4<6 individuals who are candidates for office 4one for national and the other for provincial office6 in the coming .ay :CC< electionsM and ta2payers and voters who claim that their right to be informed of election -ssue and of credentials of the candidates is being curtailed( -t is principally argued by petitioners that %ection :: 4b6 of 7epublic Act +o( 88B8: invades and violates the constitutional guarantees comprising freedom of e2pression( Petitioners maintain that the prohibition imposed by %ection :: 4b6 amounts to censorship! because it selects and singles out for suppression and repression with criminal sanctions! only publications of a

particular content! namely! media-based election or political propaganda during the election period of :CC<( -t is asserted that the prohibition is in derogation of mediaNs role! function and duty to provide adequate channels of public information and public opinion relevant to election -ssue( *urther! petitioners contend that %ection :: 4b6 abridges the freedom of speech of candidates! and that the suppression of media-based campaign or political propaganda e2cept those appearing in the Comelec space of the newspapers and on Comelec time of radio and television broadcasts! would bring about a substantial reduction in the quantity or volume of information concerning candidates and -ssue in the election thereby curtailing and limiting the right of voters to information and opinion( Iss!e8 'hether or +ot %ection :: 4b6 of 7epublic Act +o( 88B8 is constitutional( He&d8 Oes( -t seems a modest proposition that the provision of the ,ill of 7ights which enshrines freedom of speech! freedom of e2pression and freedom of the press has to be ta0en in con)unction with Article -L 4C6 4B6 which may be seen to be a special provision applicable during a specific limited period P i(e(! Qduring the election period(Q -n our own society! equality of opportunity to proffer oneself for public office! without regard to the level of financial resources that one may have at oneNs disposal! is clearly an important value( #ne of the basic state policies given constitutional ran0 by Article --! %ection <8 of the Constitution is the egalitarian demand that Qthe %tate shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law(Q /he essential question is whether or not the assailed legislative or administrative provisions constitute a permissible e2ercise of the power of supervision or regulation of the operations of communication and information enterprises during an election period! or whether such act has gone beyond permissible supervision or regulation of media operations so as to constitute unconstitutional repression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press( /he Court considers that %ection :: 4b6 has not gone outside the permissible bounds of supervision or regulation of media operations during election periods( %ection :: 4b6 is limited in the duration of its applicability and enforceability( ,y virtue of the operation of Article -L 4C6 4B6 of the Constitution! %ection :: 4b6 is limited in its applicability in time toelection periods( %ection :: 4b6 does not purport in any way to restrict the reporting by newspapers or radio or television stations of news or news-worthy events relating to candidates! their qualifications! political parties and programs of government( .oreover! %ection :: 4b6 does not reach commentaries and e2pressions of belief or opinion by reporters or broadcasters or editors or commentators or columnists in respect of candidates! their qualifications! and programs and so forth! so long at least as such comments! opinions and beliefs are not in fact advertisements for particular candidates covertly paid for( -n sum! %ection :: 4b6 is not to be read as reaching any report or commentary other coverage that! in responsible media! is not paid for by candidates for political office( %ection :: 4b6 as designed to cover only paid political advertisements of particular candidates( /he limiting impact of %ection :: 4b6 upon the right to free speech of the candidates themselves is not unduly repressive or unreasonable(

SANI9A9 vs. COMELEC PA,3-/# ( %A+-"A" - petitionerM newspaper columnist of the Q# A7 -A'Q for the ,AG@-# .-"3A+" C#@7-A7! a wee0ly newspaper circulated in the City of ,aguio and the Cordilleras C#.A3AC - respondentM through its %olicitor- General /ype of petition filedH PA/-/-#+ *#7 CA7/-#7A7ISSUE8 'hether %ection :C of C#.A3AC 7esolution +o( <:8E is constitutional or not( FACTS8 C#.A3AC 7esolution +o( <:8E was promulgated due to the enacted 7A +o( 8E88 4An Act Providing for an #rganic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous 7egion6 last #ctober <G! :CDC! which paved for a call of a plebiscite for its ratification 4original schedule was reset from "ecember <E! :CDC to $anuary GR! :CCR( A&&e#at ons o( San dad8 :( @nconstitutional as it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of e2pression and of the press <( Constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of the press because of its penal provisions in case of violation Res'onses o( COMELEC

G( Affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to e2pression may be e2ercised( S@S vs Co$e&ec *actsH Petitioner %'% and 5PC states that it wishes to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the elections and release to the media the results of such survey as well as publish them directly( Petitioners argue that the restriction on the publication of election survey results constitutes a prior restraint on the e2ercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to )ustify such restraint( -ssueH Are the Comelec 7esolutions prohibiting the holding of pre-polls and e2it polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media! valid and constitutional; 7ulingH +o( /he Court held that %ection 496B is invalid because 4:6 it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of e2pression! 4<6 it is a direct and total suppression of a category of e2pression even though such suppression is only for a limited period! and 4G6 the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than suppression of freedom of e2pression( -t has been held that Q=mere> legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation directed at other personal activities! but be insufficient to )ustify such as diminishes the e2ercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions( Ne)so!nds ?roadcast n# Net)or+, Inc. v. 9"

-+ot violative of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of e2pression and of the press but only a valid implementation of the power of the Comelec to supervise and regulate media during election or plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article -L-C! %ection B of the :CDE Constitution and %ection :: of 7A 88B8 -"oes +ot absolutely bar petitioner from e2pressing his views and1or from campaigning for or against the #rganic Act( He may still e2press his views or campaign for or against the act through the Comelec space and airtime 4maga&ine1periodical in the province6 HEL98 Petition is G7A+/A"- %ection :C of C#.A3AC 7esolution +o( <:8E is declared null and void and unconstitutional ( /7# made permanent due to the following reasonsH :( -t has no statutory basis <( *orm of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitionerNs freedom of e2pression for no )ustifiable reason

Facts ,ombo 7adyo operates several radio stations under the A. and *. band throughout the Philippines( /hese stations are operated by corporations organi&ed and incorporated by ,ombo 7adyo! one of which is petitioner +ewsounds ,roadcasting +etwor0! -nc( 4+ewsounds6( -n :CC8! +ewsounds commenced relocation of its broadcasting stations on a property located in Cauayan City in -sabela( /he property is owned by C,% "evelopment Corporation 4C"C6! an affiliate corporation under the ,ombo 7adyo networ0 which holds title over the properties( #n <D $une :CC8! C"C was issued by the then municipal government of Cauayan a building a mayor?s permit authori&ing the construction of a commercial establishment on the property( However! on :9 $anuary <RR<! petitioners were denied of their application for the renewal of the mayor?s permit( /he city government however denied their application( Petitioners were again denied of their renewal of mayor?s permit for the years <RRG and <RRB(

#n :E *ebruary <RRB! the legal officers of Cauayan city ! arrived at the property of petitioners and closed the radio stations( Petitioners proceeded to file a petition with the Commission on Alections 4C#.A3AC6 see0ing enforcement of the #mnibus Alection Code! which prohibited the closure of radio stations during the then-pendency of the election period( #n <G .arch <RRB! the C#.A3AC issued an order directing the parties to maintain the status prevailing before :E *ebruary <RRB! thus allowing the operation of the radio stations! and petitioners proceeded to operate the stations the following day( 'ithin hours! respondent .ayor Ceasar "y issued a Closure #rder dated <B .arch <RRB! stating therein that since petitioners did not have the requisite permits before :E *ebruary <RRB! the status quo meant that the stations were not in fact allowed to operate( /hrough the intervention of the C#.A3AC! petitioners were able to resume operation of the stations( #n :8 .ay <RRB! the C#.A3AC directed the maintenance of the status quo until C $une <RRB! the date of the end of the election period( Petitioners were thus able to continue operations until :R $une <RRB! the day when respondents yet again closed the radio stations( /his closure proved to be more permanent( #n :9 April <RRB! petitioners filed a petition for mandamus! with the 7/C of Cauayan City( /he petition was accompanied by an application for the issuance of temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary prohibitory in)unction! both provisional reliefs being denied by the 7/C( "ue to the aforementioned closure of the radio stations on :R $une <RRB! petitioners filed with the 7/C a .otion for the -ssuance of a 'rit of Preliminary .andatory -n)unction dated :9 $une <RRB! praying that said writ be issued to allow petitioners to resume operations of the radio stations( +o hearing would be conducted on the motion! nor would it be formally ruled on by the 7/C( #n :B %eptember <RRB! the 7/C rendered a "ecision denying the petition for mandamus( /he "ecision made no reference to the application for a writ of preliminary mandatory in)unction( Petitioners filed an .7! citing the trial court?s failure to hear and act on the motion for preliminary mandatory in)unction as a violation of the right to due process( 7/C denied .7( Petitioners initiated two separate actions with the Court of Appeals following the rulings of the 7/C( #n :G "ecember <RRB! they filed a Petition for Certiorari under 7ule 89! imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the 7/C for denying their application for preliminary mandatory in)unction( #n the same day! petitioners also filed a +otice of Appeal with the 7/C! this time in connection with the denial of their petition for mandamus( Petitioners maintain that the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion when it impliedly denied their motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory in)unction without any hearing(

Iss!e He&d

'hether the lower courts erred in denying petitioners? application for preliminary mandatory in)unction Oes! petition is granted( %ection 9 of 7ule 9D prescribes a mandatory hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be en)oined if preliminary in)unction should be granted( -t imposes no similar requirement if such provisional relief were to be denied( 'e in fact agree with the Court of Appeals that Qif on the face of the pleadings! the applicant for preliminary in)unction is not entitled thereto! courts may outrightly deny the motion without conducting a hearing for the purpose(Q /he Court is disinclined to impose a mandatory hearing requirement on applications for in)unction even if on its face! in)unctive relief is palpably without merit or impossible to grant( 'e do not wish though to dwell on this point! as there is an even more fundamental point to consider( Aven as we decline to agree to a general that the denial of an application for in)unction requires a prior hearing! we believe in this case that petitioners deserved not only a hearing on their motion! but the very writ itself( -t was evident from the petition that the threat against petitioners was not wildly imagined! or speculative in any way( Attached to the petition itself was the Closure #rder issued by respondents against petitioners( /here was no better evidence to substantiate the claim that petitioners faced the live threat of their closure( 'ith respect to the Qimplied denialQ of the writ of preliminary mandatory in)unction! the grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court is even more glaring( At that point! petitioners? radio stations were not merely under threat of closure! they were already actually closed( Petitioners? constitutional rights 4freedom of speech6 were not merely under threat of infringement! they were already definitely infringed( /he trial court cannot deny provisional relief to the party alleging a prima facie case alleging government infringement on the right to free e2pression without hearing from the infringer the cause why its actions should be sustained provisionally( -t may be pointed out that the application for preliminary mandatory in)unction after petitioners? radio stations had been closed was mooted by the 7/C decision denying the petition for mandamus( -deally! the 7/C should have acted on the motion as0ing for the issuance of the writ before rendering its decision( Given the circumstances! petitioners were entitled to immediate relief after they filed their motion in $une <RRB! some two and a half months before the 7/C decision was promulgated on :B %eptember <RRB( -t is not immediately clear why the motion! which had been set for hearing on < $uly <RRB! had not been heard by the 7/C! so we have no basis for imputing bad faith on the part of the trial court in purposely delaying the hearing to render it moot with the forthcoming rendition of the decision( +onetheless! given the gravity of the constitutional question involved! and the fact that the radio stations had already been actually closed! a prudent )udge would have strived to hear the motion and act on it accordingly independent of the ultimate decision(

