CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD : SEPARATE DIGEST
1 UNITED NOTES
 Freedom of Speech and Of Expression from prior restraint is
largely freedom from government censorship of publications
whatever the form of censorship and regardless of whatever it
wielded by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of
government
 Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) in relation to Sec 7(f) of
Resolution 9515 unduly infringes on fundamental right of
people to freedom of speech central to the prohibition is the
freedom of individuals to express their preference through
posting of election campaign materialsin their property and to
convince other to agree with them.
 Freedom of speech and of press enjoys a preferred status in
the hierarchy of rights. The rationale is that the preservation of
other rights depends on how well we protect our freedom of
speech and of the press
 A content neutral regulation which is merely concerned with
incidents of speech or that merely controls the time, place or
manner of under well defined standards is permissible even if it
restricts right to free speech.
 REQUISITES VALID CONTENT NEUTRAL REGULATION
1. Government regulation is within constitutional power of
government
2. It furthers government substantial interest
3. Governmental interest is unrelated to suppression of free
expression
4. Incidental restriction on freedom of expresson is no greater
than is essential to the furtherance of the interest.
 COMELEC constitutionally delegated powers of supervision
and regulation do not extent to the ownership per se of PUV
and transportation terminal owners but only to the franchise
and permit to operate the same.
1|Page
 Regulating the expression of ideas or opinion in a PUV,
through the posting of election campaign material thereon is
not a regulation on franchise or permit but a regulation of the
very ownership of vehicle.
 Regulation amounts to regulating acts of ownership.
 Captive audience doctrine : states that when a listener cannot
as a practical matter, escape from intrusive speech, the speech
can be restricted.
SWS V COMELEC
COMELEC RESOLUTION 9674 directed SWS, Pulse Asia as well as other
survey firms to submit to COMELEC the names of all commissioners and
payors of all surveys published from Feb 12,2013 up to April 23,2013
including those of their subscribers.
Facts:
 March 2013, Tiangco, Sec-Gen of UNA wrote to COMELEC law
department and asked COMELEC to compel SWS to comply with
said resolution and give names or identities of the subscribers who
paid for pre-election survey or be liable for violation thereof, an act
constitutive of election offense.
 Hearing was conducted, they were informed y Chairman Brillantes
that the proceeding is merely for clarification and not a formal
hearing & investigation
 COMELEC issued a resolution directing them submit within 3 days
the names of subscribers and those who paid for the survey,
otherwise they may be punished for violation of the fair election act
 COMELEC issued a warning that failure to comply : Subpoena will
be issued against them
Allegations of SWS:
1. They were not furnished the said resolution
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
2. Regulation is tainted with irregularities. It is an ultra-vires act as it goes
beyond what has been provided for by the Fair Election Act (impairment of
contracts clause of the Constitution)
3.Violates their right to due process
4. Resolution is invalid as it requires disclosure of the subscribers and those
who paid for election surveys
5. Right to free speech is curtailed
COMELEC defense:
1. Valid regulation in exercise of police power
2. Effects Constitutional policy guaranteeing equal access to opportunities for
public service.
3. Does not curtail right to free speech nor violates constitutional proscription
against impairment of contracts.
4.Due process is not violated.
ISSUES X HELD
WON RESO NNO 9674 IS INVALID IN THAT IT REQUIRES THE
DISCLOSURE OF NAMES OF SUBSCRIBERS OF ELECTION
SURVEYS
 FEA does not distinguish between direct and indirect payers,
therefore it includes the subscribers and the persons who paid for
the conduct of survey.
 Reso 9006 was adopted with end in mind of guaranteeing or
ensuring equal opportunity for public service.
 FEA regulate means through which candidates are able to make
themselves known to voters and earn votes
Election surveys is not merely a descriptive aggregation of data
- It shapes preference of voters
- Informs about the strategy in campaign machineries
- It affects outcome of the elections
- Election campaign = election propaganda
Several effects of surveys on volter behavior
1.) Bandwagon effect – popular tide (human tendency to conform)
2|Page
2.) Underdog effect – symphaty
3. Motivating effect – persuading
4. Demotivating effect – abstain : candidate will win
5. Strategic effect – votes influenced by chances of winning
6.Free will – vote to prove that poll is wrong
 Election surveys creates a political expectation and measure &
influence public opinion : it affects health of democracy
 Constitutional dictum to guarantee equal access to opportunities for
public service and even more specifically and explicitly to prohibit
political dynasties
 Inclusion of published election surveys : regulates election
propaganda, a means by which candidates shape voters
preference and if left unregulated undermine purpose of fair
elections
WON RIGHTS OF PETITIONERS TO FREE SPEECH WILL BE
CURTAILED BY THE REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT NAMES OF
SUBSCRIBERS
 Freedom of speech and expression : Publishing their findings +
Right to political speech : both intended and received as a
contribution to public deliberation.
 TEST USED: Equality based approach – weight liberty to express
and equality of opportunities
EQUALLY BASED APPROACH : WHAT PREVAILS?
