constilaw 2 digests- freedom of speech-expression-press

7/24/2019 Constilaw 2 Digests- Freedom of Speech-expression-press

1/35

US VS. BUSTOS [37 PHIL. 731; G.R. L-12592; 8 MAR 1918]

Fact!In the latter part of 1915, numerous citizens of the Province of Pampanga assembled, and

prepared and signed a petition to the Executive Secretaryprivileged communication! through the la"

office of #rossfield and $%&rien, and five individuals signed affidavits, charging 'oman Punsalan,

(ustice of the peace of )acabebe and )asantol, Pampanga, "ith malfeasance in office and as*ingfor his removal+ he specific chargesagainst the (ustice of the peace include the solicitation of money

from persons "ho have pending cases before the (udge+ -o", Punsalan alleged that accused

published a "riting "hich "as false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory, and libelous against him+

I"#!.hether or -ot accused is entitled to constitutional protection by virtue of his right to free

speech and free press+

H#$%!/es+ he guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize (udicial

conduct+ he administration of the la" is a matter of vital public concern+ .hether the la" is "iselyor badly enforced is, therefore, a fit sub(ect for proper comment+ If the people cannot criticize a

(ustice of the peace or a (udge the same as any other public officer, public opinion "ill be effectively

suppressed+ It is a duty "hich every one o"es to society or to the State to assist in the investigation

of any alleged misconduct+ It is further the duty of all "ho *no" of any official dereliction on the part

of a magistrate or the "rongful act of any public officer to bring the facts to the notice of those "hose

duty it is to in0uire into and punish them+

he right to assemble and petition is the necessary conse0uence of republican institutions and the

complement of the part of free speech+ ssembly means a right on the part of citizens to meet

peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs+ Petition means that any person or group of

persons can apply, "ithout fear of penalty, to the appropriate branch or office of the government for aredress of grievances+ he persons assembling and petitioning must, of course, assume

responsibility for thecharges made+ ll persons have an interest in the pure and efficient

administration of (ustice and of public affairs+

Public policy, the "elfare of society, and the orderly administration of government have demanded

protection for public opinion+ he inevitable and incontestable result has been the development and

adoption of the doctrine of privilege+ ll persons have an interest in the pure and efficient

administration of (ustice and of public affairs+ he duty under "hich a party is privileged is sufficient if

it is social or moral in its nature and this person in good faith believes he is acting in pursuance

thereof although in fact he is mista*en+ lthough the charges are probably not true as to the (ustice

of the peace, they "ere believed to be true by the petitioners+ 2ood faith surrounded theiraction+ Probable cause for them to thin* that malfeasance or misfeasance in office existed is

apparent+ he ends and the motives of these citizens3 to secure the removal from office of a person

thought to be venal 3 "ere (ustifiable+ In no "ay did they abuse the privilege+

In the usual case malice can be presumed from defamatory "ords+ Privilege destroys that

presumption+ privileged communication should not be sub(ected to microscopic examination to

discover grounds of malice or falsity+
http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/us-vs-bustos-37-phil-731-gr-l-12592-8.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/us-vs-bustos-37-phil-731-gr-l-12592-8.html


2/35

B"&'() S&. * +,# ( Sta) AFP

133 S+RA 8//

G.R. 0(. 21

#c#4#& 2) 198

Fact! Petitioners assail the validity of 4 search "arrants issued on ecember 6, 1974 byrespondent 8udge #ruzPano of the then #ourt of :irst Instance of 'izal, under "hich the premises

*no"n as -o+ 19, 'oad ;, Pro(ect ?nits # @ , ')S &uilding, =uezon

venue, =uezon #ity, business addresses of the A)etropolitan )ailA and A.e :orumA ne"spapers,

respectively, "ere searched, and office and printing machines, e0uipment, paraphernalia, motor

vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said ne"spapers,

as "ell as numerous papers, documents, boo*s and other "ritten literature alleged to be in the

possession and control of petitioner 8ose &urgos, 8r+ publishereditor of the A.e :orumA ne"spaper,

"ere seized+ s a conse0uence of the search and seizure, these premises "ere padloc*ed and

sealed, "ith the further result that the printing and publication of said ne"spapers "ere discontinued+

'espondents contend that petitioners should have filed a motion to 0uash said "arrants in the court

that issued them before impugning the validity of the same before this #ourt+ 'espondents also

assail the petition on ground of laches :ailure or negligence for an unreasonable and unexplained

length of time to do that "hich, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier+

It is negligence or omission to assert a right "ithin a reasonable time, "arranting a presumption that

the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it!+ 'espondents further

state that since petitioner had already used as evidence some of the documents seized in a prior

criminal case, he is stopped from challenging the validity of the search "arrants+

Petitioners submit the follo"ing reasons to nullify the 0uestioned "arrantsB

1+ 'espondent 8udge failed to conduct an examination under oath or affirmation of the

applicant and his "itnesses, as mandated by the above0uoted constitutional provision as "ell asSec+ >, 'ule 14< of the 'ules of #ourt+

4+ he search "arrants pinpointed only one address "hich "ould be the former

abovementioned address+

;+ rticles belonging to his copetitioners "ere also seized although the "arrants "ere only

directed against 8ose &urgos, 8r+

>+ 'eal properties "ere seized+

5+ he application along "ith a (oint affidavit, upon "hich the "arrants "ere issued, from the

)etrocom Intelligence and Security 2roup could not have provided sufficient basis for the finding of

a probable cause upon "hich a "arrant may be validly issued in accordance "ith Section ;, rticle

IC of the 196; #onstitution+

'espondents (ustify the continued sealing of the printing machines on the ground that they have

been se0uestered under Section 7 of Presidential ecree -o+ 775, as amended, "hich authorizes

se0uestration of the property of any person engaged in subversive activities against the government

in accordance "ith implementing rules and regulations as may be issued by the Secretary of

-ational efense+


3/35

I"#! .hether or -ot the 4 search "arrants "ere validly issued and executed+

H#$%! In regard to the 0uashal of "arrants that petitioners should have initially filed to the lo"er

court, this #ourt ta*es cognizance of this petition in vie" of the seriousness and urgency of the

constitutional Issue raised, not to mention the public interest generated by the search of the A.e

:orumA offices "hich "as televised in #hannel 6 and "idely publicized in all metropolitan dailies+he existence of this special circumstance (ustifies this #ourt to exercise its inherent po"er to

suspend its rules+ .ith the contention pertaining to laches, the petitioners gave an explanation

evidencing that they have exhausted other extra(udicial efforts to remedy the situation, negating the

presumption that they have abandoned their right to the possession of the seized property+

$n the enumerated reasonsB

1+ his ob(ection may properly be considered moot and academic, as petitioners themselves

conceded during the hearing on ugust 9, 197;, that an examination had indeed been conducted by

respondent (udge of #ol+ badilla and his "itnesses+

4+ he defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error+ Precisely, t"o search "arrants"ere applied for and issued because the purpose and intent "ere to search t"o distinct premises+ It

"ould be 0uite absurd and illogical for respondent (udge to have issued t"o "arrants intended for

one and the same place+

;+ Section 4, 'ule 14


4/35

Fact!$n )arch 49, 19

defendants on the grounds that the statements in the advertisement "ere libelous per se Klegal in(ury

being implied "ithout proof of actual damagesL, false, and not privileged+ $n appeal, the Supreme

#ourt of labama affirmed the decision+ Plaintiffs appealed to the ?nited States Supreme #ourt+

I"#! #an a public figure receive damages in a civil libel action, if malice is not provenM

R"$'!-o+ he ?+S+ Supreme #ourt reversed the (udgment and remanded the case+

R"$#=Aa$

statements or "as rec*less in that regard, and therefore could not prove malice+ In the absence of

malice, respondent could not recover damages+


5/35

I R:! #c$a&at(&< R#$# R: +(tt"t(a$t< ( RA 88/. G(>a$# *. +(44( (

:$#ct( [GR L-27833) 18 A&$ 199]En &anc, :ernando 8!B > concur in result, ; filed o"n

separate opinions

Fact!"o ne" sections "ere included in the 'evised Election #ode, under 'epublic ct >77,

"hich "as approved and too* effect on 16 8une 19


6/35

H#$%!he primacy, the high estate accorded freedom of expression is of course a fundamental

postulate of our constitutional system+ -o la" shall he passed abridging the freedom of speech or of

the press+ It embraces, at the very least, free speech and free press may be identified "ith the liberty

to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest "ithout censorship or punishment+

here is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of vie"s or subse0uent liability