>EO>LE v. >EREZ 245=37 -saac Pere&! the municipal secretary of Pilar! %orsogon! and *ortunato 3odovice! a citi&en of that municipality! happening to meet on the morning of April :! :C<<! in the presidencia of Pilar! they became engaged in a discussion regarding the administration of Governor-General 'ood! which resulted in Pere& shouting a number of timesH Q/he *ilipinos! li0e myself! must use $olos for cutting off 'oodNs head for having recommended a bad thing for the *ilipinos! for he has 0illed our independence(Q Charged in the Court of *irst -nstance of %orsogon with a violation of article <98 of the Penal Code having to do with contempt of ministers of the Crown or other persons in authority! and convicted thereof! Pere& has appealed the case to this court( /he question presented for decision is! 'hat crime! if any! did the accused commit; A logical point of departure is the information presented in this case( -t reads in translation as followsH Q/hat on or about April :! :C<<! in the municipality of Pilar! Province of %orsogon! Philippine -slands the said accused! -saac Pere&! while holding a discussion with several persons on political matters! did criminally! unlawfully and wilfully and with 0nowledge that Honorable 3eonard 'ood was the Governor-General of the Philippine -slands and in the discharge of his functions as such authority! insult by word! without his presence! said Governor-General! uttering in a loud voice and in the presence of many persons! and in a public place! the following phrasesH NAsin an mangna *ilipinos na capare)o co! maninigong gumamit nin sundang asin haleon an payo no 'ood huli can saiyang recomendacion sa pag raot can *ilipinas!N which in Anglish is as followsH Nand the *ilipinos! li0e myself! must use $olos for cutting off 'oodNs head for having recommended a bad thing for the Philippines(N QContrary to article <98 of the Penal Code(Q At the trial of the case! two witnesses were called on behalf of the prosecution and three witnesses on behalf of the defense( According to the first witness for the Government! $uan 3umbao! the municipal president of Pilar! what Pere& said on the occasion in question was thisH Q/he *ilipinos! li0e myself! should get a $olo and cut off the head of Governor-General 'ood! because he has recommended a bad administration in these -slands and has not made a good recommendationM on the contrary! he has assassinated the independence of the Philippines and for this reason! we have not obtained independence and the head of that Governor-General must be cut off(Q Higinio $( Angustia! )ustice of the peace of Pilar! in a written statement! and Gregorio Cresencio! another witness for the prosecution! corroborated the testimony of the first witness( Cresencio understood that Pere& invited the *ilipinos including himself to get their $olos and cut off the head of Governor-General 'ood and throw it into the sea(

/he witnesses for the defense did not deny that an altercation too0 place on the morning of April :! :C<<! in which the accused participated( ,ut they endeavored to e2plain that the discussion was between Pere& and one %evero .adrid! the latter maintaining that the fault was due to the +acionalista Party! while Pere& argued that the Governor-General was to blame( /he accused testified that the discussion was held in a peaceful manner! and that what he wished to say was that the Governor-General should be removed and substitued by another( #n the witness stand! he stated that his words were the followingH Q'e are but blaming the +acionalista Party which is in power but do not ta0e into account that above the representatives there is Governor-General 'ood who controls everything! and - told him that the day on which the "emocratas may 0ill that Governor-General! then we! the *ilipinos! will install the government we li0e whether you "emocratas want to pay or not to pay ta2es(Q /he trial $udge found as a fact! and we thin0 with abundant reason! that it! had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused made use of the language stated in the beginning of this decision and set out in the information( /he question of fact thus settled! the question of law recurs as to the crime of which the accused should be convicted( -t should be recalled that the fiscal named! in the information! article <98 of the Penal Code as having been infringed and the trial $udge so found in his decision( /he first error assigned by counsel for the appellant is addressed to this conclusion of the lower court and is to the effect that article <98 of the Penal Code is no longer in force( -n the case of @nited %tates vs( Helbig 4=:C<R>! 7( G( +o( :BER9 4 6 the accused was charged with having uttered the following languageH Q/o hell with the President of the @nited %tates and his proclamationSQ .r( Helbig was prosecuted under article <98! and though the case was eventually sent bac0 to the court of origin of a new trial! the appellate court by ma)ority vote held as a question of law that article <98 is still in force( -n case of People vs( Perfecto 4=:C<G>! BG Phil(! DDE6! the accused was charged with having published an article reflecting on the Philippine %enate and its members in violation of article <98 of the Penal Code( -n this court! .r( Perfecto was acquitted by unanimous vote! with three members of the court holding that article <98 was abrogated completely by the change from %panish to American sovereignty over the Philippines! and with si2 members holding that the 3ibel 3aw had the effect of repealing so much of article <98 as relates to written defamation! abuse! or insult! and that under the information and the facts! the defendant was neither guilty of a violation of article <98 of the Penal Code nor of the 3ibel 3aw( -n the course of the main opinion in the Perfecto case! is found this significant sentenceH QAct +o( <C< of the Philippine Commission! the /reason and %edition 3aw! may also have affected article <98! but as to this point! it is not necessary to ma0e a pronouncement(Q -t may therefore be ta0en as settled doctrine! to which those of us who retain a contrary opinion must bow with as good grace as we can muster! that until otherwise

decided by higher authority! so much of article <98 of the Penal Code as does not relate to ministers of the Crown or to writings coming under the 3ibel 3aw! e2ists and must be enforced( /o which proposition! can properly be appended a corollary! namelyH %editious words! speeches! or libels! constitute a violation of Act( +o( <C<! the /reason and %edition 3aw! and to this e2tent! both the Penal Code and the 3ibel 3aw are modified(

feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and obedient to the laws( /he Governor-General is an e2ecutive official appointed by the President of the @nited %tates by and with the advice and consent of the %enate of the @nited %tates! and holds his office at the pleasure of the President( /he #rganic Act vests supreme e2ecutive power in the Governor-General to be e2ercised in accordance with the law( /he Governor-General is the representative of e2ecutive civil authority in the Philippines and of the sovereign power( A seditious attac0 on the Governor-General is an attac0 on the rights of the *ilipino people and on American sovereignty( 4Concepcion vs( Paredes =:C<:>! B< Phil(! 9CCM @( %( vs( "orr =:CRG>! < Phil(! GG<(6 %ection D of Act +o( <C< of the Philippine Commission! as amended by Act +o( :8C<! appears to have been placed on the statute boo0s e2actly to meet such a situation( /his section reads as followsH QAvery person who shall utter seditious words or speeches! or who shall write! publish or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the @nited %tates or against the Government of the Philippine -slands! or who shall print! write! publish! utter or ma0e any statement! or speech! or do any act which tends to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in e2ecuting his office or in performing his duty! or which tends to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes! or which suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or which tends to stir up the people against the lawful authorities! or which tends to disturb the peace of the community or the safety or order of the Government! or who shall 0nowingly conceal such evil practices from the constituted authorities! shall be punished by a fine not e2ceeding two thousand dollars @nited %tates currency or by imprisonment not e2ceeding two years! or both! in the discretion of the court(Q -n the words of the law! Pere& 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 Pere& and may be characteri&ed as penali&ed by section D of Act +o( <C< as amended( A )udgment and sentence convicting the accused of a violation of section D of Act +o( <C< as amended! is! in effect! responsive to! and based upon! the offense with which the defendant is charged( /he designation of the crime by the fiscal is not conclusive( /he crime of which the defendant stands charged is that described by the facts stated in the information( -n accordance with our settled rule! an accused may be found guilty and

Accepting the above statements relative to the continuance and status of article <98 of the Penal Code! it is our opinion that the law infringed in this instance is not this article but rather a portion of the /reason and %edition 3aw( -n other words! as will later appear! we thin0 that the words of the accused did not so much tend to defame! abuse! or insult! a person in authority! as they did to raise a disturbance in the community( -n criminal law! there are a variety of offenses which are not directed primarily against individuals! but rather against the e2istence of the %tate! the authority of the Government! or the general public peace( /he offenses created and defined in Act +o( <C< are distinctly of this character( Among them is sedition! which is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the %tate( -t is a revolt against legitimate authority( /hough the ultimate ob)ect of sedition is a violation of the public peace or at least such a course of measures as evidently engenders it! yet does not aim at direct and open violence against the laws! or the subversion of the Constitution( 4< ,ouvierNs 3aw "ictionary! CEBM @( %( vs( Abad =:CR<>! : Phil(! BGEM People vs( Cabrera =:C<<>! BG Phil(! 8B(6 -t is our course fundamentally true that the provisions of Act( +o( <C< 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 A2ecutive! the 3egislature! and the $udiciary! is within the range of liberty of speech! unless the intention and effect $e seditious% ,ut 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 e2istence of the %tate( 4--- 'hartonNs Criminal 3aw! pp( <:<E et seq(M @( %( vs( Apurado =:CRE>! E Phil(! B<<M People vs( Perfecto! supra(6 Here! the person maligned by the accused is the Chief A2ecutive of the Philippine -slands( His official position! li0e the Presidency of the @nited %tates and other high offices! under a democratic form of government instead of affording immunity from promiscuous comment! seems rather to invite abusive attac0s( ,ut in this instance! the attac0 on the Governor-General passes the furthest bounds of free speech and common decency( .ore than a figure of speech was intended( /here is a seditious tendency in the words used! which could easily produce disaffection among the people and a state of

convicted of a graver offense than that designated in the information! if such graver offense is included or described in the body of the information! and is afterwards )ustified by the proof presented during the trial( 4GuevaraNs Code of Criminal Procedure! p( CM "e $oyaNs Code of Criminal Procedure! p( C(6 /he penalty meted out by the trial court falls within the limits provided by the /reason and %edition 3aw! and will! we thin0! sufficiently punish the accused( /hat we have given more attention to this case than it deserves! may be possible( #ur course is )ustified when it is recalled that only last year! .r( Chief $ustice /aft of the @nited %tates %upreme Court! in spea0ing of an outrageous libel on the Governor of Porto 7ico! observedH QA reading of the two articles removes the slightest doubt that they go far beyond the Ne2uberant e2pressions of meridional speech!N to use the e2pression of this court in a similar case in Gandia vs( Pettingill 4<<< @( %(! B9<! B986( -ndeed they are so e2cessive and outrageous in their character that they suggest the query whether their superlative vilification has not overleapt itself and become unconsciously humorous(Q 4,al&ac vs( Porto 7ico =:C<<>! @( %(! <CD(6 'hile our own sense of humor is not entirely blunted! we nevertheless entertain the conviction that the courts should be the first to stamp out the members of insurrection( /he fugitive flame of disloyalty! lighted by an irresponsible individual! must be dealt with firmly before it endangers the general public peace( /he result is to agree with the trial $udge in his findings of the fact! and on these facts to convict the accused of a violation of section D of Act +o( <C< as amended( 'ith the modification thus indicated! )udgment is affirmed! it being understood that! in accordance with the sentence of the lower court! the defendant and appellant shall suffer < months and : dayNs imprisonment and pay the costs( %o ordered( LAGUNZA9 V. GONZALES *actsH %ometime in August :C8:! .anuel 3agun&ad! a newspaperman! began the production of a movie entitled Q/he .oises Padilla %toryQ under the name of his own business outfit! the Q..3 Productions(Q -t was based mainly on the copyrighted but unpublished boo0 of Atty( Arnesto 7odrigue&! $r(! entitled Q/he 3ong "ar0 +ight in +egrosQ subtitled Q/he .oises Padilla %tory!Q the rights to which 3agun&ad had purchased from Atty( 7odrigue& in the amount of P<!RRR(RR( /he boo0 narrates the events which culminated in the murder of .oises Padilla sometime between +ovember :: and +ovember :E! :C9:( Padilla was then a mayoralty candidate of the +acionalista Party 4then the minority party6 for the .unicipality of .agallon! +egros #ccidental! during the +ovember :C9: elections( Governor 7afael 3acson! a member of the 3iberal Party then in power and his men were tried and convicted for that murder in People vs( 3acson! et al( -n the boo0! .oises Padilla is portrayed as Qa martyr in contemporary political history(Q Although the emphasis of the movie was on the public life of .oises Padilla! there were portions which dealt with his private and family life including the portrayal in some scenes! of his mother! .aria %oto da( de Gon&ales! and of one QAuringQ as his girl friend( /he movie was scheduled for a premiere showing on :8 #ctober :C8:! or at the very latest! before the +ovember :C8: elections( #n G #ctober :C8:! 3agun&ad received

