Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

I.

The Provisions Relating to Communication and Media (1987 Constitution of the


Philippines)

A. Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies)


Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in
nation-building.
Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
B. Article III (Bill of Rights)
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
C. Article IX (C) (Constitutional Commissions)
Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the
enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other
public utilities, media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or
concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or
regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, and equal rates therefor, for public information
campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective of holding free,
orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
D. Article XII (National Economy and Partimony)
Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation
of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose
capital is owned by such citizens; nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be

exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or
right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or
repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity
participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign investors in the
governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its
capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be
citizens of the Philippines.
Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State
may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or
direct the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected with public
interest.
F. Article XVI (General Provisions)
Section 10. The State shall provide the policy environment for the full development of
Filipino capability and the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and
aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the
country, in accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of speech and of the press.
Section 11. (1) The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens
of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed
by such citizens.
G. Article XVII (Amendments or Revisions)
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized
within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five
years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional
convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of
calling such a convention.
II. Communication and information in nation-building
Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), Section 24
Article XVI (General Provisions) Section 10 and 11
Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions)
Section 23. Advertising entities affected by paragraph (2), Section 11 of Article XV1 of
this Constitution shall have five years from its ratification to comply on a graduated and
proportionate basis with the minimum Filipino ownership requirement therein.

III. Freedom of Expression


Art III, Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.
1. For the discovery of political truth
Abrams v. United States
Brief Fact Summary. While engaged in a war against Germany, the United States
deployed a contingent of Marines to Russia. Defendants, a group of Russian immigrants,
perceived the deployment as an attempt by the United States to suppress the Bolshevik
Revolution. In protest, Defendants distributed leaflets by airplane, denouncing the President of
the United States, capitalism, and German militarism.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Speech is not constitutionally protected when the words used
under the circumstances present a clear and present danger of bringing about an evil Congress
has a right to prevent. Sedition Act of 1918: A crime to "willfully utter, print, write, or publish
any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of the Government of the
United States" or to "willfully urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of the production" of the
things "necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war.
Issue. Were the convictions of Defendants for distributing the leaflets during a time of
war permissible under the First Amendment?
Held. Yes. The convictions on counts three and four are affirmed.
2. For self government
United States v. Bustos
In 1915, 34 Pampanga residents signed a petition to the Executive Secretary regarding
charges against Roman Punsalan, the justice of the peace of Macabebe. They wanted to oust him
from his office. Specific allegations against him included bribery charges, involuntary servitude,
and theft. The justice denied the charges. In the CFI, not all the charges were proved. But, the
judge still found him guilty. Punsalan filed charges alleging that he was the victim of prosecution
and one Jaime, an auxiliary justice, instigated the charges against him for personal reasons. He
was acquitted. The complainants filed an appeal to the Governor General but it wasnt acted
upon. Criminal action was instituted aganst the residents by Punsalan. The CFI found almost all
of the 34 defendants guilty and sentenced them to pay 10 pesos or suffer imprisonment in case of
insolvency. The defendants filed a motion for a retrial to retire the objection made by Punsalan.
The trial court denied the motion. All except 2 of the defendants appealed. Making assignments
of error.
1. The court erred in overruling motion for retrial.
2. Error in not holding that the libelous statement was not privileged
3. Error in not acquitting defendants
4. Evidence failed to show gult of defendants beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Erred in making defendants prove that the libelous statements were true.

6. Error in sustaining the prosecutions objection to the introduction in evidence by the accused
of the affidavits upon which the petition forming the basis of the libelous charge was based.
7. Erred in refusing to permit the defendants to retire the objection in advertently interposed by
their counsel to the admission in evidence of the expediente administrativo out of which the
accusation in this case arose.
Burgos v. Chief of Staff
Corro v. Lising

New York Times v. Sullivan


Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Sullivan (Plaintiff) sued the Defendant, the New York
Times Co. (Defendant), for printing an advertisement about the civil rights movement in the
south that defamed the Plaintiff.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The constitutional guarantees require a federal rule that
prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his
official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is, with
knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
Issue. Is the Defendant liable for defamation for printing an advertisement which
criticized a public officials official conduct?
Held. No. Reversed and remanded.
3. For individual perfection
Whitney v. California
Brief Fact Summary. The California Criminal Syndicalism Act (the Act) prohibited any
person to knowingly become a member of any organization that advocates Criminal
Syndicalism. The Defendant, Anita Whitney (Defendant), was affiliated with an organization
that adopted a Left Wing Manifesto and therefore convicted under the act.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A State may constitutionally prohibit its citizens from
knowingly being or becoming a member of an organization that advocates criminal syndicalism
consistently with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution).
Issue. Did the Defendants knowingly being or becoming a member of an organization
that advocated criminal syndicalism involve sufficient danger to the public peace that the State
could constitutionally penalize her for it?
Held. Yes. The lower court is affirmed.