"hether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedingsunless there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that #ongress has a right to prevent+

he vital need in a constitutional democracy for freedom of expression is undeniable "hether as a

means of assuring individual selffulfillment, of attaining the truth, of securing participation by the

people in social including political decisionma*ing, and of maintaining the balance bet"een stability

and change+ he trend as reflected in Philippine and merican decisions is to recognize the

broadest scope and assure the "idest latitude to this constitutional guaranty+ It represents a

profound commitment to the principle that debate of public issue should be uninhibited, robust, and

"ideopen+ It is not going too far to vie" the function of free speech as inviting dispute+ AIt may

indeed best serve its high purpose "hen it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction "ith

conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger+A :reedom of speech and of the press thus

means something more than the right to approve existing political beliefs or economic arrangements,to lend support to official measures, to ta*e refuge in the existing climate of opinion on any matter of

public conse0uence+ So atrophied, the right becomes meaningless+ he right belongs as "ell, if not

more, for those "ho 0uestion, "ho do not conform, and "ho differ+ o paraphrase 8ustice Golmes, it

is freedom for the thought that "e hate, no less than for the thought that agrees "ith us+ :rom the

language of the specific constitutional provision, it "ould appear that the right is not susceptible of

any limitation+ -o la" may be passed abridging the freedom of speech and of the press+ he

realities of life in a complex society preclude ho"ever a literal interpretation+ :reedom of expression

is not an absolute+ It "ould 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+ "o tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for permissible restriction+ hese are

the Aclear and present dangerA rule and the Adangerous tendencyA rule+ he #ourt is of the vie" thatno unconstitutional infringement exists insofar as the formation of organizations, associations, clubs,

committees, or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes or underta*ing any

campaign or propaganda or both for or against a candidate or party is restricted and that the

prohibition against giving, soliciting, or receiving contribution for election purposes, either directly or

indirectly, is e0ually free from constitutional infirmity+ he restriction on freedom of assembly as

confined to holding political conventions, caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades or other

similar assemblies for the purpose of soliciting votes or underta*ing any campaign or propaganda or

both for or against a candidate or party, leaving untouched all other legitimate exercise of such

poses a more difficult 0uestion+ -evertheless, after a thorough consideration, it should not be

annulled+ he other acts, li*e"ise deemed included in Aelection campaignA or Apartisan political

activityA tax to the utmost the (udicial predisposition to vie" "ith sympathy legislative efforts toregulate election practices deemed inimical, because of their collision "ith the preferred right of

freedom of expression+ he scope of the curtailment to "hich freedom of expression may be

sub(ected is not foreclosed by the recognition of the existence of a clear and present danger of a

substantive evil, the debasement of the electoral process+ he ma(ority of the #ourt is of the belief

that the ban on the solicitation or underta*ing of any campaign or propaganda, "hether directly or

indirectly, by an individual, the ma*ing of speeches, announcements or commentaries or holding

intervie" for or against the election for any party or candidate for public office, or the publication or


7/35

distribution of campaign literature or materials, suffers from the corrosion of invalidity+ It lac*s

ho"ever one more affirmative vote to call for a declaration of unconstitutionality+ he necessary 4D;

vote, ho"ever, not being obtained, there is no occasion for the po"er to annul statutes to come into

play+ Such being the case, it is the (udgment of the #ourt that ' >77 cannot be declared

unconstitutional+

S(ca$ ?#at,#& Stat( Ic. *. +(44( ( :$#ct( [GR 17571) 5 Ma< 2//1] Second

ivision, )endoza 8!B ; concur

Fact!he Social .eather Stations, Inc+ S.S!, is a private nonstoc*, nonprofit social research

institution conducting surveys in various fields, including economics, politics, demography, and social

development, and thereafter processing, analyzing, and publicly reporting the results thereof+ $n theother hand, Oamahalan Publishing #orporation publishes the )anila Standard, a ne"spaper of

general circulation, "hich features ne"s"orthy items of information including election surveys+ S.S

and Oamahalan Publishing brought the action for prohibition "ith the Supreme #ourt to en(oin the

#ommission on Elections from enforcing 5+> of ' 9< :air Election ct!, "hich provides that

ASurveys affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen 15! days before an election and

surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published seven 6! days be fore an election+A S.S

states that it "ishes to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the elections both at the

national and local levels and release to the media the results of such survey as "ell as publish them

directly+ Oamahalan Publishing, on the other hand, states that it intends to publish election survey

results up to the last day of the elections on 1> )ay 41+ hey argue that the restriction on the

publication of election survey results constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom ofspeech "ithout any clear and present danger to (ustify such restraint+ hey claim that S.S and other

pollsters conducted and published the results of surveys prior to the 1994, 1995, and 1997 elections

up to as close as t"o days before the election day "ithout causing confusion among the voters and

that there is neither empirical nor historical evidence to support the conclusion that there is an

immediate and inevitable danger to tile voting process posed by election surveys+ hey point out that

no similar restriction is imposed on politicians from explaining their opinion or on ne"spapers or

broadcast media from "riting and publishing articles concerning political issues up to the day of the


8/35

election+ #onse0uently, they contend that there is no reason for ordinary voters to be denied access

to the results of election surveys, "hich are relatively ob(ective+

I"#!.hether 5+> of ' 9< constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech,expression, and the press+

H#$%!5+> of ' 9< constitute an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech, expression,

and the press+ 5+> lays a prior restraint on freedom of speech, expression, and the press prohibiting

the publication of election survey results affecting candidates "ithin the prescribed periods of 15

days immediately preceding a national election and 6 days before a local election+ &ecause of the

preferred status of the constitutional rights of speech, expression, and the press, such a measure is

vitiated by a "eighty presumption of invalidity+ Indeed, any system of prior restraints of expression

comes to the Supreme #ourt bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity+ he2overnment thus carries a heavy burden of sho"ing (ustification for in enforcement of such restraint+

here, thus a reversal of the normal presumption of validity that inheres in every legislation+ Sec+ 5+>

fails to meet criterion K;L of the $ %&rien test because the causal connection of expression to the

asserted governmental interest ma*es such interest Anot related to the suppression of free

expression+A &y prohibiting the publication of election survey results because of the possibility that

such publication might undermine the integrity of the election, 5+> actually suppresses a "hole

class of expression, "hile allo"ing the expression of opinion concerning the same sub(ect matter by

ne"spaper columnists, radio and C commentators, armchair theorists, and other opinion ta*ers+ In

effect, 5+> sho"s a bias for a particular sub(ect matter, if not vie"point, by referring personal

opinion to statistical results+ he constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression means that Athe

government has no po"er to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its sub(ect matter,or its content+A he prohibition imposed by 5+> cannot be (ustified on the ground that it is only for a

limited period and is only incidental+ he prohibition may be for a limited time, but the curtailment of

the right of expression is direct, absolute, and substantial+ It constitutes a total suppression of a

category of speech and is not made less so because it is only for a period of 15 days immediately

before a national election and 6 days immediately before a local election+ In fine, 5+> is invalid

because 1! it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression, 4! it is a direct and total

suppression of a category of expression even though such suppression is only for a limited period,

and ;! the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than

suppression of freedom of expression+


9/35

@a$%*a& *. Sa%'aa


10/35

Qaldivar, on substantially the same ground as the first petition, prays that anodbayan 2onzalez be

restrained from conducting preliminary investigations and filing similar cases "ith the

Sandiganbayan+ he Supreme #ourt granted the consolidated petitions filed by Qaldivar and nullified

the criminal informations filed against him in the SandiganbayanN and ordered 'aul 2onzalez to

cease and desist from conducting investigations and filing criminal cases "ith the Sandiganbayan or

other"ise exercising the po"ers and functions of the $mbudsman+

KPresent caseL anodbayan 2onzales allegedly made contumacious acts or statements in a pleading

filed before the #ourt and in statements given to the media+ In its 'esolution dated 4 )ay 1977, the

Supreme #ourt re0uired anodbayan 2onzales to explain A"hy he should not be punished for

contempt of court andDor sub(ected to administrative sanctionsA and in respect of "hich, 2onzales

"as heard and given the most ample opportunity to present all defenses, arguments and evidence

that he "anted to present for the consideration of this #ourt+ he #ourt did not summarily impose

punishment upon 2onzales "hich it could have done under Section 1 of 'ule 61 of the 'evised