a telephone call from one .rs( +elly Amante! half-sister of .oises Padilla! ob)ecting to the filming of the movie and the Qe2ploitationQ of his life( %hown the early QrushesQ of the picture! .rs( Amante and her sister! .rs( Gavieres! ob)ected to many portions thereof notwithstanding 3agun&adNs e2planation that the movie had been supervised by Arnesto 7odrigue&! $r(! based on his boo0 Q/he 3ong "ar0 +ight in +egros(Q #n 9 #ctober :C8:! .rs( Amante! for and in behalf of her mother! demanded in writing for certain changes! corrections and deletions in the movie( 3agun&ad contends that he acceded to the demands because he had already invested heavily in the picture to the e2tent of mortgaging his properties! in addition to the fact that he had to meet the scheduled target date of the premiere showing( #n the same date! 9 #ctober :C8:! after some bargaining as to the amount to be paid! which was P9R!RRR(RR at first! then reduced to P<R!RRR(RR! 3agun&ad and %oto vda( de Gon&ales! represented by her daughters and Atty( Arnesto 7odrigue&! at the law office of $alandoni and $amir! e2ecuted a Q3icensing Agreement(Q 3agun&ad ta0es the position that he was pressured into signing the Agreement because of %oto vda( de Gon&alesN demand! through .rs( Amante! for payment for the Qe2ploitationQ of the life story of .oises Padilla! otherwise! she would Qcall a press conference declaring the whole picture as a fa0e! fraud and a hoa2 and would denounce the whole thing in the press! radio! television and that they were going to Court to stop the picture(Q #n :R #ctober :C8:! 3agun&ad paid %oto vda( de Gon&ales the amount of P9!RRR(RR but contends that he did so not pursuant to their Agreement but )ust to placate the latter( #n :B #ctober :C8:! the filming of the movie was completed( #n :8 #ctober :C8:! a premiere showing was held at the Hollywood /heatre! .anila! with the .oises Padilla %ociety as its sponsor( %ubsequently! the movie was shown in different theaters all over the country( ,ecause 3agun&ad refused to pay any additional amounts pursuant to the Agreement! on << "ecember :C8:! %oto vda( de Gon&ales instituted the suit against him praying for )udgment in her favor ordering 3agun&ad 4:6 to pay her the amount of P:9!RRR(RR! with legal interest from the filing of the ComplaintM 4<6 to render an accounting of the proceeds from the picture and to pay the corresponding <-:1<T royalty therefromM 4G6 to pay attorneyNs fees equivalent to <RT of the amounts claimedM and 4B6 to pay the costs( ,y way of counterclaim! 3agun&ad demanded that the 3icensing Agreement be declared null and void for being without any valid causeM that %oto vda( de Gon&ales be ordered to return to him the amount of P9!RRR(RRM and that he be paid P9R!RRR(RR by way of moral damages! and PE!9RR(RR as attorneyNs fees( #n GR $une :C8B! the trial Court rendered a "ecision in favor of %oto vda( de Gon&ales( #n appeal to the Court of Appeals! the latter Court affirmed the )udgment( 7econsideration having been denied by the Court! 3agun&ad filed the Petition for 7eview on Certiorari( -nitially! or on :8 $une :CER! the %upreme Court denied the Petition for lac0 of merit! but resolved subsequently to give it due course after 3agun&ad moved for reconsideration on the additional argument that the movie production was in e2ercise of the constitutional right of freedom of e2pression! and that the 3icensing Agreement is a form of restraint on the freedom of speech and of the press( -ssueH 'hether the 3icensing Agreement infringes on the constitutional right of freedom of speech and of the press! in that! as a citi&en and as a newspaperman! 3agun&ad had the right to e2press his thoughts in film on the public life of .oises Padilla without prior restraint( HeldH /he right of freedom of e2pression occupies a preferred position in the Qhierarchy of civil liberties(Q -t is not! however! without limitations( As held in Gon&ales vs( Commission on

Alections 4<E %C7A DG9! D9D =:C8C>6! Q*rom the language of the specific constitutional provision! it would appear that the right is not susceptible of any limitation( +o law may be passed abridging the freedom of speech and of the press( /he realities of life in a comple2 society preclude however! a literal interpretation( *reedom of e2pression is not an absolute( -t would be too much to insist that at all times and under all circumstances it should remain unfettered and unrestrained( /here are other societal values that press for recognition( /he prevailing doctrine is that the clear and present danger rule is such a limitation( Another criterion for permissible limitation on freedom of speech and of the press! which includes such vehicles of the mass media as radio! television and the movies! is the Qbalancing-of-interests test(Q /he principle Qrequires a court to ta0e conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of situation(Q Herein! the interests observable are the right to privacy asserted by %oto vda( de Gon&ales and the right of freedom of e2pression invo0ed by 3agun&ad( /a0ing into account the interplay of those interests! the C#urt holds that under the particular circumstances presented! and considering the obligations assumed in the 3icensing Agreement entered into by 3agun&ad! the validity of such agreement will have to be upheld particularly because the limits of freedom of e2pression are reached when e2pression touches upon matters of essentially private concern( /he court denied the petition for review(

A?SAC?N v. COMELEC *actsH /his is a Petition for Certiorari assailing Commission on Alections 4Comelec6 en banc 7esolution +o( CD-:B:C : dated April <:! :CCD( -n the said 7esolution! the poll body Q7A%#3 A" to approve the issuance of a restraining order to stop A,%-C,+ or any other groups! its agents or representatives from conducting such e2it survey and to authori&e the Honorable Chairman to issue the same(Q /he 7esolution was issued by the Comelec allegedly upon Qinformation from =a> reliable source that A,%-C,+ 43ope& Group6 has prepared a pro)ect! with P7 groups! to conduct radio-/ coverage of the elections and to ma0e =an> e2it survey of the vote during the elections for national officials particularly for President and ice President! results of which shall be =broadcast> immediately(Q /he electoral body believed that such pro)ect might conflict with the official Comelec count! as well as the unofficial quic0 count of the +ational .ovement for *ree Alections 4+amfrel6( -t also noted that it had not authori&ed or deputi&ed A,%-C,+ to underta0e the e2it survey( HeldH /he %upreme Court grants the petitionM the Comelec resolution is nullified( *reedom of e2pression a fundamental principle of a democratic government( /he freedom of e2pression is a fundamental principle of our democratic government( -t is a NpreferredN right and! therefore! stands on a higher level than substantive economic or other liberties( #ur Constitution clearly mandates that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press( At the very least! free speech and a free press consist of the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without prior restraint( /he freedom of e2pression is a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment! of attaining the truth! of securing participation by the people in social and political decision-ma0ing! and of maintaining the balance between stability and change( -t represents a profound commitment to the principle that debates on public issues should be uninhibited! robust! and wide open( :D -t means more than the right to approve e2isting political beliefs or economic arrangements! to lend support to official measures! or to ta0e refuge in the e2isting climate of opinion on any matter of public consequence( And paraphrasing the eminent $ustice #liver 'endell Holmes! we stress that the freedom encompasses the thought we hate! no less than the thought we agree with( *reedom of e2pressionM limited by valid e2ercise of police power( /he realities of life in a comple2 society! however! preclude an absolute e2ercise of the freedoms of speech and of the press( %uch freedoms could not remain unfettered and unrestrained at all times and under all circumstances( /hey are not immune to regulation by the %tate in the e2ercise of its police power( /heoretical tests in determining the validity of restrictions to freedom of e2pression( /here are two theoretical tests in determining the validity of restrictions to freedom of e2pression( /hese are the Nclear and present dangerN rule and the Ndangerous tendencyN rule( /he first! as interpreted in a number of cases! means that the evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be Ne2tremely serious and the degree of imminence e2tremely highN before the utterance can be punished( /he danger to be guarded against is the Nsubstantive evilN sought

to be prevented( /he Ndangerous tendencyN rule! on the other hand! may be epitomi&ed as followsH -f the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent! then such words are punishable( -t is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force! violence! or unlawfulness be advocated( -t is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms( +or is it necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force! violence! or unlawfulness( -t is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body see0s to prevent( %upreme Court adheres to the Qclear and present dangerQ test( @nquestionably! this Court adheres to the Qclear and present dangerQ test( -n setting the standard or test for the Qclear and present dangerQ doctrine! the Court echoed the words of $ustice HolmesH Q/he question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent( -t is a question of pro2imity and degree(Q -n borderline conflict between freedom of e2pression and state action to ensure clean and free elections! the Court leans in favor of freedom( Aven though the governmentNs purposes are legitimate and substantial! they cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties! when the end can be more narrowly achieved( /he freedoms of speech and of the press should all the more be upheld when what is sought to be curtailed is the dissemination of information meant to add meaning to the equally vital right of suffrage( 'hen faced with borderline situations in which the freedom of a candidate or a party to spea0 or the freedom of the electorate to 0now is invo0ed against actions allegedly made to assure clean and free elections! this Court shall lean in favor of freedom( *or in the ultimate analysis! the freedom of the citi&en and the %tateNs power to regulate should not be antagonistic( /here can be no free and honest elections if! in the efforts to maintain them! the freedom to spea0 and the right to 0now are unduly curtailed( A2it polls do not constitute clear and present danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of the electoral process( /he Comelec )ustifies its assailed 7esolution as having been issued pursuant to its constitutional mandate to ensure a free! orderly! honest! credible and peaceful election( -t contends that Qan e2it poll has the tendency to sow confusion considering the randomness of selecting interviewees! which further ma0e=s> the e2it poll highly unreliable( /he probability that the results of such e2it poll may not be in harmony with the official count made by the Comelec is ever present( -n other words! the e2it poll has a clear and present danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of the electoral process(Q %uch arguments are purely speculative and clearly untenable( *irst! by the very nature of a survey! the interviewees or participants are selected at random! so that the results will as much as possible be representative or reflective of the general sentiment or view of the community or group polled( %econd! the survey result is not meant to replace or be at par with the official Comelec count( -t consists merely of the opinion of the polling group as to who the electorate in general has probably voted for! based on the limited data gathered from polled individuals( *inally! not at sta0e here are the credibility and the integrity of the elections! which are e2ercises that are separate and independent from the e2it polls( -f at all! the outcome of one can only be indicative of the other(

