freedom of exp to freedom of religion

7/23/2019 Freedom of Exp to Freedom of Religion

1/18

SABANDO, F. CASE BRIEFS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION

TELEBAP vs COMELEC Case DigestTelecommunications And Broadcast Attorneys Of The Phils. Vs. COMELEC

289 C!A ""#$.!. %o. &"2922A'ril 2&( &998

)acts* Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) is an organization oflayers of radio and tele!ision "roadcasting companies. It as declared to "e ithout legal standing to sue in this case

as, among other reasons, it as not a"le to sho that it as to suffer from actual or threatened in#ury as a result of thesu"#ect la. Petitioner $%A &etor', on the other hand, had the reuisite standing to "ring the constitutional challenge.Petitioner operates radio and tele!ision "roadcast stations in the Philippinesaffected "y the enforcement of ection *+,B.P. &o. -.

Petitioners challenge the !alidity of ection *+, B.P. &o. - hich pro!ides/0omelec Time1 The 0ommission shall procure radio and tele!ision time to "e 'non as the /0omelec Time2 hich shal"e allocated eually and impartially among the candidates ithin the area of co!erage of all radio and tele!ision stations.3or this purpose, the franchise of all radio "roadcasting and tele!ision stations are here"y amended so as to pro!ide radioor tele!ision time, free of charge, during the period of campaign.2

Petitioner contends that hile ection *4 of the same la reuires 05%ELE0 to procure print space in nespapers and

magazines ith payment, ection *+ pro!ides that air time shall "e procured "y 05%ELE0 free of charge. Thus icontends that ection *+ singles out radio and tele!ision stations to pro!ide free air time.

Petitioner claims that it suffered losses running to se!eral million pesos in pro!iding 05%ELE0 Time in connection iththe -**+ presidential election and -**6 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer e!en more should it "e reuired todo so again this year. Petitioners claim that the primary source of re!enue of the radio and tele!ision stations is the saleof air time to ad!ertisers and to reuire these stations to pro!ide free air time is to authorize un#ust ta'ing of pri!ateproperty. According to petitioners, in -**+ it lost P++,7*,684.44 in pro!iding free air time for one hour each day and, inthis year9s elections, it stands to lost P6,*4,64.44 in !ie of 05%ELE09s reuirement that it pro!ide at least :4minutes of prime time daily for such.

+ssue*

;hether of not ection *+ of B.P. &o. - denies radio and tele!ision "roadcast companies the eual protection of thelas.

;hether or not ection *+ of B.P. &o. - constitutes ta'ing of property ithout due process of la and ithout #ustcompensation.

,eld* Petitioner9s argument is ithout merit. All "roadcasting, hether radio or "y tele!ision stations, is licensed "y thego!ernment. Aira!e freuencies ha!e to "e allocated as there are more indi!iduals ho ant to "roadcast that there arefreuencies to assign.


2/18


- s Comelec

3actsPetitioner ; and >P0 states that it ishes to conduct an election sur!ey throughout the period of the elections andrelease to the media the results of such sur!ey as ell as pu"lish them directly. Petitioners argue that the restriction onthe pu"lication of election sur!ey results constitutes a prior restraint on the e=ercise of freedom of speech ithout anyclear and present danger to #ustify such restraint.

IssueAre the 0omelec


3/18


ocial ;eather tations !. 05%ELE0$.amahalanPu"lishing 0orp., on the other hand, pu"lishes the %anila tandard hich is a nespaper of general circulation andfeatures items of information including election sur!eys. Both ; and >amahalan are contesting the !alidity andenforcement of amahalan

for its part, intends to pu"lish election sur!ey results up to the last day of the elections on %ay -7, +44-.

IDE;hether or not the restriction on the pu"lication of election sur!ey constitutes a prior restraint on the e=ercise of freedomof speech ithout any clear and present danger to #ustify such restraint


4/18


In lieu of li!e TK and radio co!erage of the trial, the 0ourt, "y the !ote of eight () ustices,+ has resol!ed to order theaudio1!isual recording of the trial for documentary purposes. e!en (C) ustices: !ote against the audio1!isual recordingof the trial.

;hat follos is the opinion of the ma#ority.