Politically advantaged speech Regulation promoting political equality
Regulation Speech
: redistributes and equalizes speaking power
 Social inequality does have its effect on the exercise and effect of
guarantee of free speech. Those who have more will have better
access to media that reaches a wider audience than those who
have less. Those who espouse the more popular ideas will have
better reception than the subversive and dissenter in the society.
 Requirements of the Constitution regarding equality in opportunity
must provide limits to some expression during electoral campaigns.
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
VALID REGULATION
1.) Provided by law
2.) Reasonable
3.) Narrowly tailored to meet objective : enhancing opportunity of all
candidates to be heard
4.) Less restrictive means : Achieve objective
 What is involved here is not election propaganda per se : they are
for private consumption. BUT when published they have a
tendency to shape voters preference .
 Legislative intent or regulatory concern is clear : those who
financed, one way or another the published survey must be
disclosed
 Not only an important or substantial state interest but even a
compelling one reasonably grounds Resolution to the inclusion of
election surveys. Thus regardless of whether an intermediate or
strict standard, it passes scrutiny
 Regulation of election surveys effects constitutional policy of
guaranteeing equal access to opportunities for public service.
 Resolution : narrowly tailored to meet the objective of enhancing
opportunity of all candidates to be heard and considering the
primacy of guarantee of free expression and is demonstrably the
least restrictive means to achieve that object
 While it does reglate expression, it does not go far as to suppresss
desired expression. There is neither prohibition nor sensorship
 All it does is to articulate a recognition as regards the manner of
publication : disclosure of those who commissioned and paid for
survey.
 No prior restraint : remain free to publish: Disclosure is only upon
and not prior to publication.
WON IT VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROSCRIPTION AGAINST
IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
 Consititutional guaranty on non-impairment is limited by exercise of
police power of state.
 Not a capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable regulation.
3|Page
WON COMELEC DEPREIVED PETITIONERS OF DUE PRROCESS
OF LAW
 Never actually served copies of regulation.
 Failure to provide copies of criminal complaint
DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRIC v. ARANJUEZ
Facts:
 Petitioners DCWD –GOCC
 Private Respondents : Officers and members of NAMADACWAD ::
charged with several administrative cases due to acts committed
during DCWD anniversary
- Wearing of shirts with inscriptions
- Posting of bond papers outside of designated areas
 May 16: staging pickets in front of DCWD office : Non-payment of
negotiation agreement and opposition to DCWD privatization and 1
M Peso Loan
 May 8 Emergency meeting : agreed upon to wear shirt and attach
posters of grievances : during motorpool event
 In the motorpool event, they were asked by DCWD to wear sports
attire, they in fact did obey, but wore one with inscriptions.
 Formal charges were filed against them.
 Penalties : ranging from suspension to dismissal
 May 2008 went to CSC alleging that there was a violation of their
right to assemble and right to petition for redress of grievances
 DCWD Claim: Prohibition: Wearing of shirts during office hours
CSC HELD:
- Not within the ambit of prohibited mass activity
- Violation of reasonable office rules and regulations
- Act of posting grievances outside designated area
- Violation (x) serious in nature: Lack of any abusive, vulgar,
defamatory/ libelous language
CA HELD:
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS

- Prohibited concerted activity- must be undertaken by government  BATF rejected application in lieu of the above provision
employees by themselves/through the association with intent of  Rationale:
effecting work stoppage/ service disruption 1.Ban is necessary to suppress threat of strength wars among
- Petitioners only committed simple violation of office rules and
brews, to prevent them from seeking to comepete in market based
should not be punishable by dismissal
on the potency of their beer
2. Prevent particular type of beer drinker who selects beverage
ISSUE: WON THERE WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF RIGHT TO because of high poteny : Decrease extent to which consumers will
ASSEMBLE AND PETITION REDRESS OF GRIEVANCCES select on basis of that characteristic
 Respondents
HELD: YES 1.) Records: Insufficient to determine whetehr FAAA ban will
directly advance government interest
 Collective activity of joining fun run with t-shirts is not done to effect
2.) W/N There is a reasonable fit that existed between ban and the
work stoppage or disrupt service
goal of avoiding strength wars
 They did not violate memorandum issued relating to proper attire to
3.) Wines and Distilled spirits are allowed to provide labels
be worn
displaying alcohol content
 EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESION
4.) Proscribe descriptive terms but do not preclude (low alcohol,
 Memorandum: Bulletin board in pool area, below office of
reduced alcohol, and alcohol free)
purchasing division and side office building beside guard house :
5.) Labels : Form of commercial speech, essential for the free flow
designated area for posting of grievances
of information, and accounts for private decisions which drive the
 (x) tantamount to relinquishment of constitutional right of
system
expression enjoyed by citizens just be reason of their employment
 Citizens who accept public employment must accept certain
ISSUE:
limitations of his/her freedom
WON PROHIBITION IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND DOES NOT
 Regulation and not a removal of Constitutional Right
VIOLATE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION TO COMMERCIAL
 What was done only amounts to a light offense which is punishable
SPEECH
by reprimand

RUBIN v. COORS BREWING HELD: NO

 Labeling ban cannot be sad to advance the government interest in
Facts: suppressing strength wars because other provisions of FAAA and
implementing regulations prevent from furthering the interest in a
 Sec 5 (e) (2) of Federal Alcohol Administrative Act prohibits beer
direct and material fashion.
labels from displaying alcohol content
 Although beer advertising would seem to constitute a more
 Respondent Brews Beer in 1987 applied to Bureau of Alcohol,
influential weapon n strength wars than labels, BATF regulation
Tobacco & Firearms (BATF) for approval of proposed labels and governing such advertising prohibit statements of alcohol content
advertisements that disclosed its alcohol content
only in States that affirmatively band such advertisements.