GONZALEZ VS BALA@ BATIG?AB *AC/%H Petitioner was the producer of the movie 5apit sa Patalim which the ,oard of 7eview for .otion Pictures and /elevisions allowed on condition that certain deletions were made and that it was shown on adults only( /he petitioner brought an action! claiming violation of their freedom of e2pression( HA3"H .otion pictures are important both as a method for the communication of ideas and the e2pression of the artistic impulse( /he power of the ,oard is limited to the classification of films( *or freedom of e2pression is the rule and restrictions the e2ception( /he power to impose prior restraint is not to be presumedM rather the presumption is against its validity( Censorship is allowable only under the clearest proof of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public safety! public morals! public health or any other legitimate public interest( /he ,oard committed an abuse of discretion in sub)ecting petitioner to difficulty and travail before the movie was classified as Q*or adults onlyQ without deletion( However there is not enough votes to consider the abuse of discretion grave as it e2plained that there were reasons for its action because of the scenes showing women erotically dancing na0ed and 0issing and caressing each other li0e lesbians( VV. +otesH /he movie involved in this case was Q5apit sa PatalimQ which the censors wanted to cut in some part and to label Q*or AdultsQ( /he %C rules that movies are within the constitutional protection of freedom of e2pression! so that censorship is presumed to be valid as constituting prior restraint( /he only case whe the ,oard of Censors can order a deletion is when there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil against national security or public morals or other public interest( -n all other cases! the ,oard can only classify( ,ut a different standard must be followed in television because of the pervasive and intrusive influence of the medium on people who watch its programs without having to pay anything( #n the issue of obscenity! the %C held that se2 along is not necessarily obscenity! the test being whether! using contemporary community standards! the dominant appeal us to the prurient interest( 4.iller v( California6( /hus on this score! it found abuse of discretion of the part of the ,oard for sub)ecting the producer to difficulty and for entertaining a narrow view of obscenity! but it lac0ed the votes to rules that the abuse was grave( ACER >RO9UCTIONS VS. CA>ULONG Facts8 Petitioner .cAlroy an Australian film ma0er! and his movie production company! Ayer Productions! envisioned! sometime in :CDE! for commercial viewing and for Philippine and international release! the historic peaceful struggle of the *ilipinos at A"%A( /he proposed motion picture entitled Q/he *our "ay 7evolutionQ was endorsed by the ./7C, as and other government agencies consulted( 7amos also signified his approval of the intended film production( -t is designed to be viewed in a si2-hour mini-series television play! presented in a QdocudramaQ style! creating four fictional characters interwoven with real events! and utili&ing actual

documentary footage as bac0ground( "avid 'illiamson is AustraliaNs leading playwright and Professor .cCoy 4@niversity of +ew %outh 'ales6 is an American historian who has developed a script( Anrile declared that he will not approve the use! appropriation! reproduction and1or e2hibition of his name! or picture! or that of any member of his family in any cinema or television production! film or other medium for advertising or commercial e2ploitation( Petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of Anrile was deleted from the movie script! and petitioners proceeded to film the pro)ected motion picture( However! a complaint was filed by Anrile invo0ing his right to privacy( 7/C ordered for the desistance of the movie production and ma0ing of any reference to plaintiff or his family and from creating any fictitious character in lieu of plaintiff which nevertheless is based on! or bears substantial or mar0ed resemblance to Anrile( Hence the appeal( Iss!e8 'hether or +ot freedom of e2pression was violated( He&d8 Oes( *reedom of speech and of e2pression includes the freedom to film and produce motion pictures and e2hibit such motion pictures in theaters or to diffuse them through television( *urthermore the circumstance that the production of motion picture films is a commercial activity e2pected to yield monetary profit! is not a disqualification for availing of freedom of speech and of e2pression( /he pro)ected motion picture was as yet uncompleted and hence not e2hibited to any audience( +either private respondent nor the respondent trial $udge 0new what the completed film would precisely loo0 li0e( /here was! in other words! no Qclear and present dangerQ of any violation of any right to privacy( %ub)ect matter is one of public interest and concern( /he sub)ect thus relates to a highly critical stage in the history of the country( At all relevant times! during which the momentous events! clearly of public concern! that petitioners propose to film were ta0ing place! Anrile was a Qpublic figureHQ %uch public figures were held to have lost! to some e2tent at least! their right to privacy( /he line of equilibrium in the specific conte2t of the instant case between the constitutional freedom of speech and of e2pression and the right of privacy! may be mar0ed out in terms of a requirement that the proposed motion picture must be fairly truthful and historical in its presentation of events( I#&es a n Cr sto v. Co!rt o( A''ea&s, G.R. No. 445<D3, E!&" =<, 455< I. THE FACTS

%everal pre-taped episodes of the / program 8+ng 9glesia ni Cristo: of the religious group -glesia ni Cristo 4-+C6 were rated L U i(e(! not for public viewing U by the respondent ,oard of 7eview for .oving Pictures and /elevision 4now ./7C,6( /hese / programs allegedly offend=ed> and constitute=d> an attac0 against other religions which is e2pressly prohibited by law because of petitioner -+C?s controversial biblical interpretations and its attac0s against contrary religious beliefs(

Petitioner -+C went to court to question the actions of respondent ,oard( /he 7/C ordered the respondent ,oard to grant petitioner -+C the necessary permit for its / programs( ,ut on appeal by the respondent ,oard! the CA reversed the 7/C( /he CA ruled thatH 4:6 the respondent ,oard has )urisdiction and power to review the / program 8+ng 9glesia ni Cristo,: and 4<6 the respondent ,oard did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied permit for the e2hibition on / of the three series of 8+ng 9glesia ni Cristo: on the ground that the materials constitute an attac0 against another religion( /he CA also found the sub)ect / series indecent! contrary to law and contrary to good customs( "issatisfied with the CA decision! petitioner -+C appealed to the %upreme Court( II. THE ISSUES 4:6 "oes respondent ,oard have the power to review petitioner?s / program; 4<6 Assuming it has the power! did respondent ,oard gravely abuse its discretion when it prohibited the airing of petitioner?s religious program; III. THE RULING [The Court voted 1;-1 to -616-(6 the C+ insofar as the C+ sustained the action of the respondent Board3s <-rating petitioner3s T1 Program (eries .os% 11 , 11=, and 1>1% 9t also voted 10-? to +@@9-, the C+ insofar as the C+ it sustained the #urisdiction of the respondent ,T-CB to revie4 petitioner3s T1 program entitled 8+ng 9glesia ni Cristo%:5 1. $%&, respondent +oard has the power to review petitioner,s T- progra".

leave its rational eAercise to the irrationality of man% @or 4hen religion divides and its eAercise destroys, the (tate should not stand still ( #. $%&, respondent +oard gravely a*use its discretion when it prohi*ited the airing of petitioner,s religious progra". =A>ny act that restrains speech is hobbled by the presumption of invalidity and should be greeted with furrowed brows( -t is the burden of the respondent ,oard to overthrow this presumption( -f it fails to discharge this burden! its act of censorship will be struc0 down( -t failed in the case at bar( /he evidence shows that the respondent ,oard 2-rated petitioners / series for attac0ing either religions! especially the Catholic Church( An e2amination of the evidence ( ( ( will show that the so-called attac0s are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions( /he videotapes were not viewed by the respondent court as they were not presented as evidence( Oet they were considered by the respondent court as indecent! contrary to law and good customs! hence! can be prohibited from public viewing under section G4c6 of P" :CD8( /his ruling clearly suppresses petitionerNs freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free e2ercise of religion( 222( /he respondent ,oard may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that gives it no e2cuse to interdict such criticisms! however! unclean they may be( @nder our constitutional scheme! it is not the tas0 of the %tate to favor any religion by protecting it against an attac0 by another religion( ( ( -n fine! respondent board cannot squelch the speech of petitioner -glesia ni Cristo simply because it attac0s other religions! even if said religion happens to be the most numerous church in our country( -n a %tate where there ought to be no difference between the appearance and the reality of freedom of religion! the remedy against bad theology is better theology( /he bedroc0 of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the mar0etplace of duelling ideas( 'hen the lu2ury of time permits! the mar0etplace of ideas demands that speech should be met by more speech for it is the spar0 of opposite speech! the heat of colliding ideas that can fan the embers of truth( -n 2-rating the / program of the petitioner! the respondents failed to apply the clear and present danger rule( -n +merican Bi$le (ociety v( City of ,anila! this Court heldH /he constitutional guaranty of free e2ercise and en)oyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information( Any restraint of such right can be )ustified li0e other restraints on freedom of e2pression on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the %tate has the right to prevent( -n 1ictoriano vs( 6li*alde -ope Borkers Cnion! we further ruled that ( ( ( it is only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be )ustified! and only to the smallest eAtent necessary to avoid the danger( /he records show that the decision of the respondent ,oard! affirmed by the respondent appellate court! is completely $ereft of findings of facts to )ustify

Petitioner contends that the term television program =in %ec( G of P" +o( :CD8 that the respondent ,oard has the power to review and classify> should not include religious programs li0e its program 8+ng 9glesia ni Cristo%: A contrary interpretation! it is urged! will contravene section 9! Article --- of the Constitution which guarantees that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion! or prohibiting the free e2ercise thereof( /he free e2ercise and en)oyment of religious profession and worship! without discrimination or preference! shall forever be allowed( =/he Court however> re)ect petitioner?s postulate( Petitioner?s public broadcast on / of its religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief( /elevision is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children( /he Court iterates the rule thatthe e2ercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the %tate when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the %tate is duty bound to prevent! i(e(! serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health! public morals! or public welfare( A laisse* faire policy on the e2ercise of religion can be seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels the Court against its blind adoption as religion is and continues to be a volatile area of concern in our country today( ( ( [T5he Court5 shall continue to su$#ect any act pinching the space for the free eAercise of religion to a heightened scrutiny $ut 4e shall not

the conclusion that the sub)ect video tapes constitute impermissible attac0s against another religion( /here is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm( Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot $e #ustified $y hypothetical fears $ut only $y the sho4ing of a su$stantive and imminent evil 4hich has taken the life of a reality already on ground ( VIVA >RO9UCTIONS, INC. vs( COURT OF A>>EALS AN9 HU?ERT E.>. @E?? FACTS8 Assailed in the petition before us are the decision and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals sustaining both the order of the 7egional /rial Court of the +ational Capital $udicial 7egion 4ParaVaque! ,ranch <EB Phereinafter referred to as the ParaVaque court6 restraining Qthe e2hibition of the movie N/he $essica Alfaro %toryN at its scheduled premiere showing at the +ew *rontier /heater on %eptember ::! :CC9 at EHGR in the evening and at its regular public e2hibition beginning %eptember :G!:CC9! as well as to cease and desist from promoting and mar0eting of the said movie( writ of preliminary in)unction Qen)oining petitioner from further proceeding! engaging! using or implementing the promotional! advertising and mar0eting programs for the movie entitled N/he $essica Alfaro %toryN and from showing or causing the same to be shown or e2hibited in all theaters in the entire country @+/-3 after the final termination and logical conclusion of the trial in the criminal action now pending before the ParaVaque 7egional /rial Court( .a( $essica .( Alfaro the star witness of the i&conde massacre was offered a movie contract by iva Productions! -nc( for the filming of her life story! she in0ed with the latter the said movie contract while the said case 4-(%( C9-BR<6 was under investigation by the "epartment of $ustice( /he private respondent sent separate letters to iva Productions! -nc( and Alfaro! warning them that the pro)ected showing of sub)ect movie on the life story of Alfaro would violate the sub )udice rule! and his 4Hubert $(P( 'ebbNs6 constitutional rights as an accused in said criminal case( ISSUE8 :( 'hether or not private respondent committed forum shopping by filing two 4<6 cases with e2actly the same factual set-up! issues involved and reliefs sought before two 4<6 different courts of coordinate )urisdiction( <( 'hether or not the ParaDaEue Court can totally disregard and indiscriminately curtail the petitioner?s constitutional right to freedom of e2pression and of the press without presence of a clear and present danger( HEL98 :( /he private respondent has committed forum shopping( -t is found that a shrewd and astute maneuverings of private respondent ill-advised( -t won?t escape anybodyNs notice that the act of filing the supposed action for in)unction with damages with the ,akati court, albeit a separate and distinct action from the contempt proceedings then pending before the ParaDaEue court! is obviously and solely intended to obtain the preliminary relief of in)unction so as to prevent petitioner from e2hibiting the movie on its premiere and on its regular

showing( /he alleged relief for damages becomes a mere subterfuge to camouflage private respondentNs real intent and to feign the semblance of a separate and distinct action from the contempt proceedings already filed and on- going with the ParaDaEue court(