'ules of #ourt had it chosen to consider 2onzales% acts as constituting Adirect contempt+A In the percuriam resolution dated 6 $ctober 1977, the #ourt found anodbayan 2onzalez to be Aguilty both of

contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of

the bar+A 2onzales filed a motion for reconsideration+

I"#!.hether the statements made by anodbayan 2onzales transcended the permissible limits

of free speech+

H#$%! he Aclear and present dangerA doctrine is not a magic incantation "hich dissolves all

problems and dispenses "ith analysis and (udgment in the testing of the legitimacy of claims to free

speech, and "hich compels a court to exonerate a defendant the moment the doctrine is invo*ed,

absent proof of impending apocalypse+ he Aclear and present dangerA doctrine has been an

accepted method for mar*ing out the appropriate limits of freedom of speech and of assembly in

certain contexts+ It is not, ho"ever, the only test "hich has been recognized and applied by courts+

lthough the prevailing doctrine is that the clear and present danger rule is such a limitationN another

criterion for permissible limitation on freedom of speech and of the press, "hich includes such

vehicles of the mass media as radio, television and the movies, is the Abalancingof interests test+A

he principle re0uires a court to ta*e conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of

interests observable in a given situation or type of situation% Still, under either the Aclear and presentdangerA test or the Abalancingofinterest testA the #orut believes that the statements made by

2onzalez are of such a nature and "ere made in such a manner and under such circumstances, as

to transcend the permissible limits of free speech+ his conclusion "as implicit in the per curiam

'esolution of $ctober 6, 1977+ It is important to point out that the Asubstantive evilA "hich the

Supreme #ourt has a right and a duty to prevent does not, in the present case, relate to threats of

physical disorder or overt violence or similar disruptions of public order+ .hat is here at sta*e is the

authority of the Supreme #ourt to confront and prevent a Asubstantive evilA consisting not only of the


11/35

obstruction of a free and fair hearing of a particular case but also the avoidance of the broader evil of

the degradation of the (udicial system of a country and the destruction of the standards of

professional conduct re0uired from members of the bar and officers of the courts+ he Asubstantive

evilA here involved, in other "ords, is not as palpable as a threat of public disorder or rioting but is

certainly no less deleterious and more far reaching in its implications for society+


12/35

Sa%a% *. +(44( ( :$#ct( [GR 9/878) 29 a"a&< 199/]En &anc, )edialdea 8!B 1>

concur

Fact!$n 4; $ctober 1979, 'epublic ct


13/35

leave of absence+ Go"ever, neither rticle I# of the #onstitution nor Section 11b!, 4nd paragraph

of '


14/35

a#t R#( *. A4#&ca$ +*$ L#&t# U( [521 US 88)2 "# 1997] Stevens 8!B < concur,

1 filed separate opinion to "hich 1 (oined

Fact!"o provisions of the #ommunications ecency ct of 199< # or ct! see* to protect

minors from harmful material on the Internet, an international net"or* of interconnected computers

that enables millions of people to communicate "ith one another in AcyberspaceA and to access vast

amounts of information from around the "orld+ itle >6 ?+ S+ #+ + 44;a!1!&!ii! Supp+ 1996!

criminalizes the A*no"ingA transmission of Aobscene or indecentA messages to any recipient under

17 years of age+ Section 44;d! prohibits the A*no"inKgLA sending or displaying to a person under 17

of any message Athat, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by

contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs+A ffirmative defenses

are provided for those "ho ta*e Agood faith, + + + effective + + + actionsA to restrict access by minors to

the prohibited communications, 44;e!5!!, and those "ho restrict such access by re0uiringcertain designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit card or an adult identification

number, 44;e!5!&!+ number of plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of 44;a!1!

and 44;d!+ fter ma*ing extensive findings of fact, a three (udge istrict #ourt convened pursuant to

the ct entered a preliminary in(unction against enforcement of both challenged provisions+ he

court%s (udgment en(oins the 2overnment from enforcing 44;a!1!&!%s prohibitions insofar as they

relate to AindecentA communications, but expressly preserves the 2overnment%s right to investigate

and prosecute the obscenity or child pornography activities prohibited therein+ he in(unction against


15/35

enforcement of 44;d! is un0ualified because that section contains no separatereference to

obscenity or child pornography+ he 2overnment appealed to the Supreme #ourt under the ct%s

special revie" provisions, arguing that the istrict #ourt erred in holding that the # violated both

the :irst mendment because it is overbroad and the :ifth mendment because it is vague+

I"#!.hether the #ommunications ecency ct of 199< places an unacceptably heavy burden on

protected speech+

H#$%!'egardless of "hether the #ommunications ecency ct of 199< #! is so vague that it

violates the :ifth mendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its coverage render it

problematic for purposes of the :irst mendment+ :or instance, each of the t"o parts of the #

uses a different linguistic form+ he first uses the "ord Aindecent,A "hile the second spea*s of

material that Ain context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured bycontemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs+A 2iven the absence of

a definition of either term, this difference in language "ill provo*e uncertainty among spea*ers about

ho" the t"o standards relate to each other and (ust "hat they mean+ his uncertainty undermines

the li*elihood that the # has been carefully tailored to the congressional goal of protecting minors

from potentially harmful materials+ he vagueness of the # is a matter of special concern for t"o

reasons+ :irst, the # is a content based regulation of speech+ he vagueness of such a regulation

raises special :irst mendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech+

Second, the # is a criminal statute+ In addition to the opprobrium and stigma of a criminal

conviction, the # threatens violators "ith penalties including up to t"o years in prison for each act

of violation+ he severity of criminal sanctions may "ell cause spea*ers to remain silent rather than

communicate even arguably unla"ful "ords, ideas, and images+ he # regulates speech on thebasis of its content+ Atime, place, and mannerA analysis is therefore inapplicable+ It is thus

immaterial "hether such speech "ould be feasible on the .eb "hich, as the 2overnment%s o"n

expert ac*no"ledged, "ould cost up to J1, if the spea*er%s interests "ere not accommodated

by an existing .eb site, not including costs for database management and age verification!+ he

2overnment%s position is e0uivalent to arguing that a statute could ban leaflets on certain sub(ects as

long as individuals are free to publish boo*s+ In invalidating a number of la"s that banned leafletting

on the streets regardless of their content the #ourt explained that Aone is not to have the exercise

of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in

some other place+A lso, most Internet fora including chat rooms, ne"sgroups, mail exploders, and

the .eb are open to all comers+ Even the strongest reading of the Aspecific personA re0uirement of

44;d! cannot save the statute+ It "ould confer broad po"ers of censorship, in the form of aAhec*ler%s veto,A upon any opponent of indecent speech "ho might simply log on and inform the

"ould be discoursers that his 16 year old child a Aspecific person under 17 years of age,A "ould

be present+ :inally, there is no textual support for the 2overnment%s submission that material having

scientific, educational, or other redeeming social value "ill necessarily fall outside the #%s

Apatently offensiveA and AindecentA prohibitions+ hus, the # places an unacceptably heavy

burden on protected speech, and that the defenses do not constitute the sort of Anarro" tailoringA

that "ill save an other"ise patently invalid unconstitutional provision+ he #, casting a far dar*er


16/35

shado" over free speech, threatens to torch a large segment of the Internet community+ he ruling of

the district court "as sustained+

M&a4 +($$#'# F("%at( Ic. *. +("&t ( A#a$ [GR 12793/) 15 #c#4#& 2///] :irst

ivision, Oapunan 8!B ; concur, 1 too* no part

Fact!:ollo"ing the publication of the September$ctober 199> issue Col+ >1, -o+ 1>! of )iriam

#ollege%s school paper #hi'ho!, and magazine ng )agasing Pampaniti*an ng #hi'ho!, the

members of the editorial board, and 'elly #arpio, author of ibog, all students of )iriam #ollege,received a letter signed by r+ leli Sevilla, #hair of the )iriam #ollege iscipline #ommittee+ he

etter dated > -ovember 199> informed them that letters of complaint "ere Afiled against you by

members of the )iriam #ommunity and a concerned teneo grade five student have been

for"arded to the iscipline #ommittee for in0uiry and investigation+ Please find enclosed complaints+

s expressed in their complaints you have violated regulations in the student handboo* specifically

Section 4 letters & and ', pages ; and ;4, Section > )a(or offenses! letter (, page ;< letters m, n,

and p, page ;6 and no+ 4 minor offenses! letter a, page ;6+ /ou are re0uired to submit a "ritten


17/35

statement in ans"er to the chargeDs on or before the initial date of hearing to be held on -ovember

15, 199>, uesday, 1B in the afternoon at the S #onference 'oom+A -one of the students

submitted their respective ans"ers+ hey instead re0uested r+ Sevilla to transfer the case to the

'egional $ffice of the epartment of Education, #ulture and Sports E#S! "hich under 'ule II of

E#S $rder 9>, Series of 1994, supposedly had (urisdiction over the case+ In a etter dated 41