0onsidering the significance of the trial "efore the andigan"ayan of former President Estrada and the importance ofpreser!ing the records thereof, the 0ourt "elie!es that there should "e an audio1!isual recording of the proceedings. Therecordings ill not "e for li!e or real time "roadcast "ut for documentary purposes. 5nly later ill they "e a!aila"le for

pu"lic shoing, after the andigan"ayan shall ha!e promulgated its decision in e!ery case to hich the recordingpertains. The master film shall "e deposited in the &ational %useum and the ing is under no man, "ut he is under $od and the la.@ (Juod


5/18


In fairness let me refer to an American e=perience many of my lay friends found similarly mo!ing. An educationaltele!ision netor' filmed a trial in en!er of a Blac' Panther leader on charges of resisting arrest, and "roadcast thedocument in full, in four installments, se!eral months after the case as concluded 1 concluded incidentally, ith a !erdictof acuittal.

&o one could itness the trial ithout a feeling of profound respect for the painsta'ing ay in hich the truth assearched for, for the ays here"y la copes ith uncertainties and am"iguities through presumptions and "urden ofproof, and the sense of gra!ity ith hich #udge and #ury carried out their responsi"ilities.

I agree in general ith the e=clusion of tele!ision from the courtroom, for the familiar good reasons. And yet the use oftele!ision at a trial for documentary purposes, not for the "roadcast of li!e nes, and ith the safeguards of completenessand consent, is an educational e=periment that I ould "e prepared to elcome. Properly safeguarded and ith suita"lecommentary, the depiction of an actual trial is an agency of enlightenment that could ha!e fe euals in its impact on thepu"lic understanding.

Dnderstanding of our legal process, so rarely pro!ided "y our educational system, is no a desperate need.C

Professor 3reundNs o"ser!ation is as !alid today as hen it as made thirty years ago. It is percepti!e for its recognition ofthe serious ris's posed to the fair administration of #ustice "y li!e TK and radio "roadcasts, especially hen emotions arerunning high on the issues stirred "y a case, hile at the same time ac'noledging the necessity of 'eeping audio1!isualrecordings of the proceedings of cele"rated cases, for pu"lic information and e=hi"ition, after passions ha!e su"sided.

;GE


6/18


The deadline lapsed on 3e"uary -6, +447, and respondents %eer and


7/18


GE0T5< 0. KILLA&DEKA,petitioner,

!s.PGILIPPI&E AILF I&JDI


8/18


hard to pro!e. Ge stresses that nohere in the complaint did he mention li"el, and nothing in his complaint shos that hiscause of action had some shade of li"el as defined in the


9/18


during office hours, there is nothing in the record that could support the claim that the operational capacity of petitioner$I as affected or reduced to su"stantial percentage hen respondents gathered at the In!estigation Dnit. espitethe hazy claim of the petitioners that the gathering as intended to force the In!estigation Dnit and petitioner $I to "elenient in the handling of Atty. %olina9s case and allo Atty. Kelasco to represent Atty. %olina in his administrati!e case"efore petitioner $I, there is li'eise no concrete and con!incing e!idence to pro!e that the gathering as made todemand or force concessions, economic or otherise from the $I management or from the go!ernment. In fact, in theseparate formal charges filed against the respondents, petitioners clearly alleged that respondents /marched to orappeared simultaneously at or #ust outside the office of the In!estigation Dnit in a mass demonstrationrally of protest andsupport for %ssrs. %ario %olina and Al"ert Kelasco, the latter surreptitiously entered the $I premises.2 Thus

petitioners are aare at the outset that the only apparent intention of the respondents in going to the ID as to shosupport to Atty. %ario %olina and Al"ert Kelasco, their union officers. The "elated assertion that the intention of therespondents in going to the ID as to disrupt the operation and pressure the $I administration to "e lenient ith Atty.%ario %olina and Al"ert Kelasco, is only an afterthought.+/E* ;GETGE< A& A%I&IT