<( /he assailed decision and order of respondent court are %A/ A%-"A! and a new one entered declaring null and void all orders of ,ranch 9D of the 7egional /rial Court of the +ational Capital $udicial 7egion stationed in .a0ati City in its Civil Case +o( C9-:G89 and forthwith dismissing said case! and declaring the order of the 7egional /rial Court of the same +ational Capital $udicial 7egion stationed in ParaVaque 4,ranch <EB6! functus officio insofar as it restrains the public showing of the movie Q/he $essica Alfaro %tory( MTRC? v A?SAC?N 2=::;7 PartiesF ,T-CB, petitionerG +B( CB. Broadcasting .et4ork and former (enator /oren /egarda, respondents .ature of +ctionF Petition for -evie4 on Certiorari Hsee alsoF 9glesia ni Cristo vs% Court of +ppeals )%-% .o% 11=IJ; "uly >I, 1==I > = (C-+ >= FACTS8 #n #ctober :9! :CC: at :RHB9 P(.(! A,%-C,+ aired an episode on The 9nside (tory called 8Prosti-tuition:( /he segment was produced and hosted by respondent 3egarda( /he story depicted female students moonlighting as prostitutes in order for them to pay for their tuition fees( Philippine 'omen?s @niversity 4P'@6 was named in the program as the school of some the students that were involved( P'@ officials and the P'@ Parents and /eachers Association filed letter to complaints to petitioner ./7C,! and the legal counsel of the ./7C, recommended the investigation of the said episode( /he ./7C, -nvestigating committee alleged that 4:6 the respondents did not submit /he -nside %tory to the petitioner for its review and 4<6 e2hibited the same without its permission! thus! violating (ection J of P0 1=KI and (ection ;, Ch%J and (ection J Ch% ? of the ,T-CB -ules and -egulations ( .n their answer, respondents e!plained that the show /a news docu"entary and sociopolitical editorial progra"0 is protected *y the constitutional provision on freedo" of e!pression and of the press. /he results of the investigation did not favor the respondents( A portion of the decision of the ./7C, -nvestigating Committee readsH 1W2%3%4O3%, the aforementioned premises, the respondents are ordered to pay the sum of TW%NT$ T2O5&AN' 6%&O& /6#7,777.770 for non-su$mission of the program, su$#ect of this case for revie4 and approval of the ,T-CB% Leretofore, all su$seEuent programs of the MThe 9nside (tory3 and all other programs of the +B(-CB. Channel > of the same category shall $e su$mitted to the Board of -evie4 and +pproval $efore sho4ingG other4ise the Board 4ill act accordingly%:

7espondent?s appeal and .otion for 7econsideration were denied by ./7C, Chairwoman Atty( Henrietta %( .ende&( /he respondents then files a special civil action for certiorari with the 7/C ,ranch EE of WC see0ing toH 4:6 declare unconstitutional the provisions in questionM 4<6 e2clude 8The 9nside (tory: from the coverage of the above-cited provisionsM and 4G6 annul and set aside the ./7C, "ecision( /he 7/C rendered a decision in favor of the respondents on all issues raised( Petitioners filed for a motion of reconsideration but were denied( Hence! this petition for review on certiorari( ISSUEFS8 'hether or not the ./7C, has the power or authority to review /he -nside %tory prior to its e2hibition or broadcast by television( RULING8 1W2%3%4O3%, the instant petition is )-+.T60% The assailed -TC 0ecision dated .ovem$er 1K, 1==J and 7rder dated +ugust >I, >00> are here$y -616-(60% The 0ecision dated ,arch 1>, 1==; of petitioner ,T-CB is +@@9-,60% Costs against respondents% &O O3'%3%'.8 LEGAL ARGUMENTSF?ASIS8 /elevision programs are more accessible to the public than newspapers! thus! the liberal regulation of the latter cannot apply to the former(

/he -nside %tory cannot be classified! as attempted by the respondents! to be under newsreels(

Apparently, newsreels are straight presentation of events. They are depiction of 1actualities%: Correspondingly, the ,T-CB -ules and -egulations implementing P% 0% .o% 1=KI define ne4sreels as 8straight news reporting, as distinguished fro" news analyses, co""entaries and opinions. Tal shows on a given issue are not considered newsreels%: >eo'&e vs. Bott n#er -GR =:;<5, =5 October 45=3. *actsH #n <B +ovember :C<<! detective $uan /olentino raided the premises 0nown as Camera %upply Co( at ::R Ascolta! .anila( He found and confiscated the post-cards which subsequently were used as evidenced against $( $( 5ottinger! the manager of the company( /he information filed in court charged him with living 0ept for sale in the store of the Camera %upply Co(! obscene and indecent pictures! in violation of section :< of Act <EE( /o this information! 5ottinger interposed a demurrer based upon the ground that the facts alleged therein did not constitute an offense and were not contrary to lawM but the trial court overruled the demurrer( *ollowing the presentation of evidence by the Government and the defense! )udgment was rendered finding 5ottinger guilty of the offenses charged and sentencing him to pay a fine of P9R with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency! and the costs( 5ottinger appealed( -ssueH 'hether pictures portraying the inhabitants of the country in native dress and as they appear and can be seen in the regions in which they live! are obscene or indecent( HeldH /he pictures which it is argued offend against the law on account of being obscene and indecent! disclose si2 different postures of non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippines 4QPhilippines! ,ontoc 'omanQM a picture of five young boys and carries the legend QGreetings from the PhilippinesQM Q-fugao ,elle! Philippines( Greetings from the PhilippinesQM Q-gorrot Girl! 7ice *ield CostumeQM Q5alinga Girls! PhilippinesQM and Q.oros! PhilippinesQ6 +one of the pictures represented posses which he had not observed on various occasions! and that the costumes worn by the people in the pictures are the true costumes regularly worn by them! according to "r( H( #tley ,eyer! Professor in the @niversity of the Philippines( Although the *ederal statutes prohibits the importation of shipment into the Philippine -slands of the followingH QArticles! boo0s! pamphlets! printed matter! manuscripts! typewritten matter! paintings! illustrations! or ob)ects of obscene or indecent character or subversive of public orderQM there are! in the record! copies of reputable maga&ines which circulate freely thru-out the @nited %tates and other countries! and which are admitted into the Philippines without question! containing illustrations into the Philippines without question! containing illustrations identical in nature to those in the present case( Publications of the Philippine Government have also been offered in evidence such as ,artonNs Q-fugao 3aw!Q the QPhilippine $ournal of %cienceQ for #ctober! :CR8! and the 7eports of the Philippine Commission for :CRG! :C:<! and :C:G! in which are found illustrations either e2actly the same or nearly a0in to those

-n the case -glesia ni Cristo vs( Court of Appeals! the Court ruled that P("( +o( :CD8 gives the ./7C, the power to screen! review and e2amine all television programs%: /here is nothing in the law that would )ustify an e2clusion of any program 4e2cept those e2pressly mentioned %ection E of P("( :CD8H programs imprinted or e2hibited by the Philippine Government or! newsreels6 from the regulations of the ./7C,(

89f this Court, in 9glesia ni Cristo, did not eAempt religious programs from the #urisdiction and revie4 po4er of petitioner ,T-CB, 4ith more reason, there is no #ustification to eAempt therefrom 8The 9nside (tory: 4hich, according to respondents, is protected $y the constitutional provision on freedom of eApression and of the press, a freedom $earing no preferred status%:

which are now impugned( /ested by the standard set up by the Congress of the @nited %tates! it would be e2tremely doubtful if the pictures here challenged would be held obscene or indecent by any state of *ederal court( -t would be particularly unwise to sanction a different type of censorship in the Philippine than in the @nited %tates! or for that matter in the rest of the world( /he pictures in question merely depict persons as they actually live! without attempted presentation of persons in unusual postures or dress( /he aggregate )udgment of the Philippine community! the moral sense of all the people in the Philippines! would not be shoc0ed by photographs of this type( /he court is convinced that the post-card pictures in the present case cannot be characteri&ed as offensive to chastity! or foul! or filthy( M &&er vs. Ca& (orn a -G43 US 4;, =4 E!ne 45D3. *actsH .iller conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated boo0s! euphemistically called QadultQ material( *ive unsolicited advertising brochures were sent through the mail in an envelope addressed to a restaurant in +ewport ,each! California( /he brochures advertise four boo0s entitled Q-ntercourse!Q Q.an-'oman!Q Q%e2 #rgies -llustrated!Q and QAn -llustrated History of Pornography!Q and a film entitled Q.arital -ntercourse(Q 'hile the brochures contain some descriptive printed material! primarily they consist of pictures and drawings very e2plicitly depicting men and women in groups of two or more engaging in a variety of se2ual activities! with genitals often prominently displayed( /he envelope was opened by the manager of the restaurant and his mother( /hey had not requested the brochuresM they complained to the police( After a )ury trial! he was convicted of violating California Penal Code G::(< 4a6! a misdemeanor! by 0nowingly distributing obscene matter! and the Appellate "epartment! %uperior Court of California! County of #range! summarily affirmed the )udgment without opinion( -ssueH 'hether the determination of obscene materials is to be determined through the national or community standard( HeldH %e2 and nudity may not be e2ploited without limit by films or pictures e2hibited or sold in places of public accommodation any more than live se2 and nudity can be e2hibited or sold without limit in such public places( At a minimum! prurient! patently offensive depiction or description of se2ual conduct must have serious literary! artistic! political! or scientific value to merit *irst Amendment protection( /he basic guidelines for the trier of fact must beH 4a6 whether Qthe average person! applying contemporary community standardsQ would find that the wor0! ta0en as a whole! appeals to the prurient interestM 4b6 whether the wor0 depicts or describes! in a patently offensive way! se2ual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state lawM and 4c6 whether the wor0! ta0en as a whole! lac0s serious literary! artistic! political! or scientific value( -f a state law that regulates obscene material is thus limited! as written or construed! the *irst Amendment values applicable to the %tates through the *ourteenth Amendment are adequately protected by the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necessary( /hus! no one will be sub)ect to prosecution for the sale or e2posure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive Qhard coreQ se2ual conduct specifically defined by the regulating state law! as written or construed( /hese specific prerequisites will provide fair notice to a dealer in such materials that his public and commercial activities may bring prosecution( /he inability to define regulated materials with ultimate! god-li0e precision altogether removes the

power of the %tates or the Congress to regulate! then Qhard coreQ pornography may be e2posed without limit to the )uvenile! the passerby! and the consenting adult ali0e( @nder a +ational Constitution! fundamental *irst Amendment limitations on the powers of the %tates do not vary from community to community! but this does not mean that there are! or should or can be! fi2ed! uniform national standards of precisely what appeals to the Qprurient interestQ or is Qpatently offensive(Q /hese are essentially questions of fact! and our +ation is simply too big and too diverse for this Court to reasonably e2pect that such standards could be articulated for all 9R %tates in a single formulation! even assuming the prerequisite consensus e2ists( 'hen triers of fact are as0ed to decide whether Qthe average person! applying contemporary community standardsQ would consider certain materials Qprurient!Q it would be unrealistic to require that the answer be based on some abstract formulation( /he adversary system! with lay )urors as the usual ultimate factfinders in criminal prosecutions! has historically permitted triers of fact to draw on the standards of their community! guided always by limiting instructions on the law( /o require a %tate to structure obscenity proceedings around evidence of a national Qcommunity standardQ would be an e2ercise in futility( /hus the Court herein 4a6 reaffirm the 7oth holding that obscene material is not protected by the *irst AmendmentM 4b6 hold that such material can be regulated by the %tates! sub)ect to the specific safeguards enunciated above! without a showing that the material is Qutterly without redeeming social valueQM and 4c6 hold that obscenity is to be determined by applying Qcontemporary community standards!Q not Qnational standards(Q