-ovember 199>, r+ Sevilla again re0uired the students to file their "ritten ans"ers+ In response,tty+ 'icardo Calmonte, la"yer for the students, submitted a letter to the iscipline #ommittee

reiterating his clients% position that said #ommittee had no (urisdiction over them+ ccording to tty+

Calmonte, the #ommittee "as Atrying to impose discipline on his clients on account of their having

"ritten articles and poems in their capacity as campus (ournalists+A Gence, he argued that A"hat

applies is 'epublic ct -o+ 669 he #ampus 8ournalism ct and its implementing rules and

regulations+A Ge also 0uestioned the partiality of the members of said #ommittee "ho allegedly Ahad

already articulated their positionA against his clients+ he iscipline #ommittee proceeded "ith its

investigation ex parte+ hereafter, the iscipline &oard, after a revie" of the iscipline #ommittee%s

report, imposed disciplinary sanctions upon the students, to "itB 1! 8asper &riones KEditorin#hief

of #hi'ho, >th year studentLB ExpulsionN 4! aphne #o"perB Suspension up to summer! )arch

1995N ;! Imelda GilarioB suspension for 4 "ee*s to expire on 4 :ebruary 1995N >! eborah igonK>th year student and could graduate as summa cum laudeLB suspension up to )ay 1995N 5!

Elizabeth CaldezcoB suspension up to summer! )arch 1995N

graduation privileges "ithheld, including diplomaN 6! 8oel anB suspension for 4 "ee*s to expire on

4 :ebruary 1995N 7! 2erald 2ary 'enacido K4nd year studentLB Expelled and given transfer

credentialsN 9! 'elly #arpio K;rd year studentLB ismissed and given transfer credentialsN 1!

8erome 2omez K;rd year studentLB ismissed and given transfer credentialsN and 11! 8ose )ari

'amos Krt editor of #hi'ho, 4nd year studentLB Expelled and given transfer papers+ Said students

thus filed a petition for prohibition and certiorari "ith preliminary in(unctionDrestraining order before

the 'egional rial #ourt of =uezon #ity 0uestioning the (urisdiction of the iscipline &oard of )iriam

#ollege over them+ $n 16 8anuary 1995, the 'egional rial #ourt, &ranch #III, presided by 8udge

8aime -+ Salazar, 8r+, issued an order denying the students% prayer for a emporary 'estraining$rder+ he students thereafter filed a ASupplemental Petition and )otion for 'econsideration+A

Subse0uently, the '# issued an $rder dated 1 :ebruary 1995 granting the "rit of preliminary

in(unction+ &oth parties moved for a reconsideration of the above order+ In an $rder dated 44

:ebruary 1995, the '# dismissed the petition+ he students, excluding eborah igon, Imelda

Gilario and aphne #o"per, sought relief in the Supreme #ourt through a petition for certiorari and

prohibition of preliminary in(unctionDrestraining order11 0uestioning the $rders of the '# dated 1

and 4> :ebruary 1995+ $n 15 )arch 1995, the #ourt resolved to refer the case to the #ourt of

ppeals #! for disposition+ In its ecision dated 4< September 199


18/35

H#$%!In several cases, the Supreme #ourt has upheld the right of the students to free speech in

school premises+ he right of the students to free speech in school premises, ho"ever, is not

absolute+ he right to free speech must al"ays be applied in light of the special characteristics of the

school environment+ hus, "hile the #ourt upheld the right of the students to free expression in the

cases of )alabanan vs+ 'amento, Cillar vs+ echnological Institute of the Philippines, rreza vs+

2regorio raneta ?niversity :oundation, and -on vs+ ames II, the #ourt did not rule out disciplinaryaction by the school for Aconduct by the student, in class or out of it, "hich for any reason "hether

it stems from time, place, or type of behavior "hich materially disrupts class"or* or involves

substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others+A Provisions of la" such as Section 6 of the

#ampus 8ournalism ct! should be construed in harmony "ith those of the #onstitutionN acts of the

legislature should be construed, "herever possible, in a manner that "ould avoid their conflicting

"ith the fundamental la"+ statute should not be given a broad construction if its validity can be

saved by a narro"er one+ hus, Section 6 should be read in a manner as not to infringe upon the

school%s right to discipline its students+ t the same time, ho"ever, said provision should not be

construed as to unduly restrict the right of the students to free speech+ #onsistent "ith

(urisprudence, Section 6 of the #ampus 8ournalism ct is read to mean that the school cannot

suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles he or she has "ritten, except "hensuch article materially disrupt class "or* or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of

others+ :urther, the po"er of the school to investigate is an ad(unct of its po"er to suspend or expel+

It is a necessary corollary to the enforcement of rules and regulations and the maintenance of a safe

and orderly educational environment conducive to learning+ hat po"er, li*e the po"er to suspend or

expel, is an inherent part of the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning guaranteed by

the #onstitution+ he #ourt therefore rules that )iriam #ollege has the authority to hear and decide

the cases filed against the students+


19/35


20/35

ABS-+B0 B&(a%cat' +(& *. +OM:L:+

a"a&< 28) 2///

FA+TS! #$)EE# issued a 'esolution approving the issuance of a restraining order to stop &S

#&- or any other groups, its agents or representatives from conducting exit surveys+ he

'esolution "as issued by

the #omelec allegedly upon Ainformation from a reliable source that &S#&- opez 2roup! has

prepared a pro(ect, "ith P' groups, to conduct radioC coverage of the elections and to ma*e anexit survey of the vote during the elections for national officials particularly for President and Cice

President, results of "hich shall be broadcasted immediately+H he electoral body believed that

such pro(ect might conflict "ith the official #omelec count, as "ell as the unofficial 0uic* count of the

-ational )ovement for :ree Elections -amfrel!+ It also noted that it had not authorized or deputized

&S#&- to underta*e the exit survey+

"o days before the elections on )ay 11, 1997, the #ourt issuedthe emporary 'estraining

$rder prayed for by petitioner &S#&-+ he #omelec "as directed to cease and desist, until

further orders, from implementing the assailed 'esolution or the restraining order issued pursuant

thereto, if any+ In fact, the exit polls "ere actually conducted and reported by media "ithout any

difficulty or problem+

ISSU:! ?=0 t,# +(4#$#c) t,# ##&c# ( t (6#&) ca a($"t#$< a #t

($$

&S#&-B he holding of exit polls andthe nation"ide reporting of their results are valid exercises

of the freedoms of speech and of the press

#$)EE#B 1!he issuance thereof "as Apursuant to its constitutional and statutory po"ers to

promote a clean, honest, orderly and credible )ay 11, 1997 electionsAN and Ato protect, preserve and

maintain the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot+A

4!It contends that Athe conduct of exit surveys might unduly confuse and influence the voters,A and

that the surveys "ere designed Ato condition the minds of people and cause confusion as to "ho are

the "inners and the losers in the election,A "hich in turn may result in Aviolence and anarchy+A
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1844282339298005116http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1844282339298005116http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1844282339298005116


21/35

;!Aexit surveys indirectly violate the constitutional principle to preserve the sanctity of the ballots,A as

the Avoters are lured to reveal the contents of ballots,A in violation of Section 4, rticle C of the

#onstitution and relevant provisions of the $mnibus Election #ode+ It submits that the

constitutionally protected freedoms invo*ed by petitioner Aare not immune to regulation by the State

in the legitimate exercise of its police po"er,A such as in the present case+

>! AKpLress freedom may be curtailed if the exercise thereof creates a clear and present danger to the

community or it has a dangerous tendency+A It then contends that Aan exit poll has the tendency to

so" confusion considering the randomness of selecting intervie"ees, "hich further ma*eKsL the exit

poll highly unreliable+ he probability that the results of such exit poll may not be in harmony "ith the

official count made by the #omelec x x x is ever present+ In other "ords, the exit poll has a clear and

present danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of the electoral process+A

SUPR:M: +OURT! he #$)EE# 'esolution on exit polls ban is nullified and set aside+