10/18


TheAng Dating Daansri!alry ith another religious tele!ision program, the Iglesia ni 0ristosAng Ta(ang Daan, is el'non. The hosts of the to shos ha!e regularly engaged in !er"al sparring on air, hurling accusations and counter1accusations ith respect to their opposing religious "eliefs and practices.It appears that in his programAng Ta(ang Daan,%ichael %. ando!al (%ichael) of the Iglesia ni 0risto attac'edpetitioner oriano of theAng Dating Daan for alleged inconsistencies in his Bi"le teachings. %ichael compared splicedrecordings of orianos statements, matched ith su"titles of his utterances, to demonstrate those inconsistencies.5n

August -4, +447, in an apparent reaction to hat he percei!ed as a malicious attac' against him "y the ri!al tele!isionprogram, oriano accused %ichael of prostituting himself ith his fa"ricated presentations. Thus

.:a:o ;a tala:a Michael. Masahol ;a 'a sa 'utan:


11/18


Primarily, it is o"scenity on tele!ision that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech does not protect. As the0ourts decision points out, the test of o"scenity is hether the a!erage person, applying contemporary standards, ouldfind the speech, ta'en as a hole, appeals to the prurient interest. A thing is prurient hen it arouses lasci!ious thoughtsor desires+or tends to arouse se=ual desire.:

A uarter1of1a1year suspension ould pro"a"ly "e #ustified hen a general patronage program intentionally snea's insnippets of led, prurient materials to attract an audience to the program. This has not "een the case here.

". Merely


12/18


times( the coc;three times. +ts in the Bi


13/18


outhern Gemisphere Engagement &etor', Inc. !. Anti1Terrorism 0ounciL

)!EE0OM O) AEMBL CAE

Bayan, et al., Ks. Eduardo Ermita, et al.,$.


14/18


redress of grie!ances. The right to peacea"ly assem"le and petition for redress of grie!ances, together ith freedom ofspeech, of e=pression, and of the press, is a right that en#oys dominance in the sphere of constitutional protection. 3or thisrights represent the !ery "asis of a functional democratic polity, ithout hich all the other rights ould "e meaninglessand unprotected.

Goe!er, it must "e remem"ered that the right, hile sacrosanct, is not a"solute. It may "e regulated that it shall not "ein#urious to the eual en#oyment of others ha!ing eual rights, nor in#urious to the rights of the community or society. Thepoer to regulate the e=ercise of such and other constitutional rights is termed the so!ereign /police poer,2 hich is thepoer to prescri"e regulations, to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general elfare

of the people.

B.P. &o 4 is not an a"solute "an of pu"lic assem"lies "ut a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and mannerof the assem"lies. B.P. &o. 4 thus readily shos that it refers to all 'inds of pu"lic assem"lies that ould use pu"licplaces. The reference to /laful cause2 does not ma'e it content1"ased "ecause assem"lies really ha!e to "e for lafulcauses, otherise they ould not "e /peacea"le2 and entitled to protection. &either the ords /opinion,2 /protesting,2 and/influencing2 in of grie!ances come from the ording of the 0onstitution, so its use cannot "e a!oided. 3inally, ma=imumtolerance is for the protection and "enefit of all rallyist and is independent of the content of the e=pression in the rally.

3urthermore, the permit can only "e denied on the ground of clear and present danger to pu"lic order, pu"lic safety, pu"liccon!enience, pu"lic morals or pu"lic health. This is a recognized e=ception to the e=ercise of the rights e!en under theDni!ersal eclaration of Guman


15/18


Batas Pam


16/18


oriano !s. La $uardia$.


17/18


Geld


18/18


go!ernment agencies charged ith ensuring that food products released in the mar'et are fit for human consumption,properly la"eled and safe. Dnli'e E5 78, these las do not encroach on the religious freedom of %uslims.

Kelarde !s. ocial ustice ociety , $< -6*:6C, April +, +447

The Petition prayed for the resolution of the uestion @hether or not the act of a religious leader li'e any of hereinrespondents, in endorsing the candidacy of a candidate for electi!e office or in urging or reuiring the mem"ers of his floc'to !ote for a specified candidate, is !iolati!e of the letter or spirit of the constitutional pro!isions .They alleged that theuestioned ecision did not contain a statement of facts and a dispositi!e portion.

IDE ;hat is the standard form of a ecision? id the challenge ecision comply ith the aforesaid form?

freedom of exp to freedom of religion

Documents