4|Page
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
 Government regulation also permit identification of certain beers
with igh alcohol content as malt liquors and they require disclosure
of content on labels of wines and spirits.
 There is little chance that regulation can directly and materially
advance its aim while other provision of the same act undermine of
counteract its effects.
 Prohibition is more extensive than necessary since there are
available alternatives to the labeling ban including limiting alcohol
content of beers, prohibiting marketing efforts emphasizing high
alcohol strength and limiting ban to malt liquors, the segment of
beer market that allegedly is threatened with strength war would
prove less intrusive to first amendments protection
POLICARPIO V. MANILA TIMES PUB. CO INC
Lumen Policarpio seeks to recover damages by reason of publication in
Saturday Mirror and Daily Mirror of 2 articles which are claimed to be per se
defamatory, libelous and false and to have exposed her to ridicule, jeopardized
her integrity, good name and business and official transactions and caused her
grave embarrassment untold and extreme moral, mental and physical
anguish,and incalculable material, moral, professional and business damages.
Facts:
 Plaintiff is a member of Philippine bar who was an executive
secretary of local UNESCO National Commission.
 She caused one of her officers, Ms. Reyes to be separated from
service
 In turn, Ms. Reyes filed counter charges alleging malversation of
public funds, and other complaint for alleged estafa thru falsification
of public document.
WOMAN OFFICIAL SUED : POLICARPO ON FRAUDS, UNESCO OFFICIAL
HEAD ACCUSED ONN SUPPLIES, FUNDS USE BY COLLEGUE
- Basic facts : case filed against her ::: containing the ff
- Used UNESCO stencils for private and personal prpose.
- Estafa through falsification of public documents
- Issues with regard her trips.
- Charges : conduct unbecoming of a lady and was not aid salary
5|Page
PALACE OPENS INVESTIGATION OF RAPS AGAINST POLICARPIO
- Policarpio stands accused by Reyes of having malversed public property
and of having fraudulently sought reimbursement of supposed official
expenses.
- Miss Reyes, technical assistant of the Unesco, stated at the Palace
inquiry that during 1955 Miss Policarpio allegedly used several sheets of
government stencils for her private and personal use, such as for French
lessons, contracts of sale of pianos and for invitations of the League of
Women Voters of which she (Miss Policarpio) is an officer
- Reimbursement of trips
"WOMAN OFFICIAL SUED"
- plaintiff "was charged with malversation and estafa in complaints filed
with the city fiscal's office by the Presidential Complaint and Action
Commission" — otherwise known as PCAC — is untrue, the complaints
for said offenses having been filed by Miss Reyes
- Neither is it true that said "criminal action was initiated as a result of
current administrative, investigation", as stated in the second paragraph
of the same article.
 Plaintiff maintains that the effect of these false statements was to
give the general impression that said investigation by Col. Alba had
shown that plaintiff was guilty, or, at least, probably guilty of the
crimes aforementioned.
 Unesco stencils allegedly for private and personal purposes, and to
the collection of transportation expenses, it did not mention the fact
that the number of stencils involved in the charge was only 18 or
20, that the sum allegedly misappropriated by her was only P54,
and that the falsification imputed to her was said to have been
committed by claiming that certain expenses for which she had
sought and secured reimbursement were incurred in trips during
the period from July 1, 1955 to September 30, 1955
 By omitting these details, plaintiff avers, the article of August 11,
1956, had the effect of conveying the idea that the offenses
imputed to her were more serious than they really were
 Upon the other hand, defendants contend that, although the
complaints in the city fiscal's office were filed, not by the PCAC, but
by Miss Reyes, this inaccuracy is insignificant and immateria
 "details" do not affect the truthfulness of the article as a whole, and
that, in any event, the insignificant value of said sheets of stencil
and the small amount allegedly misappropriated, would have had, if
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
set forth in said article, a greater derogatory effect upon the
plaintiff, aside from the circumstance that defendants had no
means of knowing such "details".
 . It is only too apparent that the article published on August 11,
1956, presented the plaintiff in a more unfavorable light than she
actually was.
 It goes without saying that newspapers must enjoy a certain degree
of discretion in determining the manner in which a given event
should be presented to the public, and the importance to be
attached thereto, as a news item, and that its presentation in a
sensational manner is not per se illegal.
 But, to enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory
information must be not only true, but, also, fair, and it must be
made in good faith and without any comments or remarks.