1C +$#a& a% #t %a'#& ( %#t&(


22/35

voters% ans"ers to the survey 0uestions "ill forever remain un*no"n and unexplored+ ?nless the ban

is restrained, candidates, researchers, social scientists and the electorate in general "ould be

deprived of studies on the impact of current events and of electionday and other factors on voters%

choices+

3C V($at( ( Ba S#cc, 19>6, in the to"n of agbilaran, &ohol, $scar Espuelas y)endoza had his picture ta*en, ma*ing it to appear as if he "ere hanging lifeless at the end of a

piece of rope suspended from the limb of a tree, "hen in truth and in fact, he "as merely standing

on a barrel+ fter securing copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent copies of same to several

ne"spapers and "ee*lies of general circulation, not only in the Province of &ohol but also

throughout the Philippines and abroad, for their publication "ith a suicide note or letter, "herein he

made to appear that it "as "ritten by a fictitious suicide, lberto 'eveniera and addressed to the

latter%s supposed "ife, stating therein in part that Aif someone as*s you "hy I committed suicide, tell

them I did it because I "as not pleased "ith the administration of 'oxas+ ell the "hole "orld about

this+ nd if they as* "hy I did not li*e the administration of 'oxas, point out to them the situation in

#entral uzon, the Gu*balahaps+ ell them about 8ulio 2uillen and the banditry of eyte+ ear "ife,

"rite to President ruman and #hurchill+ ell them that here in the Philippines our government isinfested "ith many Gitlers and )ussolinis+ each our children to burn pictures of 'oxas if and "hen

they come across one+ I committed suicide because I am ashamed of our government under 'oxas+

I cannot hold high my bro"s to the "orld "ith this dirty government+ I committed suicide because I

have no po"er to put under 8uez de #uchillo all the 'oxas people no" in po"er+ So, I sacrificed my

o"n self+A Espuelas "as charged for violating rticle 1>4 of the 'evised Penal #ode, "hich punishes

those "ho shall "rite, publish or circulate scurrilous libels against the 2overnment of the Philippines

or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof or "hich suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or

riots or "hich tend to stir up the people against the la"ful authorities or to disturb the peace of the

community+ Espuelas admitted the fact that he "rote the note or letter and caused its publication in

the :ree Press, the Evening -e"s, the &isaya, amdang and other local periodicals and that he had

impersonated one lberto 'eveniera by signing said pseudonymous name in said note or letter andposed himself as lberto 'eveniera in a picture ta*en "herein he "as sho"n hanging by the end of

a rope tied to a limb of a tree+ Espuelas "as, after trial, convicted in the #ourt of :irst Instance of

&ohol of a violation of the above article+ he conviction "as affirmed by the #ourt of ppeals+

Espuelas appealed+

I"#!.hether sedition la"s unnecessarily curtain the citizenRs freedom of expression+

H#$%!he freedom of speech secured by the #onstitution Adoes not confer an absolute right to

spea* or publish "ithout responsibility "hatever one may choose+A It is not Aunbridled license that

gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those "ho abuse

this freedom+A So statutes against sedition have al"ays been considered not violative of suchfundamental guaranty, although they should not be interpreted so as to unnecessarily curtail the

citizen%s freedom of expression to agitate for institutional changes+ -ot to be restrained is the

privilege of any citizen to criticize his government and government officials and to submit his criticism

to the Afree trade of ideasA and to plead for its acceptance in Athe competition of the mar*et+A

Go"ever, let such criticism be specific and therefore constructive, reasoned or tempered, and not a

contemptuous condemnation of the entire government setup+ Such "holesale attac* is nothing less

than an invitation to disloyalty to the government+ Gerein, no particular ob(ectionable actuation of the


25/35

government "as made in the article+ It is called dirty, it is called a dictatorship, it is called shameful,

but no particular omissions or commissions are set forth+ Instead the article drips "ith maleviolence

and hate to"ards the constituted authorities+ It tries to arouse animosity to"ards all public servants

headed by President 'oxas "hose pictures Espuelas "ould burn and "ould teach the younger

generation to destroy+ nalyzed for meaning and "eighed in its conse0uences the article cannot fail

to impress thin*ing personRs that it see*s to so" the seeds of sedition and strife+ he infuriatinglanguage is not a sincere effort to persuade, "hat "ith the "riter%s simulated suicide and false claim

to martyrdom and "hat "ith its failure to particularize+ .hen the use of irritating language centers

not on persuading the readers but on creating disturbance, the rationable of free speech can not

apply and the spea*er or "riter is removed from the protection of the constitutional guaranty+

lthough it be argued that the article does not discredit the entire governmental structure but only

President 'oxas and his menN still, article 1>4 punishes not only all libels against the 2overnment

but also Alibels against any of the duly constituted authorities thereof+A he A'oxas peopleA in the

2overnment obviously refer at least to the President, his #abinet and the ma(ority of legislators to

"hom the ad(ectives dirty, Gitlers and )ussolinis "ere naturally directed+ $n this score alone the

conviction could be upheld+ o top it all, Espuelas proclaimed to his readers that he committed

suicide because he had Ano po"er to put under (uez de cuchillo all the 'oxas people no" in po"er+AOno"ing, that the expression 8uez de #uchillo means to the ordinary layman as the a" of the

Onife, a Asummary and arbitrary execution by the *nifeA, the idea intended by Espuelas to be

conveyed "as no other than bloody, violent and unpeaceful methods to free the government from

the administration of 'oxas and his men+ he meaning, intent and effect of the article involves

maybe a 0uestion of fact, ma*ing the findings of the court of appeals conclusive upon the Supreme

#ourt+


26/35

G.R. 0(. L-3315 A&$ 22) 1977

MA0U:L :LI@AL:) FR: . :LI@AL:) PRU:0+IO R. :UROPA) petitioners,

vs+

HO0. MARIO . GUTI:RR:@) P%' "%'#) +FI-I$(c( S"&) B&ac, III) a% P:OPL: OF TH:

PHILIPPI0:S) #t#% t, tac# < :SUS F. GU:RR:RO) P&(*ca$ Fca$ ( I$(c(

S"&) respondents+

F:R0A0O) J:

It "as the refusal of respondent 8udge )ario 8+ 2utierrez 1to grant motion to 0uash of petitioners, "ho

"ere the accused in a prosecution for libel, not"ithstanding the invocation of their constitutional right to

freedom of expression 2that led to this suit for certiorari and prohibition+ ll that could be alleged in theinformation against them "as the publication in the Evening -e"s, a ne"spaper of general circulation, of

an item reproducing in full a dispatch from the Philippine -e"s Service, a reputable ne"sgathering

agency+ It summarized the testimony of 8aime 8ose in a pending rape case "herein the name of Cincent

#risologo, the offended party in the information for libel, "as mentioned+ his excerpt from the recent

case of Bocobo v. Estanislao 3comes to mindB Ahis is contrary to the legal tradition of the Philippines

dating bac* to the landmar* case of ?nited States v. Bustos, "here 8ustice )alcolm emphasized that to

prevent dilution of the constitutional right to free speech and free press, every libel prosecution should be

tested by the rigorous and exacting standard of "hether or not it could be violative of such fundamental

guarantee+ It is easily understandable then "hy in the motion to 0uash, the main reliance "as on the

&ustos doctrine, although other grounds "ere alleged as "arranting the dismissal of the

information+ 5.hen respondent 8udge ignored such a fundamental constitutional principle, the proper

basis for a certiorari and prohibition proceeding "as laid+ Petitioners are entitled to the remedies sought+

he alleged offending ne"s item "as a reproduction of a ne"s item coming from the Philippine -e"s

Service, furnished the Evening -e"s, of "hich petitioners )anuel Elizalde and :red 8+ Elizalde "ere the

Publisher and ssistant Publisher and Prudencio '+ Europa "as the Editorin#hief+ It reads thusB A8aime

8ose implicated uesday Cincent #risologo, son of 'ep+ :loro #risologo -, Ilocos Sur ! as among his

four companions the night of the alleged rape of a former nightclub hostess last year+ 8ose, one of four

principal accused in the celebrated )aggie de la 'iva rape case, denied, ho"ever, the charges of forcible

abduction "ith rape and robbery filed against him and his companions by Qenaida de la #ruz, 47, and

raceli Sy, both nightclub hostesses+ 8ose mentioned Cincent #risologo as among his companions "hile

testifying in his defense before 8udge :rancisco de la 'osa of the local court of first instance+ 8ose

claimed that both Qenaida and raceli "ent voluntarily "ith his group to the =ueen%s #ourt motel here inthe early morning of 8uly >, 19


27/35

allegedly abused them+ 8ose testified that he and illman "ere about to go to a party in )andaluyong,

'izal, on the night of 8uly ;, 19, 196+ n opposition "as then filed by an assistant provincial fiscal on September 45, 196+

he order by respondent 8udge denying the motion to 0uash came on ecember 16, 196+ n extensive

motion for reconsideration submitted on :ebruary 4;, 1961 having proved futile in vie" of an order of

denial a month later from respondent 8udge, this petition for certiorari and prohibition "as filed "ith this