Sor ano vs. La G!ard a *actsH #n August :R! <RRB! at around :RHRR p(m(! petitioner! as host of the program Ang "ating "aan! aired on @+/ GE! made obscene remar0s against -+C( /wo days after! before the ./7C,! separate but almost identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by $essie 3( Galapon and seven other private respondents! all members of the -glesia ni Cristo 4-+C6! against petitioner in connection with the above broadcast( 7espondent .ichael .( %andoval! who felt directly alluded to in petitioner?s remar0! was then a minister of -+C and a regular host of the / program Ang /amang "aan( -ssueH Are %oriano?s statements during the televised Ang "ating "aan part of the religious discourse and within the protection of %ection 9! Art(---; HeldH +o( @nder the circumstances obtaining in this case! therefore! and considering the adverse effect of petitioner?s utterances on the viewers? fundamental rights as well as petitioner?s clear violation of his duty as a public trustee! the ./7C, properly suspended him from appearing in Ang "ating "aan for three months( *urthermore! it cannot be properly asserted that petitioner?s suspension was an undue curtailment of his right to free speech either as a prior restraint or as a subsequent punishment( Aside from the reasons given above 4re the paramountcy of viewers rights! the public trusteeship character of a broadcaster?s role and the power of the %tate to regulate broadcast media6! a requirement that indecent language be avoided has its primary effect on

the form! rather than the content! of serious communication( /here are few! if any! thoughts that cannot be e2pressed by the use of less offensive language( Fernando v CA G.R. No. 4;5D;4 9ece$ber <, =::< *actsH Acting on reports of sale and distribution of pornographic materials! officers of the Philippine +ational Police C-"G conducted police surveillance on the store bearing the name of Gaudencio A( *ernando .usic *air 4.usic *air6( #n .ay 9! :CCC! $udge Perfecto 3aguio of the 7egional /rial Court of .anila! ,ranch :C! issued %earch 'arrant +o( CC-:<:8 for violation of Article <R: of the 7evised Penal Code against petitioner Gaudencio A( *ernando and a certain 'arren /ingchuy( /he warrant ordered the search of the store for copies of +ew 7ave! Hustler! -#@ maga&ine! and H% tapes( #n the same day! police officers of the P+P-C-"G +C7 served the warrant on 7udy Astorninos! who! according to the prosecution! introduced himself as the store attendant of .usic *air( /he police searched the premises and confiscated twenty-five 4<96 H% tapes and ten 4:R6 different maga&ines! which they deemed pornographic( All appellants pled not guilty to the offenses charged( /hey waived their right to present evidence( /he 7/C acquitted /ingchuy for lac0 of evidence to prove his guilt! but convicted herein petitioners *ernando and Astorninos( /he CA affirmed the decision( /he petitioners sought for review in the %C on certiorari and assailed the CA decision( /hey assigned the following errorsH -( 7espondent court erred in convicting petitioner *ernando even if he was not present at the time of the raid --( 7espondent erred in convicting petitioner Astorninos who was not doing anything illegal at the time of the raid( Petitioners contend that the prosecution failed to prove that at the time of the search! they were selling pornographic materials( *ernando contends that since he was not charged as the owner of an establishment selling obscene materials! the prosecution must prove that he was present during the raid and that he was selling the said materials( Astorninos! on the other hand! insists that he was not an attendant in .usic *air! nor did he introduce himself so( /he %olicitor General counters that owners of establishments selling obscene publications are e2pressly held liable under Article <R:! and petitioner *ernando?s ownership was sufficiently proven( As the owner! according to the %olicitor General! *ernando was naturally a seller of the prohibited materials and liable under the -nformation( -ssueH 'hether the appellate court erred in affirming the petitioners? conviction(

HeldH +o( Petition dismissed( 7atioH As obscenity is an unprotected speech which the %tate has the right to regulate! the %tate in pursuing its mandate to protect! as parens patriae! the public from obscene! immoral and indecent materials must )ustify the regulation or limitation( #ne such regulation is Article <R: of the 7evised Penal Code( /o be held liable! the prosecution must prove that 4a6 the materials! publication! picture or literature are obsceneM and 4b6 the offender sold! e2hibited! published or gave away such materials( +ecessarily! that the confiscated materials are obscene must be proved( People v( 5ottinger-(obscenity as something which is offensive to chastity! decency or delicacy( /he test to determine the e2istence 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( Also! that which shoc0s the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency( /he disclaimer was whether a picture is obscene or indecent must depend upon the circumstances of the case! and that ultimately! the question is to be decided by the )udgment of the aggregate sense of the community reached by it( Go Pin- -f such pictures! sculptures and paintings are shown in art e2hibits and art galleries for the cause of art! to be viewed and appreciated by people interested in art! there would be no offense committed( However! the pictures here in question were used not e2actly for art?s sa0e but rather for commercial purposes( -n other words! the supposed artistic qualities of said pictures were being commerciali&ed so that the cause of art was of secondary or minor importance( Gain and profit would appear to have been the main! if not the e2clusive consideration in their e2hibitionM and it would not be surprising if the persons who went to see those pictures and paid entrance fees for the privilege of doing so! were not e2actly artists and persons interested in art and who generally go to art e2hibitions and galleries to satisfy and improve their artistic tastes! but rather people desirous of satisfying their morbid curiosity and taste! and lust! and for love =of> e2citement! including the youth who because of their immaturity are not in a position to resist and shield themselves from the ill and perverting effects of these pictures Padan- An actual e2hibition of the se2ual act! preceded by acts of lasciviousness! can have no redeeming feature( -n it! there is no room for art( #ne can see nothing in it but clear and unmitigated obscenity! indecency! and an offense to public morals! inspiring and causing as it does! nothing but lust and lewdness! and e2erting a corrupting influence especially on the youth of the land( 5atigba0- the Court measures obscenity in terms of the dominant theme of the material ta0en as a whole rather than in isolated passages(

Pita v( Court of Appeals! concerning alleged pornographic publications! the Court recogni&ed that 5ottinger failed to afford a conclusive definition of obscenity! and that both Go Pin and Padan y Alova raised more questions than answers such as! whether the absence or presence of artists and persons interested in art and who generally go to art e2hibitions and galleries to satisfy and improve their artistic tastes! determine what art isM or that if they find inspiration in the e2hibitions! whether such e2hibitions cease to be obscene( Go Pin and Padan y Alova gave too much latitude for )udicial arbitrament! which has permitted ad lib of ideas and two-cents worths among )udges as to what is obscene or what is art( /he Court in Pita also emphasi&ed the difficulty of the question and pointed out how ha&y )urisprudence is on obscenity and how )urisprudence actually failed to settle questions on the matter( %ignificantly! the dynamism of human civili&ation does not help at all( -t is evident that individual tastes develop! adapt to wide-ranging influences! and 0eep in step with the rapid advance of civili&ation( -t seems futile at this point to formulate a perfect definition of obscenity that shall apply in all cases( /here is no perfect definition of obscenity but the latest word is that of .iller v( California which established basic guidelines! to witH 4a6 whether to the average person! applying contemporary standards would find the wor0! ta0en as a whole! appeals to the prurient interestM 4b6 whether the wor0 depicts or describes! in a patently offensive way! se2ual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state lawM and 4c6 whether the wor0! ta0en as a whole! lac0s serious literary! artistic! political! or scientific value( ,ut! it would be a serious misreading of .iller to conclude that the trier of facts has the unbridled discretion in determining what is patently offensive( +o one will be sub)ect to prosecution for the sale or e2posure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive hard core se2ual conduct( -e offensive descriptions of se2 acts( 'hat remains clear is that obscenity is an issue proper for )udicial determination and should be treated on a case to case basis and on the )udge?s sound discretion( -n this case! the trial court found the confiscated materials obscene and the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings( *indings of fact of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the trial court are accorded great respect! even by this Court! unless such findings are patently unsupported by the evidence on record or the )udgment itself is based on misapprehension of facts( "id petitioners participate in the distribution and e2hibition of obscene materials; 'e emphasi&e that mere possession of obscene materials! without intention to sell! e2hibit! or give them away! is not punishable under Article <R:! considering the purpose of the law is to prohibit the dissemination of obscene materials to the public( /he offense in any of the forms under Article <R: is committed only when there is publicity( /he mayor?s permit shows that *ernando was the owner of the store( Petitioner Astorninos is li0ewise liable as the store attendant actively engaged in selling and e2hibiting the obscene materials( Prosecution witness Police -nspector /ababan! who led the

P+P-C-"G +C7 that conducted the search! identified him as the store attendant upon whom the search warrant was served( E.?.L. Re"es vs. ?a#ats n# GR No. <;3<< October =;, 4563 4acts Petitioner! retired $ustice $, (3 7eyes filed a petition to respondent! .ayor 7amon ,agatsing! the city mayor of manila that on behalf of anti-bases coalition sought a permit from the city of manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on october <8! :CDG from <(RR to 9(RR in the afternoon! starting from the luneta! a public par0! to the gates of united states embassy! hardly two bloc0s away( #nce there! and in an open space of the public property! a short program would be held( #n october <R! :CDG the petitioner filed a suit for mandamus with alternative prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory in)unction because due to the fact that as of that date! petitioner had not been informed of any action ta0en on his request on behalf of the organi&ation to hold a rally( #n october <9! :CDG! the answer of respondent mayor was filed on his behalf by assistant solicitor general eduardo g( montenegro( -t turned out that on october :C! suc permit was denied( .ssues :( 'hether or not holding a rally in front of the @% embassy would be applicable or a violation of #rdinance no(E<C9 of the City of .anila <( 'hether or not the denial of the e2ercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceably assembly was )ustified by clear and present danger( 3uling /he petition was granted( /he %upreme Court granted the mandatory in)unction allowing the proposed march and rally( /he court found that there was no clear and present danger of a substantive evil to a legitimate public interest that would )ustify the denial of the e2ercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceably assembly( #ur country is signatory of the ienna Convention( -t is binding in our laws( /he second paragraph of its Article << that the receiving state is under a special duty to ta0e appropriate steps to protect the premise of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity( /he constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land( /hat being the case! if there were clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage! or disturbance of the of the peace of the mission! or impairment of its dignity! there would be a )ustification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the embassy( ?a"an, et a&., Vs. Ed!ardo Er$ ta, et a&. *actsH /he petitioners! ,ayan! et al(! alleged that they are citi&ens and ta2payers of the Philippines and that their right as organi&ations and individuals were violated when the rally