 In the case at bar, aside from containing information derogatory to
the plaintiff, the article published on August 11, 1956, presented
her in a worse predicament than that in which she, in fact, was.
 Said article was not a fair and true report of the proceedings there
in alluded to. What is more, its sub-title — "PCAC RAPS L.
POLICARPIO ON FRAUD" — is a comment or remark, besides
being false.
 Accordingly, the defamatory imputations contained in said article
are "presumed to be malicious".
 Either they knew the truth about it or they did not know it. If they
did, then the publication would be actually malicious. If they did not
or if they acted under a misapprehension of the facts, they were
guilty of negligence in making said statement, for the
consequences of which they are liable solidarily.
 News item published on August 13, 1956, rectified a major
inaccuracy contained in the first article, by stating that neither Col.
Alba nor the PCAC had filed the aforementioned complaints with
the city fiscal's office
 But, this rectification or clarification does not wipe out the
responsibility arising from the publication of the first article,
although it may and should mitigate it (
6|Page
 For this reason, we feel that the interest of justice and of all parties
concerned would be served if the defendants indemnify the plaintiff
in the sums of P3,000, by way of moral damages, and P2,000, as
attorney's fees.
LOPEZ V. CA
Petitioners then publisher and editor of this week magazine , liable in damages
to tune of 11 k arising from publication of pcture of respondent Fidel Cruz as
being responsible for hoax fo the year.
The view is impress by petitioners invoking a liberal construction of implications
of press freedom, owing up to mistake, unfortunately not discovered until it was
too late, and pulishing a correction as an earnest if its good faith
Facts:
 1956, there appeared on the front page of The Manila Chronicle, of
which petitioner Eugenio Lopez was the publisher, as well as on
other dailies, a news story of a sanitary inspector assigned to the
Babuyan Islands, Fidel Cruz by name, sending a distress signal to
a passing United States Airforce plane which in turn relayed the
message to Manila. He was not ignored, an American Army plane
dropped a two way radio.
 He utilized it to inform authorities in Manila that the people in the
place were living in terror, due to a series of killings committed
since Christmas of 1955.
 Upon arriving at the reported killer-menaced Babuyan Claro, men
found, Fidel Cruz, who merely wanted transportation home to
Manila.
 Earlier in its Special Year End Quiz appearing in its issue of
January 13, 1956, reference was made to a health inspector who
suddenly felt "lonely" in his isolated post, cooked up a story about a
murderer running loose on the island of Calayan so that he could
be ferried back to civilization. He was given the appellation of
"Hoax of the Year."
 The Week Magazine of the Manila Chronicle January 15, 1956.
devoted a pictorial article to it in its issue of Mention was made that
while Fidel Cruz story turned out to be false
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
 The magazine on both occasions carried photographs of the
person purporting to be Fidel Cruz.
 Unfortunately, the pictures that were published on both occasions
were that of private respondent Fidel G. Cruz, a businessman
contractor
 As soon, however, as the inadvertent error was brought to the
attention of petitioners, a correction was immediately published in
This Week Magazine on January 27, 1957: "While we were rushing
to meet: the deadline for January 13th issue of This Week, we
inadvertently published the picture of former Mayor Fidel G. Cruz of
Sta. Maria, Bulacan, businessman and contractor.We here express
our profound regrets that such an error occurred
 Respondent Fidel G. Cruz sued petitioners in the Court of First
Instance of Manila for the recovery of damages alleging the
defamatory character of the above publication of his picture.
 To demonstrate that no action for libel would lie arising from the
publication of the picture of respondent Cruz identified as
responsible for the hoax of the year, when such was not the case
at all. No liability would be incurred if it could be demonstrated that
it comes within the well-nigh all embracing scope of freedom of the
press. Truth yielding at times to unavoidable inaccuracies
attendant on newspapers and other publications being subject
to the tyranny of deadlines.
 Libel –a "malicious defamation, expressed either in writing, printing,
or by signs or pictures, or the like xxx, tending to blacken the
memory of one who is dead or to impeach the honesty, virtue, or
reputation, or publish the alleged or natural defects of one who is
alive, and thereby "pose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule,
 Publication of a person's photograph in connection with an article
libelous of a third person, is a libel on the person whose picture is
published, where the acts set out in the article are imputed to such
person."
 Why libel law has both a criminal and a civil aspect is explained:
- Depriving him of his good reputation =redress this personal wrong
money damages are awarded to the injured person.
7|Page
- Defamatory statements tends strongly to induce breach of the
peace by the person defamed, libel is a crime, and as such
subjects the offender to a fine or imprisonment."
 There was some suggestion that the defendant published the
portrait by mistake, and without knowledge that it was the
plaintiff's portrait, or was not what it purported to be.
 But the fact, if it was one, was no excuse.
 A libel is harmful on its face.
 What gives the sting to the writing is its permanence of form. The
spoken word dissolves, but the written one abide and Perpetuates
the scandal.' ... When one speaks of a writing in this connection,
one does not limit oneself to writings, any symbol suffices —
Pictures, hieroglyphics shorthand notes — if only what is written is
intelligible to him who reads."