#ourt+

s noted at the outset, certiorari and prohibition lie+

1+ Petitioners "ere prosecuted for libel because the Evening -e"s carried in its issue of September 1,

19


28/35

4+ o be more specific, no culpability could be imputed to petitioners for the alleged offending publication

"ithout doing violence to the concept of privileged communication implicit in freedom of the press+ s "as

so "ell put by 8ustice )alcolm in &ustosB APublic policy, the "elfare of society, and the orderly

administration of government have demanded protection for public opinion+ he inevitable and

incontestable result has been the development and adoption of the doctrine of privilege+ 15Ge then 0uoted

this excerpt from an merican Supreme #ourt decision,Abbott v. National Bank of CommerceB Ahe

doctrine of privileged communication rests upon public policy, %"hich loo*s to the free and unfettered

administration of (ustice, though as incidental result, it may in some instances afford an immunity to the

evildisposed and malignant slanderer+ 1#onsidering ho" ample is the protection afforded a person

alleged to have in(ured another%s reputation, it appears 0uite obvious that respondent 8udge did infringe

on the constitutional right of petitioners to press freedom "hen it denied the motion to 0uash+ Ge

apparently "as e0ually una"are of this relevant paragraph in the )alcolm opinionB A privileged

communication should not be sub(ected to microscopic examination to discover grounds of malice or

falsity+ Such excessive scrutiny "ould defeat the protection "hich the la" thro"s over privileged

communications+ he ultimate test is that of bona fides+ 17&y no stretch of the imagination then could it be

said that the Philippine -e"s Service and the Evening -e"s exhibited mala fides by the mere fact of

narrating in a ne"s item the testimony of a "itness in a rape case (ust because it did cast a reflection on

the conduct of a third party+ he prosecution in its pleadings before the lo"er court could not deny theaccuracy of "hat "as reported+ Petitioners then ought not to have been sub(ected to the annoyance,

inconvenience, and trouble of going to a distant province and defend themselves against a charge

un"arrant under "ellsettled norms of constitutional dimension+ he doctrine of privileged communication

moreover is explicitly provided for in the 'evised Penal #ode, as an exception to the general principle

that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it is true in the absence of Agood

intentionA and A(ustifiable motiveA thusB A fair and true report, made in good faith, "ithout any comments

or remar*s, of any (udicial, legislative, or other official proceedings "hich are not of confidential nature, or

of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public

officers in the exercise of their functions+ 18

;+ here being a denial of a constitutional right, a (urisdictional issue "as raised+ It has been a "ellsettled

doctrine since Conde v. Rivera, 19that under such circumstances, the competence of a court to continue"ith a pending case ceases+ 2/-or is it to indulge merely in general propositions+ In eople v.

Andres, 21this #ourt precisely sustained a court of first instance "hen it 0uashed an information for libel,

the accused, respondent ndres, relying on press freedom to sho" that the fact charged do not constitute

an offense+ s pointed out in the opinion of 8ustice &arrera, it "as argued by the prosecution Athat the trial

court erred in dismissing the case on a mere motion to 0uash, contending that the trial (udge%s conclusion

on the face of the information that defendantappellee "as prompted only by good motives assumes a

fact to he proved, and that the alleged privileged nature of defendantappellee%s publication is a matter of

defense and is not a proper ground for dismissal of the complaint for libel +++ +A 22hat contention "as

re(ected in this "iseB A.hile there is some point to this contention, yet "hen in the information itself it

appears, as it does in the present case, that the communication alleged to be libelous is contained in an

appropriate pleading in a court proceeding, the privilege becomes at once apparent and defendant neednot "ait until the trial and produce evidence before he can raise the 0uestion of privilege+ nd if added to

this, the 0uestioned imputations appear, as they seem in this case, to be really pertinent and relevant to

defendant%s plea for reconsideration based on complainant%s supposed partiality and abuse of po"er from

"hich defendant has a right to see* relief in vindication of his client%s interest as a litigant in complainant%s

court, it "ould become evident that the facts thus alleged in the information "ould not constitute an

offense of libel+ 23Similarly, a motion to 0uash "as sustained in the later case of eople v. Alvarez, 2In

the opinion of 8ustice 'egala, it "as pointed outB As heretofore stated, this #ourt has adopted a liberal

attitude in favor of the "riter in matter of the relevancy of allegedly libelous statements in (udicial


29/35

pleadings+ In !.S. v. Bustos" et al+, ;6 Phil+ 6;1, this #ourt found occasion to express ills opinion on

privileged communications, to "itB +++ privileged communication should not be sub(ected to miscroscopic

examination to discover grounds of malice or falsity+ Such excessive scrunity "ould defeat the protection

"hich the la" thro"s over privileged communication+ +++ It is "orthy to mention here that in the information

for libel, there is no allegation of the irrelevancy or impertinency of the 0uestioned statements to the

cause+ #onsidering the above, .e are of the opinion and so hold that no error "as committed by the

lo"er court in considering the 0uestioned remar*s of the appellee as privileged and in conse0uently

dismissing the information for lac* of cause of action+ 25In a third case, eople v. A#uino, 2reference "as

made toeople v. Andres to demonstrate that it is fitting and appropriate for a court of first instance to

dismiss an information on a motion to 0uash "here the privileged character of the, alleged offending

publication is apparent+ 'espondent 8udge ought not to have betrayed lac* of sensitivity to the categorical

pronouncements of this #ourt in the above three decisions that call for application,

>+ -or is a different conclusion called for (ust because the heading of the ne"s item arising from the

testimony of 8aime 8ose "as "orded thusB AI-O #'IS$$2$ S$- $ PS/ 'PE #SE+A Go" else

could it have been expressedM hat "as to portray "ith accuracy "hat "as contained in the ne"s item+

.hat "as testified to "as to that effect+ It succinctly set forth the facts+ here "as no attempt to

sensationalize+ he tone is both neutral and ob(ective+ gain there is relevance to the follo"ing excerptfrom Quisumbing v. LopezB Ahe #ourt of ppeals found %that the context of the article in 0uestion, is a

fair, impartial and true report of official or public proceeding authorized by la"+ he ne"s item "as the

result of a press release in connection "ith an official investigation of the nti?sury ivision, -+ &+ I+, and

"as a substantial, if not a faithful reproduction of the said press release "hich "as, in turn, an accurate

report of the official proceedings ta*en by the nti?sury ivision+ he article merely reported a raid on

the %business offices of three alleged money lendersN% and related the steps actually ta*en or to be ta*en

by the proper officials relative to the investigation+ It did not go beyond the actual report of official

actuations+ he theory of the petitioner, stripped of incidentals, is that "hile the body of the ne"s item

may be considered as being fair, impartial and accurate report of an official investigation of the nti?sury

ivision of the -ational &ureau of Investigation and therefore privileged, its headline -&I )E- 'I

$::I#ES $: ; #I/ ?S?'E'S, admittedly not forming part of the basic press release but merely added

by the respondents, is libelous per se, because the petitioner had thereby been branded and condemnedas a > usurer% "hen as a matter of fact no criminal charge "as even filed against him for the crime of

usury in any court of (ustice+ 27-onetheless, the ne"spaper publisher "as not held liable+ he #hief

8ustice then explained "hyB A.e are of the opinion that the appealed decision is correct+ he petitioner,

"hile assuming that the article in 0uestion is privileged, argues that the headline libelous per se! added

by the respondents rendered the same actionable, because said headline is not borne out by the facts

recited in the context+ .e believe that nobody reading the "hole ne"s item "ould come to the conclusion

that the petitioner had been accused or convicted of usury+ .e agree "ith the #ourt of ppeals that the

headline complained of may fairly be said to contain a correct description of the ne"s story+ he fact that

the raid "as conducted by antiusury agents follo"ing receipt of a complaint against the petitioner and

t"o others, coupled "ith the announcement by the #hief of the -&I nti?sury ivision that criminal

action "ould be filed in the city fiscal%s office, naturally "ould lead one to thin* that the persons involved"ere usurers+ -othing in the headline or the context of the article suggested the Idea that the petitioner

"as already charged "ith or convicted of the crime of usury+ 28

.GE'E:$'E, the "rit of certiorari prayed for is granted and the order of respondent 8udge denying the

motion to 0uash of ecember 16, 196 as "ell as the order of respondent 8udge of )arch 45, 1961

denying the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners are set aside and nullified+ he "rit of

prohibition is li*e"ise granted and the restraining order issued on 8une 1, 1961 made permanent,


30/35

respondent 8udge or any person "ho may have ta*en his place being prohibited from ta*ing any action in

#riminal #ase -o+ 11C for ibel except for the purpose of dismissing the same+ -o costs+

Antonio and Concepcion $r." $$." concur.