they participated in on #ctober 8! <RR9 was violently dispersed by policemen implementing ,atas Pambansa +o( DDR( Petitioners contended that ,atas Pambansa +o( DDR is clearly a violation of the Constitution and the -nternational Covenant on Civil and Political 7ights and other human rights treaties of which the Philippines is a signatory( /hey argue that ,(P( +o( DDR requires a permit before one can stage a public assembly regardless of the presence or absence of a clear and present danger( -t also curtails the choice of venue and is thus repugnant to the freedom of e2pression clause as the time and place of a public assembly form part of the message which the e2pression is sought( *urthermore! it is not content-neutral as it does not apply to mass actions in support of the government( /he words lawful cause! opinion! protesting or influencing suggest the e2position of some cause not espoused by the government( Also! the phrase ma2imum tolerance shows that the law applies to assemblies against the government because they are being tolerated( As a content-based legislation! it cannot pass the strict scrutiny test( /his petition and two other petitions were ordered to be consolidated on *ebruary :B! <RR8( "uring the course of oral arguments! the petitioners! in the interest of a speedy resolution of the petitions! withdrew the portions of their petitions raising factual issues! particularly those raising the issue of whether ,(P( +o( DDR and1or CP7 is void as applied to the rallies of %eptember <R! #ctober B! 9 and 8! <RR9( -ssueH 'hether the Calibrated Pre-emptive response and the ,atas Pambansa +o( DDR! specifically %ections B! 9! 8! :<! :G4a6 and :B4a6 violates Art( --- %ec( B of the Philippine Constitution as it causes a disturbing effect on the e2ercise by the people of the right to peaceably assemble( HeldH %ection B of Article --- of the Philippine Constitution provides that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech! of e2pression! or of the press! or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances( /he right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances! together with freedom of speech! of e2pression! and of the press! is a right that en)oys dominance in the sphere of constitutional protection( *or this rights represent the very basis of a functional democratic polity! without which all the other rights would be meaningless and unprotected( However! it must be remembered that the right! while sacrosanct! is not absolute( -t may be regulated that it shall not be in)urious to the equal en)oyment of others having equal rights! nor in)urious to the rights of the community or society( /he power to regulate the e2ercise of such and other constitutional rights is termed the sovereign police power! which is the power to prescribe regulations! to promote the health! morals! peace! education! good order or safety! and general welfare of the people( ,(P( +o DDR is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time! place and manner of the assemblies( ,(P( +o( DDR thus readily shows that it refers to all 0inds of public assemblies that would use public places( /he reference to lawful cause does not ma0e it content-based because assemblies really have to be for lawful causes! otherwise they would not be peaceable and entitled to protection( +either the words opinion! protesting! and influencing in of grievances come from the wording of the

Constitution! so its use cannot be avoided( *inally! ma2imum tolerance is for the protection and benefit of all rallyist and is independent of the content of the e2pression in the rally( *urthermore! the permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present danger to public order! public safety! public convenience! public morals or public health( /his is a recogni&ed e2ception to the e2ercise of the rights even under the @niversal "eclaration of Human 7ights and /he -nternational Covenant on Civil and Political 7ights( 'herefore! the petitions are G7A+/A" in part! and respondents! more particularly the %ecretary of the -nterior and 3ocal Governments! are "-7AC/A" to ta0e all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with %ection :9 of ,atas Pambansa +o( DDR through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable freedom par0 or pla&a in every city and municipality of the country( After thirty 4GR6 days from the finality of this "ecision! sub)ect to the giving of advance notices! no prior permit shall be required to e2ercise the right to peaceably assemble and petition in the public par0s or pla&a in every city or municipality that has not yet complied with section :9 of the law( *urthermore! Calibrated pre-emptive response 4CP76! insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of ma2imum tolerance! is +@33 and #-" and respondents are A+$#-+A" to 7A*7A-+ from using it and to %/7-C/3O #,%A7 A the requirements of ma2imum tolerance! /he petitions are "-%.-%%A" in all other respects! and the constitutionality of ,atas Pambansa +o( DDR is %@%/A-+A" Cr s' n Ma&abanan, et. a&. v. t%e Honorab&e Anastac o 9. Ra$ento, et. a&. *actsH Petitioners were officers of the %upreme %tudent Council of respondent @niversity( /hey sought and were granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting from DHRR A(.( to :<HRR P(.( on August <E! :CD<( Along with other students! they held a general assembly at the eterinary .edicine and Animal %cience department lobby instead of the bas0etball court which was the place indicated in the permit( At the assembly they manifested in vehement language their opposition to the proposed merger of the -nstitute of Animal %cience with the -nstitute of Agriculture( At :RHGR A(.( the same day! they marched toward the 3ife %cience ,uilding and continued their rally( /here was! as a result! disturbance of the classes being held( Also! the non-academic employees! within hearing distance! stopped their wor0 because of the noise created( Petitioners were as0ed to e2plain on the same day why they should not be held liable for holding an illegal assembly( /hen on %eptember C! :CD<! they were informed through a memorandum that they were under preventive suspension for their failure to e2plain the holding of an illegal assembly in front of the 3ife %cience ,uilding( /he validity thereof was challenged by petitioners both before the Court of *irst -nstance of 7i&al in a petition for mandamus with damages against private respondents and before the .inistry of Aducation! Culture! and %ports( #n #ctober <R! :CD<! respondent 7amento! as "irector of the +ational Capital 7egion! found petitioners guilty of the charge of having violated par( :B84c6 of the .anual for Private %chools more specifically their holding of an illegal assembly which was characteri&ed by the violation of the permit granted resulting in the disturbance of classes and oral defamation( /he penalty was suspension for one academic year( /he student leaders filed a petition for certiorari! prohibition and mandamus! see0ing the nullification of the decision of respondent 7amento affirming the action ta0en by respondent

Gregorio Araneta @niversity *oundation finding them guilty of illegal assembly and suspending them( HeldH /he %upreme Court grants the petition nullifying the decision of respondent 7amento imposing a one-year suspension is nullified the penalty being unduly severe( *reedom of peaceable assembly limited by showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent( As is quite clear from the opinion in 7eyes v( ,agatsing! the invocation of the right to freedom of peaceable assembly carries with it the implication that the right to free speech has li0ewise been disregarded( ,oth are embraced in the concept of freedom of e2pression! which is identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully! any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment and which Qis not to be limited! much less denied! e2cept on a showing ( ( ( of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent(Q 7ights to peaceable assembly and free speech in schoolsM limitation( Petitioners invo0e their rights to peaceable assembly and free speech( /hey are entitled to do so( /hey en)oy li0e the rest of the citi&ens the freedom to e2press their views and communicate their thoughts to those disposed to listen in gatherings such as was held in this case( /hey do not! to borrow from the opinion of $ustice *ortas in /in0er v( "es .oines Community %chool "istrict! Qshed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or e2pression at the schoolhouse gate(Q 'hile! therefore! the authority of educational institutions over the conduct of students must be recogni&ed! it cannot go so far as to be violative of constitutional safeguards( #n a more specific level! there is persuasive force to this formulation in the *ortas opinionH Q/he principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities( Among those activities is personal intercommunication among the students( /his is not only an inevitable part of the process of attending schoolM it is also an important part of the educational process( A studentNs rights! therefore! do not embrace merely the classroom hours( 'hen he is in the cafeteria! or on the playing field! or on the campus during the authori&ed hours! he may e2press his opinions! even on controversial sub)ects li0e the conflict in ietnam! if he does so without Nmaterially and substantially interfer=ing> with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the schoolN and without colliding with the rights of others( ( ( ( ,ut conduct by the student! in class or out of it! which for any reason -- whether it stems from time! place! or type of behavior -- materially disrupts classwor0 or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is! of course! not immuni&ed by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech(Q -nflamed speeches of students in school do not present a clear and present danger of public disorder( #b)ection is made by private respondents to the tenor of the speeches by the student leaders( /hat there would be a vigorous presentation of views opposed to the proposed

merger of the -nstitute of Animal %cience with the -nstitute of Agriculture was to be e2pected( /here was no concealment of the fact that they were against such a move as it confronted them with a serious problem( /hey believed that such a merger would result in the increase in tuition fees! an additional headache for their parents( -f in the course of such demonstration! with an enthusiastic audience goading them on! utterances! e2tremely critical! at times even vitriolic! were let loose! that is quite understandable( %tudent leaders are hardly the timid! diffident types( /hey are li0ely to be assertive and dogmatic( /hey would be ineffective if during a rally they spea0 in the guarded and )udicious language of the academe( At any rate! even a sympathetic audience is not disposed to accord full credence to their fiery e2hortations( /hey ta0e into account the e2citement of the occasion! the propensity of spea0ers to e2aggerate! the e2uberance of youth( /hey may give the spea0ers the benefit of their applause! but with the activity ta0ing place in the school premises and during the daytime! no clear and present danger of public disorder is discernible( "isruptive action may be penali&ed! but penalty of one year unduly severe( -t does not follow! however! that petitioners can be totally absolved for the events that transpired( Admittedly! there was a violation of the terms of the permit( /he rally was held at a place other than that specified! in the second floor lobby! rather than the bas0etball court! of the .A% building of the @niversity( .oreover! it was continued longer than the period allowed( According to the decision of respondent 7amento! the Qconcerted activity =referring to such assembly> went on until 9HGR p(m(Q <R Private respondents could thus! ta0e disciplinary action( #n those facts! however! an admonition! even a censure -- certainly not a suspension -- could be the appropriate penalty( Private respondents could and did ta0e umbrage at the fact that in view of such infraction -- considering the places where and the time when the demonstration too0 place -- there was a disruption of the classes and stoppage of wor0 of the non-academic personnel( /hey would not be un)ustified then if they did ta0e a much more serious view of the matter( Aven then a one-year period of suspension is much too severe! 'hile the discretion of both respondent @niversity and respondent 7amento is recogni&ed! the rule of reason! the dictate of fairness calls for a much lesser penalty( -f the concept of proportionality between the offense committed and the sanction imposed is not followed! an element of arbitrariness intrudes( /hat would give rise to a due process question( /o avoid this constitutional ob)ection! it is the holding of this Court that a one-wee0 suspension would be punishment enough( I?> vs. At en1a FACTS8 #n $une :9! <RR8! the -,P! through its then +ational President $ose Anselmo Cadi&! filed with the #ffice of the City .ayor of .anila a letter application for a permit to rally at the foot of .endiola ,ridge on $une <<! <RR8 from <HGR p(m( to 9HGR p(m( to be participated in by -,P officers and members! law students and multi-sectoral organi&ations( 7espondent issued a permit dated $une :8! <RR8 allowing the -,P to stage a rally on given date but indicated therein Pla&a .iranda as the venue! instead of .endiola ,ridge! which permit the -,P received on $une :C! <RR8(

ISSUE8 'hether or not the right to free assembly of the petitioners was violated( HEL98 Oes( /he right to free assembly of the petitioners was violated( -t must be noted that under ,(P( ,lg( DDR %ec 8 4c6 -f the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit! he shall immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter( -t shall be noted that Atien&a indeed issued the said permit however modified the venue( And in modifying the permit outright! he gravely abused his discretion when he did not immediately inform the -,P who should have been heard first on the matter of his perceived imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil that may warrant the changing of the venue( /he opportunity to be heard precedes the action on the permit! since the applicant may directly go to court after an unfavorable action on the permit( /herefore .ayor Atien&a gravely abused his discretion and violated the right to free assembly of the petitioners(