 Curtailment to which press freedom would be subjected if an action
for libel were not rigorously scrutinized to remove doubts as to its
being utilized to penalize the exercise of that constitutional right
 So long as it is done in good faith, newspapers have the legal right
to have and express opinions on legal questions. To deny them
that right would infringe upon the freedom of the press."
 "there is no evidence in the record to prove that the publication of
the news item under Consideration was prompted by personal ill
will or spite, or that there was intention to do harm.
 In the preparation of stories, press reporters and edition usually
have to race with their deadlines; and consistently with good faith
and reasonable care, they should not be held to account, to a point
of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfection in the choice of
words."
 For liability to arise then without offending press freedom, there is
this test to meet: "The constitutional guarantees require, we think, 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'
 A realistic account of the obligation of a news media to disseminate
information of a public character and to comment thereon as well
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
as the conditions attendant on the business of publishing cannot be
ignored.
 It is to the haven thus afforded by such a highly sympathetic ruling
to press freedom that petitioners would seek refuge
 Nonetheless, for the reasons expressed with vigor and clarity by
former Chief Justice Paras, no liability was deemed incurred by the
then publisher of the Manila Chronicle A newspaper, it is stressed,
"should not be held to account to a point of suppression for honest
mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words
 Here there was no pressure of a daily deadline to meet no
occasion to act with haste as the picture of respondent was
published in a weekly magazine.
 It cannot be concluded then that the plea of petitioners is
sufficiently persuasive. The mandate of press freedom is not
ignored, but here it does not speak unequivocally. It is not decisive
of the basic issue. By itself, it does not have a controlling
significance.
 Petitioners would make much, likewise, of their correction, which
has all the force of a retraction, as a basis from being absolved
from any pecuniary responsibility.----The correction promptly made
by petitioners would thus call for a reduction in the damages
awarded. It should be noted that there was no proof of any actual
pecuniary logs arising from the above publication.
HUSTLER MAGAZINE V. FALWELL
Petitioner Hustler Magazine : Magazine of nationwide circulation
Falwell: Minister: known as an active commentator of political and public affairs
claims for invasion of privacy, libel and intentional infliction of emotional
distress
Facts:
 Hustler Magazine, it the front cover of one its issues, featured a
parod with falwell‘s picture ―Jerry Falwell talks about his first time‖ :
 Ads clearly played on a sexual double entendre of the general
subject of his first times.
8|Page
 Alleged interview states : First time was during a drunken
incestuous redezvois with his mother in an outhouse . Hustler
parody portrays respondent and mother as drunk and immoral.
 At the bottom, ad contains a disclaimer that it is not to be taken
seriously.
 Claiming for damages for libel, invasion of privacy and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Jury
- Ad parody could not be reasobalbby understood as describing actual facts about
respondent or actual events
- AWARD: DAMAGES
CA
- Affirmed
- But rejected actual malice standard of NYT case shoud be met before recovery for
emotional distress could bee made.
NYT Standard (1) Knowledge/ Intent (2) Reckless Conduct
ISSUE
WON PUBLIC FIGURE MAY RECOVER DAMAGES FOR EMOTINAL
HARM CAUSE BY PUBLICATION OF AD PARODY OFFENSIVE TO
HIM
HELD:
 Freedom to speak one‘s mind is not only an aspect of individual
liberty, and thus good unto itself—but also is essential to the
common quest for truth and vitality of society as a whole.
 Vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free
from governmentally imposed sanctions.
 Of course this does not mean that any speech about public figure is
immune from sanction in form of damages.
 Public figure may hold speaker liable for damages to reputation
caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood but only if
statement is made with knowledge that it was false or reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not.
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
 False statements of fact are particularly valueless; they interfere
with truth seeking function of marketplace of ideas and cause
damage to an indiviudal‘s reputation that cannot easily be repaired
by counter speech however persuasive or effective.
 Even though falsehoods have little value in and of themselves they
are nevertheless inevitable in free debate, and a rule would imose
strict liability on publisher for factual assertion would have an
undoubted chilling effect.
 "‗Freedoms of expression require "breathing space."'This breathing
space is provided by a constitutional rule that allows public figures
to recover for libel or defamation only when they can prove both
that the statement was false and that the statement was made with
the requisite level of culpability.
 Respondent argues, however, that a different standard should
apply in this case because, here, the State seeks to prevent not
reputational damage, but the severe emotional distress suffered by
the person who is the subject of an offensive publication.
 While such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes
of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First
Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate
about public figures.
 The political cartoon is a weapon of attack, of scorn and ridicule
and satire; it is least effective when it tries to pat some politician on
the back. It is usually as welcome as a bee sting, and is always
controversial in some quarters.
 There is no doubt that the caricature of respondent and his mother
published in Hustler is at best a distant cousin of the political
cartoons described above, and a rather poor relation at that.
 If it were possible by laying down a principled standard to separate
the one from the other, public discourse would probably suffer little
or no harm.
 Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it
may embarrass others or coerce them into action").