Lopez vs. Court of Appeals [GR L-26549, 31 July 19!" First Division, Fernando (J): 4

concur, 2 concur in result, 1 dissents in separate opinion

#a$ts% In the early part of January 195, there appeared on the front pa!e of "he #anila

$hronicle, of %hich &u!enio 'ope %as the pulisher, as %ell as on other dailies, a ne%s story of

a sanitary inspector assi!ned to the *auyan Islands, Fidel $ru y na+e, sendin! a distress

si!nal to a passin! nited -tates .irforce plane %hich in turn relayed the +essa!e to #anila/ 0e

%as not i!nored, an .+erican .r+y plane droppin! on the each of an island an e+er!ency

sustenance it containin!, a+on! other thin!s, a t%o%ay radio set/ 0e utilied it to infor+

authorities in #anila that the people in the place %ere livin! in terror, due to a series of illin!s

co++itted since $hrist+as of 1995/ 'osin! no ti+e, the 3hilippines defense estalish+ent

rushed to the island a platoon of scout ran!ers led y #aor ilfredo &ncarnacion/ pon arrivin!

at the reported iller+enaced *auyan $laro, ho%ever, #aor &ncarnacion and his +en found,instead of the alle!ed illers, a +an, the sa+e Fidel $ru, %ho +erely %anted transportation

ho+e to #anila/ In vie% of this findin!, #aor ilfredo &ncarnacion randed as a 6hoa7,6 to use

his o%n descriptive %ord, the report of Fidel $ru/ "hat %as the ter+ e+ployed y the other

ne%spapers %hen referrin! to the incident/ "his ee #a!aine of the #anila $hronicle, then

edited y Juan "/ 8atonton, devoted a pictorial article to it in its issue of 15 January 195/

#ention %as +ade that %hile Fidel $ru story turned out to he false, if rou!ht to li!ht the


31/35

+isery of the people livin! in that place, %ith al+ost everyody sic, only t%o individuals ale

to read and %rite, food and clothin! ein! scarce/ "hen in the 29 January 195 issue of "his

ee #a!aine, the 6January e%s ui6 included an ite+ on the central fi!ure in %hat %as

no%n as the $alayan 0oa7, %ho nevertheless did the country a !ood turn y callin! the

!overn+ent;s attention to that forsaen and desolate corner of the January 195, reference %as +ade to a health

inspector %ho suddenly felt 6lonely6 in his isolated post, cooed up a story aout a +urderer

runnin! loose on the island of $alayan so that he could e ferried ac to civiliation/ 0e %as

!iven the appellation of 60oa7 of the =ear/6 "he +a!aine on oth occasions carried

photo!raphs of the person purportin! to e Fidel $ru/ nfortunately, the pictures that %ere

pulished on oth occasions %ere that of Fidel 8/ $ru, a usiness+ancontractor fro+ -anta

#aria, *ulacan/ It turned out that the photo!raphs of $ru and that of Fidel $ru, sanitary

inspector, %ere on file, in the lirary of the #anila $hronicle in accordance %ith the standard

procedure oserved in other ne%spaper offices, ut %hen the ne%s ?ui for+at %as prepared, the

t%o photo!raphs %ere inadvertently s%itched/ .s soon, ho%ever, as the inadvertent error %asrou!ht to the attention of 'ope and 8atonton, the follo%in! correction %as i++ediately

pulished in "his ee #a!aine on January 2@, 195@: 6hile %e %ere rushin! to +eet the

deadline for January 1Ath issue of "his ee, %e inadvertently pulished the picture of for+er

#ayor Fidel 8/ $ru of -ta/ #aria, *ulacan, usiness+an and contractor, in ;Bur B%n ho;s

ho feature in the =ear &nd ui; of "his ee in lieu of the health inspector Fidel $ru, %ho

%as connected %ith a story aout a +urderer runnin! loose on $alayan Island/ e here e7press

our profound re!rets thatC such an error occurred/6 "o!ether %ith the fore!oin! correction, 'ope

and 8atonton pulished the picture of Fidel $ruC the photo!raphs and the correction +oreover

%ere enclosed y four lines, the type used %as older than ordinary, and the ite+ %as placed in a

conspicuous place in order to call the attention of the readers to such a+ends ein! +ade/ "heusiness+an Fidel 8/ $ru sued 'ope and 8atonton in the $ourt of First Instance of #anila

for the recovery of da+a!es alle!in! the defa+atory character of the aove pulication of his

picture/ .fter trial duly had, he %as a%arded 35, as actual da+a!es, another 35, as +oral

da+a!es, and 31, for attorney;s fees/ "hat ud!+ent %as affir+ed on appeal to the appellate

$ourt/ 'ope and 8atonton filed the petition for certiorari/

&ssue% hether the clai+ of freedo+ of the press ne!ates 'opeE and 8atontonEs liaility

arisin! fro+ liel/

'el(%. liel %as defined as a 6+alicious defa+ation, e7pressed either in %ritin!, printin!, or y

si!ns or pictures, or the lie, tendin! to lacen the +e+ory of one %ho is dead or to i+peach

the honesty, virtue, or reputation, or pulish the alle!ed or natural defects of one %ho is alive,

and therey e7pose hi+ to pulic hatred, conte+pt, or ridicule/6 "here %as an e7press provision

in such le!islation for a tort or a ?uasidelict action arisin! fro+ liel/ "here is reinforce+ent to

such a vie% in the ne% $ivil $ode providin! for the recovery of +oral da+a!es for liel, slander

or any other for+ of defa+ation/ .ccordin! to the standard treatise of e%ell on -lander and


32/35

'iel: 63ulication of a person;s photo!raph in connection %ith an article lielous of a third

person, is a liel on the person %hose picture is pulished, %here the acts set out in the article are

i+puted to such person/6 hy liel la% has oth a cri+inal and a civil aspect is e7plained y

0ale in his 'a% of the 3ress thus: 6Bn the one hand, lielin! a person results in deprivin! hi+ of

his !ood reputation/ -ince reputation is a thin!C of value, truly rather to e chosen than !reat

riches, an i+pair+ent of it is a personal %ron!/ "o redress this personal %ron! +oney da+a!es

are a%arded to the inured person/ Bn the other hand, the pulication of defa+atory state+ents

tends stron!ly to induce reach of the peace y the person defa+ed, and hence is of peculiar

+o+ent to the state as the !uardian of the pulic peace/ ie%ed fro+ this an!le, liel is a cri+e,

and as such suects the offender to a fine or i+prison+ent/6 o inroads on press freedo+ should

e allo%ed in the !uise of punitive action visited in %hat other%ise could e characteried as

liel %hether in the for+ of printed %ords or a defa+atory i+putation resultin! fro+ the

pulication of $ru;s picture %ith the offensive caption as in co+plained of/ "his is not to deny

that the party responsile invites the institution either of a cri+inal prosecution or a civil suit/ It

+ust e ad+itted that %hat %as done did invite such a dire conse?uence, considerin! the valuethe la% ustly places on a +an;s reputation/ "his is +erely to underscore the pri+acy that

freedo+ of the press enoys/ It rans rather hi!h in the hierarchy of le!al values/ If the cases

+ean anythin! at all then, to e+phasie %hat has so clearly e+er!ed, they call for the ut+ost

care on the part of the udiciary to assure that in safe!uardin! the interest of the party alle!edly

offended, a realistic account of the oli!ation of a ne%s +edia to disse+inate infor+ation of a

pulic character and to co++ent thereon as %ell as the conditions attendant on the usiness of

pulishin! cannot e i!nored/ 0o%ever, the correction pro+ptly +ade y 'ope and 8atonton

%ould thus call for a reduction in the da+a!es a%arded/ It should e noted that there %as no

proof of any actual pecuniary loss arisin! fro+ the aove pulication/ It is %orth%hile to recall

%hat Justice #alcol+ referred to as the tolerant attitude on the part of appellate courts on thisscore, the usual practice ein! 6+ore liely to reduce da+a!es for liel than to increase the+/6

P:OPL:DS OUR0AL #t. a$. *. FRA0+IS THO:0:0

2+'+ -o+ 1>;;64

ecember 1;, 45

Fact! $n ; September 199, a ne"s item appeared in the PeopleRs 8ournal claiming that a certain

:rancis hoenen, a S"iss national "ho allegedly shoots "ay"ard neighborsR pets that he finds in his

domain+ It also claimed that &: Gomes residents, in a letter through la"yer tty+ Efren ngara,

re0uested for the deportation of hoenen to prevent the recurrence of such incident in the future+