4b6 QPublic placeQ shall include any highway! boulevard! avenue! road! street! bridge or other thoroughfare! par0! pla&a! square! and1or any open space of public ownership where the people are allowed access( 4c6 Q.a2imum toleranceQ means the highest degree of restraint that the military! police and other peace 0eeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same( 4d6 Q.odification of permitQ shall include the change of the place and time of the public assembly! rerouting of the parade or street march! the volume of loud-spea0ers or sound system and similar changes( Sect on G. Permit 4hen reEuired and 4hen not reEuired - A written permit shall be required for any person or persons to organi&e and hold a public assembly in a public place( However! no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be done or made in a freedom par0 duly established by law or ordinance or in private property! in which case only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required! or in the campus of a government-owned and operated educational institution which shall be sub)ect to the rules and regulations of said educational institution( Political meetings or rallies held during any election campaign period as provided for by law are not covered by this Act( Sect on ;. +pplication reEuirements - All applications for a permit shall comply with the following guidelinesH 4a6 /he applications shall be in writing and shall include the names of the leaders or organi&ersM the purpose of such public assemblyM the date! time and duration thereof! and place or streets to be used for the intended activityM and the probable number of persons participating! the transport and the public address systems to be used( 4b6 /he application shall incorporate the duty and responsibility of applicant under %ection D hereof( 4c6 /he application shall be filed with the office of the mayor of the city or municipality in whose )urisdiction the intended activity is to be held! at least five 496 wor0ing days before the scheduled public assembly( 4d6 @pon receipt of the application! which must be duly ac0nowledged in writing! the office of the city or municipal mayor shall cause the same to immediately be posted at a conspicuous place in the city or municipal building( Sect on <. +ction to $e taken on the application 4a6 -t shall be the duty of the mayor or any official acting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public order! public safety! public convenience! public morals or public health(

?ATAS >AM?ANSA ?LG. 66: AN ACT ENSURING THE FREE EHERCISE ?C THE >EO>LE OF THEIR RIGHT >EACEA?LC TO ASSEM?LE AN9 >ETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR OTHER >UR>OSES

Sect on 4. Title - /his Act shall be 0nown as Q/he Public Assembly Act of :CD9(Q Sect on =. 0eclaration of policy - /he constitutional right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is essential and vital to the strength and stability of the %tate( /o this end! the %tate shall ensure the free e2ercise of such right without pre)udice to the rights of others to life! liberty and equal protection of the law( Sect on 3. 0efinition of terms - *or purposes of this ActH 4a6 QPublic assemblyQ means any rally! demonstration! march! parade! procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public place for the purpose of presenting a lawful causeM or e2pressing an opinion to the general public on any particular issueM or protesting or influencing any state of affairs whether political! economic or socialM or petitioning the government for redress of grievances( /he processions! rallies! parades! demonstrations! public meetings and assemblages for religious purposes shall be governed by local ordinancesH Provided! however! /hat the declaration of policy as provided in %ection < of this Act shall be faithfully observed( /he definition herein contained shall not include pic0eting and other concerted action in stri0e areas by wor0ers and employees resulting from a labor dispute as defined by the 3abor Code! its implementing rules and regulations! and by the ,atas Pambansa ,ilang <<E(

4b6 /he mayor or any official acting in his behalf shall act on the application within two 4<6 wor0ing days from the date the application was filed! failing which! the permit shall be deemed granted( %hould for any reason the mayor or any official acting in his behalf refuse to accept the application for a permit! said application shall be posted by the applicant on the premises of the office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed( 4c6 -f the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit! he shall immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter( 4d6 /he action on the permit shall be in writing and served on the application within twenty-four hours( 4e6 -f the mayor or any official acting in his behalf denies the application or modifies the terms thereof in his permit! the applicant may contest the decision in an appropriate court of law( 4f6 -n case suit is brought before the .etropolitan /rial Court! the .unicipal /rial Court! the .unicipal Circuit /rial Court! the 7egional /rial Court! or the -ntermediate Appellate Court! its decisions may be appealed to the appropriate court within forty-eight 4BD6 hours after receipt of the same( +o appeal bond and record on appeal shall be required( A decision granting such permit or modifying it in terms satisfactory to the applicant shall! be immediately e2ecutory( 4g6 All cases filed in court under this %ection shall be decided within twenty-four 4<B6 hours from date of filing( Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the e2ecutive )udge for disposition or! in his absence! to the ne2t in ran0( 4h6 -n all cases! any decision may be appealed to the %upreme Court( 4i6 /elegraphic appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed( Sect on D. Cse of pu$lic thoroughfare - %hould the proposed public assembly involve the use! for an appreciable length of time! of any public highway! boulevard! avenue! road or street! the mayor or any official acting in his behalf may! to prevent grave public inconvenience! designate the route thereof which is convenient to the participants or reroute the vehicular traffic to another direction so that there will be no serious or undue interference with the free flow of commerce and trade( Sect on 6. -esponsi$ility of applicant - -t shall be the duty and responsibility of the leaders and organi&ers of a public assembly to ta0e all reasonable measures and steps to the end that the intended public assembly shall be conducted peacefully in accordance with the terms of the permit( /hese shall include but not be limited to the followingH 4a6 /o inform the participants of their responsibility under the permitM 4b6 /o police the ran0s of the demonstrators in order to prevent non-demonstrators from disrupting the lawful activities of the public assemblyM

4c6 /o confer with local government officials concerned and law enforcers to the end that the public assembly may be held peacefullyM 4d6 /o see to it that the public assembly underta0en shall not go beyond the time stated in the permitM and 4e6 /o ta0e positive steps that demonstrators do not molest any person or do any act unduly interfering with the rights of other persons not participating in the public assembly( Sect on 5. .on-interference $y la4 enforcement authorities - 3aw enforcement agencies shall not interfere with the holding of a public assembly( However! to adequately ensure public safety! a law enforcement contingent under the command of a responsible police officer may be detailed and stationed in a place at least one hundred 4:RR6 meter away from the area of activity ready to maintain peace and order at all times( Sect on 4:. Police assistance 4hen reEuested - -t shall be imperative for law enforcement agencies! when their assistance is requested by the leaders or organi&ers! to perform their duties always mindful that their responsibility to provide proper protection to those e2ercising their right peaceably to assemble and the freedom of e2pression is primordial( /owards this end! law enforcement agencies shall observe the following guidelinesH 4a6 .embers of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the demonstrators shall be in complete uniform with their nameplates and units to which they belong displayed prominently on the front and dorsal parts of their uniform and must observe the policy of Qma2imum toleranceQ as herein definedM 4b6 /he members of the law enforcement contingent shall not carry any 0ind of firearms but may be equipped with baton or riot stic0s! shields! crash helmets with visor! gas mas0s! boots or an0le high shoes with shin guardsM 4c6 /ear gas! smo0e grenades! water cannons! or any similar anti-riot device shall not be used unless the public assembly is attended by actual violence or serious threats of violence! or deliberate destruction of property( Sect on 44. 0ispersal of pu$lic assem$ly 4ith permit - +o public assembly with a permit shall be dispersed( However! when an assembly becomes violent! the police may disperse such public assembly as followsH 4a6 At the first sign of impending violence! the ran0ing officer of the law enforcement contingent shall call the attention of the leaders of the public assembly and as0 the latter to prevent any possible disturbanceM 4b6 -f actual violence starts to a point where roc0s or other harmful ob)ects from the participants are thrown at the police or at the non-participants! or at any property causing damage to such property! the ran0ing officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly warn the participants that if the disturbance persists! the public assembly will be dispersedM

4c6 -f the violence or disturbances prevailing as stated in the preceding subparagraph should not stop or abate! the ran0ing officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly issue a warning to the participants of the public assembly! and after allowing a reasonable period of time to lapse! shall immediately order it to forthwith disperseM 4d6 +o arrest of any leader! organi&er or participant shall also be made during the public assembly unless he violates during the assembly a law! statute! ordinance or any provision of this Act( %uch arrest shall be governed by Article :<9 of the 7evised Penal Code! as amendedH 4e6 -solated acts or incidents of disorder or branch of the peace during the public assembly shall not constitute a group for dispersal( Sect on 4=. 0ispersal of pu$lic assem$ly 4ithout permit - 'hen the public assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required! the said public assembly may be peacefully dispersed( Sect on 43. Prohi$ited acts - /he following shall constitute violations of this ActH 4a6 /he holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any leader or organi&er without having first secured that written permit where a permit is required from the office concerned! or the use of such permit for such purposes in any place other than those set out in said permitH Provided! however! /hat no person can be punished or held criminally liable for participating in or attending an otherwise peaceful assemblyM 4b6 Arbitrary and un)ustified denial or modification of a permit in violation of the provisions of this Act by the mayor or any other official acting in his behalf( 4c6 /he un)ustified and arbitrary refusal to accept or ac0nowledge receipt of the application for a permit by the mayor or any official acting in his behalfM 4d6 #bstructing! impeding! disrupting or otherwise denying the e2ercise of the right to peaceful assemblyM 4e6 /he unnecessary firing of firearms by a member of any law enforcement agency or any person to disperse the public assemblyM 4f6 Acts in violation of %ection :R hereofM 4g6 Acts described hereunder if committed within one hundred 4:RR6 meters from the area of activity of the public assembly or on the occasion thereofM :( the carrying of a deadly or offensive weapon or device such as firearm! pillbo2! bomb! and the li0eM <( the carrying of a bladed weapon and the li0eM G the malicious burning of any ob)ect in the streets or thoroughfaresM

B( the carrying of firearms by members of the law enforcement unitM 9( the interfering with or intentionally disturbing the holding of a public assembly by the use of a motor vehicle! its horns and loud sound systems( Sect on 4G. Penalties - Any person found guilty and convicted of any of the prohibited acts defined in the immediately preceding %ection shall be punished as followsH 4a6 violation of subparagraph 4a6 shall be punished by imprisonment of one month and one day to si2 monthsM 4b6 violations of subparagraphs 4b6! 4c6! 4d6! 4e6! 4f6! and item B! subparagraph 4g6 shall be punished by imprisonment of si2 months and one day to si2 yearsM 4c6 violation of item :! subparagraph 4g6 shall be punished by imprisonment of si2 months and one day to si2 years without pre)udice to prosecution under Presidential "ecree +o( :D88M 4d6 violations of item <! item G! or item 9 of subparagraph 4g6 shall be punished by imprisonment of one day to thirty days( Sect on 4;. @reedom parks - Avery city and municipality in the country shall within si2 months after the effectivity of this Act establish or designate at least one suitable Qfreedom par0Q or mall in their respective )urisdictions which! as far as practicable! shall be centrally located within the poblacion where demonstrations and meetings may be held at any time without the need of any prior permit( -n the cities and municipalities of .etropolitan .anila! the respective mayors shall establish the freedom par0s within the period of si2 months from the effectivity of this Act( Sect on 4<. Constitutionality - %hould any provision of this Act be declared invalid or unconstitutional! the validity or constitutionality of the other provisions shall not be affected thereby( Sect on 4D. -epealing clause - All laws! decrees! letters of instructions! resolutions! orders! ordinances or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed! amended! or modified accordingly( Sect on 46. 6ffectivity - /his Act shall ta0e effect upon its approval( Approved! #ctober <<! :CD9(