 For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government
must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.
9|Page
 We conclude that public figures and public officials may not recover
for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of
publications such as the one here at issue without showing, in
addition, that the publication contains a false statement of fact
which was made with "actual malice,"
MILLER V. CALIFORNIA
Facts
Application of a State's criminal obscenity statute to a situation in which
sexually explicit materials have been thrust by aggressive sales action upon
unwilling recipients who had in no way indicated any desire to receive such
materials. This Court has recognized that the States have a legitimate interest
in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material
Roth v. United States
- All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance --
unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the
prevailing climate of opinion -- have the full protection of the [First
Amendment] guaranties, unless excludable because they
encroach upon the limited area of more important interests.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,
- These include the lewd and obscene. . . . It has been well
observed that such utterances are no essential part of any
exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social
Memoirs v. Massachusetts
- elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the
dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to a
prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive
because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to
the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the
material is utterly without redeeming social value." (ABANDONED)
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas
- That conduct must be specifically defined by the applicable state
law, as written or authoritatively construed.
- Taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which
portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which,
taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value.
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
 Under the holdings announced today, no one will be subject to
prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless
these materials depict or describe patently offensive "hard core"
sexual conduct specifically defined by the regulating state law, as
written or construed. We are satisfied that these specific
prerequisites will provide fair notice to a dealer in such materials
that his public and commercial activities may bring prosecution.
 "uncertainty of the standards creates a continuing source of tension
between state and federal courts. . . ."
 Majority of this Court has agreed on concrete guidelines to isolate
"hard core" pornography from expression protected by the First
Amendment. Now we may abandon the casual practice of Redrup
v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967), and attempt to provide positive
guidance to federal and state courts alike.
 Under a National Constitution, fundamental First Amendment
limitations on the powers of the States do not vary from community
to community, but this does not mean that there are, or should or
can be, fixed, uniform national standards of precisely what appeals
to the "prurient interest" or is "patently offensive." These are
essentially questions of fact, and our Nation is simply too big
and too diverse for this Court to reasonably expect that such
standards could be articulated for all 50 States in a single
formulation, even assuming the prerequisite consensus
exists.
 To require a State to structure obscenity proceedings around
evidence of a national "community standard" would be an exercise
in futility.
 We conclude that neither the State's alleged failure to offer
evidence of "national standards," nor the trial court's charge that
the jury consider state community standards, were constitutional
errors. Nothing in the First Amendment requires that a jury must
consider hypothetical and unascertainable "national standards"
when attempting to determine whether certain materials are
obscene as a matter
10 | P a g e
 "It is my belief that, when the Court said in Roth that obscenity is to
be defined by reference to 'community standards,' it meant
community standards -- not a national standard, as is sometimes
argued. I believe that there is no provable 'national standard.' . . .
At all events, this Court has not been able to enunciate one, and it
would be unreasonable to expect local courts to divine one."
 But, in our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas
and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene
material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment
and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom. It is a
"misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press. . . ."
 The First Amendment protects works which, taken as a whole,
have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, regardless
of whether the government or a majority of the people approve of
the ideas these works represent.
 These doleful anticipations assume that courts cannot distinguish
commerce in ideas, protected by the First Amendment, from
commercial exploitation of obscene material.
GONZALES V. KATIGBAK
.Motion picture in question, Kapit sa Patalim was classified ―For Adults
Only‖. There is a proper issue then also one of first impression, as to
the proper test of what constitutes obscenity in view of objections
raised.
Facts:
 The principal petitioner is Jose Antonio U. Gonzalez, President of
the Malaya Films, movie production
 The respondent is the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and
Television, with Maria Kalaw Katigbak as its Chairman
 In a resolution of a sub-committee of respondent Board of October
23, 1984, a permit to exhibit the film Kapit sa Patalim under the
classification "For Adults Only," with certain changes and deletions
enumerated was granted.
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
 Considering, however, certain vital deficiencies in the application,
the Board further Resolves to direct the Chairman of the Board to
Withheld the issuance of the Permit to exhibit until these
deficiencies are supplied. Hence this petition.
 This Court : moot as "respondent Board has revoked its questioned
resolution, replacing it with one immediately granting petitioner
company a permit to exhibit the film Kapit without any deletion or
cut Further: "The modified resolution of the Board, of course,
classifies Kapit as for-adults-only.
 An amended petition was then filed the main objection was the
classification of the film as "For Adults Only."
 For petitioners, such classification "is without legal and factual
basis and is exercised as impermissible restraint of artistic
expression. It was also submitted that the standard of the law for
classifying films afford a practical and determinative yardstick for
the exercise of judgment
ISSUE: WON the rating made with grave abuse of discretion
HELD:
 Motion pictures are important both as a medium for the
communication of Ideas and the expression of the artistic impulse.
 importance of motion pictures as an organ of public opinion
lessened by the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as
to inform.
 It is the opinion of this Court, therefore, that to avoid an
unconstitutional taint on its creation, the power of respondent
Board is limited to the classification of films. It can, to safeguard
other constitutional objections, determine what motion pictures are
for general patronage and what may require either parental
guidance or be limited to adults only.