33/35

hoenen claimed that the article destroyed the respect and admiration he en(oyed in the community+

Ge is see*ing for damages+

he petitioners admitted publication of the ne"s item, ostensibly out of a Fsocial and moral duty to

inform the public on matters of general interest, promote the public good and protect the moral public

sic! of the people,H and that the story "as published in good faith and "ithout malice+

I"#!.hether or not the ne"s report fall under privileged communication and therefore protected

by the constitutional provision on freedom of speech+

H#$%!he right of free speech is not absolute+ ibel is not protected speech+ In the instant case,

even if "e assume that the letter "ritten by tty+ ngara is privileged communication, it lost its

character "hen the matter "as published in the ne"spaper and circulated among the general

population, especially since the individual alleged to be defamed is neither a public official nor a

public figure+

)oreover, the ne"s item contained falsehoods on t"o levels+ :irst, the &: Gomes residents did not

as* for the deportation of hoenen, more so because the letter of the tty+ nagara "as a mere

re0uest for verification of hoenenRs status as a foreign resident+ he article is also untrue becausethe events she reported never happened+ .orse, the main source of information, tty+ Efren ngara,

apparently either does not exist, or is not a la"yer+

here is no constitutional value in false statements of fact+ -either the intentional lie nor the careless

error materially advances societyRs interest in Tuninhibited, robust, and "ideopenR debate+ #alculated

falsehood falls into that class of utterances "hich Fare no essential part of any exposition of ideas,

and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them

is clearly out"eighed by the social interest in order and moralityU he *no"ingly false statement

and the false statement made "ith rec*less disregard of the truth, do not en(oy constitutional

protection+

T#a *. (,( [91 US 397) 21 "# 1989]&rennan 8!

Fact!.hile the 'epublican -ational #onvention "as ta*ing place in allas in 197>, 2regory ee

8ohnson participated in a political demonstration dubbed the A'epublican .ar #hest our+A s

explained in literature distributed by the demonstrators and in speeches made by them, the purpose

of this event "as to protest the policies of the 'eagan administration and of certain allasbased

corporations+ he demonstrators marched through the allas streets, chanting political slogans and

stopping at several corporate locations to stage AdieinsA intended to dramatize the conse0uences of

nuclear "ar+ $n several occasions they spraypainted the "alls of buildings and overturned potted


34/35

plants, but 8ohnson himself too* no part in such activities+ Ge did, ho"ever, accept an merican flag

handed to him by a fello" protestor "ho had ta*en it from a flagpole outside one of the targeted

buildings+ he demonstration ended in front of allas #ity Gall, "here 8ohnson unfurled the

merican flag, doused it "ith *erosene, and set it on fire+ .hile the flag burned, the protestors

chantedB America, the red, "hite, and blue, "e spit on you+A fter the demonstrators dispersed, a

"itness to the flag burning collected the flag%s remains and buried them in his bac*yard+ -o one "asphysically in(ured or threatened "ith in(ury, though several "itnesses testified that they had been

seriously offended by the flag burning+ $f the approximately 1 demonstrators, 8ohnson alone "as

charged "ith a crime+ he only criminal offense "ith "hich he "as charged "as the desecration of a

venerated ob(ect in violation of ex+ Penal #ode nn+ >4+9a!;! 1979!+ fter a trial, he "as

convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined J4,+ he #ourt of ppeals for the :ifth

istrict of exas at allas affirmed 8ohnson%s conviction but the exas #ourt of #riminal ppeals

reversed holding that the State could not, consistent "ith the :irst mendment, punish 8ohnson for

burning the flag in these circumstances+

I"#!.hether publicly burning an merican flag as a means of political protest is a part of the

constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression+

H#$%!he :irst mendment literally forbids the abridgment only of Aspeech,A but the #ourt has long

recognized that its protection does not end at the spo*en or "ritten "ord+ .hile the #ourt has

re(ected Athe vie" that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled Vspeech% "henever

the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea,A it has ac*no"ledged that

conduct may be Asufficiently imbued "ith elements of communication to fall "ithin the scope of the

:irst and :ourteenth mendments+A In deciding "hether particular conduct possesses sufficient

communicative elements to bring the :irst mendment into play, the #ourt has as*ed "hether Aan

intent to convey a particularized message "as present, and K"hetherL the li*elihood "as great that

the message "ould be understood by those "ho vie"ed it+A Especially pertinent to the case are the

#ourt%s decisions recognizing the communicative nature of conduct relating to flags+ ttaching a

peace sign to the flag, refusing to salute the flag, &arnette, and displaying a red flag, the #ourt hasheld, all may find shelter under the :irst mendment+ Pregnant "ith expressive content, the flag as

readily signifies this -ation as does the combination of letters found in America+A he #ourt has not

automatically concluded, ho"ever, that any action ta*en "ith respect to the flag is expressive+

Instead, in characterizing such action for :irst mendment purposes, the #ourt has considered the

context in "hich it occurred+ Gerein, 8ohnson burned an merican flag as part indeed, as the

culmination of a political demonstration that coincided "ith the convening of the 'epublican Party

and its renomination of 'onald 'eagan for President+ he expressive, overtly political nature of this

conduct "as both intentional and over"helmingly apparent+ t his trial, 8ohnson explained his

reasons for burning the flag as follo"sB Ahe merican :lag "as burned as 'onald 'eagan "as

being renominated as President+ nd a more po"erful statement of symbolic speech, "hether you

agree "ith it or not, couldn%t have been made at that time+ It%s 0uite a (ust position K(uxtapositionL+ .ehad ne" patriotism and no patriotism+A In these circumstances, 8ohnson%s burning of the flag "as

conduct Asufficiently imbued "ith elements of communication,A to implicate the :irst mendment+

.here AspeechA and AnonspeechA elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a

sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can (ustify

incidental limitations on :irst mendment freedoms, the applicability of $%&rien%s relatively lenient

standard is limited to those cases in "hich Athe governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression

of free expression+A In stating, moreover, that $%&rien%s test Ain the last analysis is little, if any,


35/35

different from the standard applied to time, place, or manner restrictions,A the #ourt has highlighted

the re0uirement that the governmental interest in 0uestion be unconnected to expression in order to

come under $%&rien%s less demanding rule+ he State offers t"o separate interests to (ustify this

convictionB preventing breaches of the peace and preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and

national unity+ he #ourt hold that the first interest is not implicated on this record and that the

second is related to the suppression of expression+ principal Afunction of free speech under oursystem of government is to invite dispute+ It may indeed best serve its high purpose "hen it induces

a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction "ith conditions as they are, or even stirs people to

anger+A It "ould be odd indeed to conclude both that Aif it is the spea*er%s opinion that gives offense,

that conse0uence is a reason for according it constitutional protection,A and that the government

may ban the expression of certain disagreeable ideas on the unsupported presumption that their

very disagreeableness "ill provo*e violence+ hus, the #ourt not permitted the government to

assume that every expression of a provocative idea "ill incite a riot, but have instead re0uired

careful consideration of the actual circumstances surrounding such expression, as*ing "hether the

expression Ais directed to inciting or producing imminent la"less action and is li*ely to incite or

produce such action+A 8ohnson%s expressive conduct does not fall "ithin that small class of Afighting

"ordsA that are Ali*ely to provo*e the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach ofthe peace+A -o reasonable onloo*er "ould have regarded 8ohnson%s generalized expression of

dissatisfaction "ith the policies of the :ederal 2overnment as a direct personal insult or an invitation

to exchange fisticuffs+ :orbidding criminal punishment for conduct such as 8ohnson%s "ill not

endanger the special role played by our flag or the feelings it inspires+ -obody can suppose that this

one gesture of an un*no"n man "ill change our -ation%s attitude to"ards its flag+ Indeed, exas%

argument that the burning of an merican flag Ais an act having a high li*elihood to cause a breach

of the peace,A and its statute%s implicit assumption that physical mistreatment of the flag "ill lead to

Aserious offense,A tend to confirm that the flag%s special role is not in dangerN if it "ere, no one "ould

riot or ta*e offense because a flag had been burned+ he flag%s deservedly cherished place in our

community "ill be strengthened, not "ea*ened, by the #ourt%s holding today+ he decision is a

reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and of theconviction that our toleration of criticism such as 8ohnson%s is a sign and source of our strength+

Indeed, one of the proudest images of our flag, the one immortalized in our o"n national anthem, is

of the bombardment it survived at :ort )cGenry+ It is the -ation%s resilience, not its rigidity that exas

sees reflected in the flag and it is that resilience that the #ourt reasserts today+

constilaw 2 digests- freedom of speech-expression-press

Documents