 That is to abide by the principle that freedom of expression is the
rule and restrictions the exemption. The power to exercise prior
restraint is not to be presumed, rather the presumption is against
its validity.
11 | P a g e
 The test, to repeat, to determine whether freedom of excession
may be limited is the clear and present danger of an evil of a
substantive character that the State has a right to prevent.
 where the movies, theatrical productions radio scripts, television
programs, and other such media of expression are concerned —
included as they are in freedom of expression — censorship,
especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only
under the clearest proof of a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil to public public morals, public health or any other
legitimate public interest.
 The law, however, frowns on obscenity and rightly so
 "All Ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance —
unorthodox Ideas, controversial Ideas, even Ideas hateful to the
prevailing climate of opinion — have the full protection of the
guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the
limited area of a more important interest.
 There is, however, some difficulty in determining what is obscene.
 Later decisions have rejected it and substituted this test: whether to
the average person, applying contemporary community standards,
the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to
prurient interest.
 The Hicklin test, judging obscenity by the effect of isolated
passages upon the most susceptible persons, might well
encompass material legitimately treating with sex, and so it must
be rejected as unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of
speech and press. On the other hand, the substituted standard
provides safeguards adequate to withstand the charge of
constitutional infirmity.
 Sex and obscenity are not synonymous.
 ―Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner
appealing to prurient interest.
 Sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life has
indisputably been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind
through the ages; it is one of the vital problems of human interest
and public concern.
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
 It cannot be stressed strongly that the arts and letters "shall be
under the patronage of the State.
 There is no orthodoxy in what passes for beauty or for reality. It is
for the artist to determine what for him is a true representation.
 the widest scope of freedom is to be given to the adventurous and
imaginative exercise of the human spirit" in this sensitive area of a
man's personality.
 On the question of obscenity, therefore, and in the light of the facts
of this case, such standard set forth in Executive Order No. 878 is
to be construed in such a fashion to avoid any taint of
unconstitutionality
 All that remains to be said is that the ruling is to be limited to the
concept of obscenity applicable to motion pictures.
 It is hardly the concern of the law to deal with the sexual fantasies
of the adult population. it cannot be denied though that the State as
parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for
the welfare of the young
PITA V. CA
The petitioner, publisher of Pinoy Playboy, a "men's magazine", seeks the
review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. He invokes, in particular, the
guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures of the Constitution, as
well as its prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of
law.
Facts:
 On Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of Manila ,Special
Anti-Narcotics Group together with other government agencies,
seized and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand
owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks, magazines,
publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene,
pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials in
public at the University belt.
 Among seized, and later burned, was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines
published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita.
12 | P a g e
 CLAIM: Magazine is not obscene and protected by the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech. It is an artistic
expression
MAYOR BAGATSING CLAIMS:materials were voluntarily
surrendered by the vendors to the police authorities, and that the
said confiscation and seizure was undertaken pursuant to P.D. No.
960. Materials confiscated belonged to the magazine stand owners
and peddlers who voluntarily surrendered their reading materials.
ISSUE: WON MAGAZINE IS OBSCENE & AGENTS CAN
WITHOUT COURT ORDER CONFISCATE AND SEIZE
MAGAZINES
** TESTS USED TO DETERMINE WHETHERMATERIAL IS
OBSCENE OR NOT
KOTTINGER
 Whether or not it shocks the ordinary and common sense of
men as an indecency
 Hypothetical community standard
GONZALES v. KATIGBAK
 Whether average person, applying contemporary standards,
the dominant theme of materials taken as a whole appeals to
prurient interest
 Obscenity in terms of dominant theme
MILLER TEST
 Whether average person applying contemporary standards
would find the work taken as a whole appeals to the prurient
interest
 Whether work depicts or descries in a patently offensie way
sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law
 Whether work taken as a whole lacks serios literary artistic or
scientific value
 No challenge on right of State in the legitimate exercise of police
power to suppress smut, provided that it is a smut.
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
 Undoubtedly, immoral, lore or literature comes within the ambit of
free expression, although not its protection.
 In free expression cases, this court has consistently been on side
of exercise of the right barring the clear and present danger.
 There must be objective and convincing, not subjective or
conjectural proof of existence of such clear and present danger.
Authority does not solely on his own appraisal of what the public
welfare, peace or safety may require.
 The burden is on State to demonstrate the existence of danger, a
danger must not only be clear but also present to justify State
action to stop speech
 **** COURT IS NOT CONVINCED THAT PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS HAVE SHOWN REQUIRED PROOF TO
JUSTIFY BAN AND TO WARRANT CONFISCATION OF THE
LITERATURE FOR WHICH MANDATORY INJUNCTION HAD
BEEN SOUGHT
(1) Finding said materials to be pornography
(2) Authorizing them to carry out a search ad seizure by way of
warrants.
 Were the literature so confiscated pornographic?
 Has the petitioner been found guilty under statute?
 Police power is no license the seize property in disregard of due
process.
 It is basic that searches and seizures may be done only through a
judicial warrant, they become unreasonable and subject.
 Here no party has been charged, nor such cahrgees being readied
against any party.
BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE
Respondents are two establishments in South Bend Indiana who wish ti
provide totally nude dancing as entertainment and individual dancers who are
employed at these establishments claim that First amendment’s guarantee of
freedom of expression prevents the state of Indiana from enforcing its public
indecency law to prevent this form of dancing.
FACTS:
13 | P a g e
[Kitty Kat Lounge & Glenn Theater]
- Totally nude dancing = entertainment
[Individual Dancers]
- They believe they could earn more by dancing naked.
[Indiana Statute Requirement]
- Dancers in the establishment involved must wear panties and G-
strings : does not violate first amendment
Claim of petitioners:
1.) Dancing—expressive conduct protected by first amendment
2.) Minors are excluded and there are no non-consenting viewers
3.) They are licensed and the government may not in any way limit the
performance of their dancers
4.) Violates the First Amendment because it fails the third part of
O‘brien Test : the governmental interest must be unrelated to
suppression of free expression
Claims: Govt
1.) Valid: Time, Place, Manner of restriction
2.) Clearly within police power of state
3.) Indecency statute justified as incidental limitation on expressive
activity
4.) Erotic message is conveyed by damcers
Rationale of the law: Protecting Societal Order and Morality ::: Public
indecency: nudity = Criminal Offense at Common law
 Other erotic performances : Performed without government
interference so long as such performance is done with scant
amount of clothing (w/ panties and g-strings)
 What Indiana seek to address is not the erotic dancers but public
nudity
 Forth part of O‘brien test requires the incidental restriction on first
amendment freedom be no greater than is essential to the
furtherance of government interest
 Government interest served by pretext of prohibition is societal
disapproval of nudity in public paces and among strangers.
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS

RENTON V. PLAYTIME THEATRES HELD:

Constitutional challenge to zoning ordinance, enacted by city of Renton,
Washington that prohibits adult motion picture theaters from locating 1,000 feet  Renton ordinance does not ban adult theaters altogether, but
of any residential zone, single or multiple family dwelling, church, park or merely provides that such theaters may not be located within 1K
school. feet from certain zones is to be analyzed as a form of time, place,
and manner regulation.
Facts:
 At first glance, it does not appear to fit neatly into either content
 1980,City Council of Renton enacted Ordinance No. 3626. It based or content neutral category.
prohibited any adult motion picture theater from locating within  Ordinance treats theaters that specialize in adult films differently
1,000 feet of any residential zone, single or multiple family dwelling, from other kinds of theaters. Nevertheless, it is aimed on the
church, park or school. content of films shown at ―adult motion picture theaters‖ buut raher
at secondary effects of adult theaters and not with the content of
 1982: respondents acquired 2 existing theaters in downtown of
adult films themselves.
Renton with intention of using them to exhibit feature-length adult
 The ordinance by its terms is designed to prevent crime, protect
films.
city‘s retail trade, maintain property values and generally protect
 Theaters were located within area proscribed by Ordinance.
st and preserve the quality of city‘s neighborhoods, commercial
Respondents filed a lawsuit challenging the ordinance on 1 and
th districts and quality of urban life NOT TO SUPRESS
14 amendment grounds.
EXPRESSION OF UNPOPULAR VIEWS.
 District court issued a preliminary injunction, and respondents
 In short: Renton ordinance is completely consistent with our
began showing adult films at their 2 theaters.
definition of content-neutral speech regulations as those that are

st
District Court –Renton ordinance did not substantially restrict 1
justified without reference to content of regulated speech.
Amendment interests, that Renton was not required to show
 Zoning ordinance designed to combat the undesirable secondary
specific adverse impact on Renton from operation of adult theaters
effects of such businesses are to be reviewed under standards
bt unrelated to suppression of speech and that restriction on
applicable to content neutral : time, place and manner regulations.
speech imposed by ordinance were no greater than necessary to
 Ordinance: meets substantial government interest and allows for
further government interest.
reasonable alternative avenues of communication. :: Interest in

st
CA—Renton ordinance constituted a substantial restriction on 1
attempting to preserve quality of urban life is one that must be
Amendment interest. Using O‘brien standard, Renton had failed to
accorded with much respect
establish adequately the existence of substantial government
 We hold that Renton was entitled to rely on the experience of
interest in support of ordinance, and that in any event, it had not
Seattles and other cities and in particular the detailed findings
been shown to be unrelated to suppression of expression.
summarized in Washington SC Northend Cinema opinion in
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RENTON ORDINANCE VIOLATED 1
ST enacting its adult theater zoning ordinance.
st
TH
AND 14 AMENDMENT OF THE THEATER OWNERS IN LIEU OF  1 Amendment does not require a city, before enacting such
ZONING ORDINANCE ordinance to conduct new studies or produce evidence
independent of already generated by other cities so lon as

14 | P a g e
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
whatever evidence city relies upon is reasonably believed to be
relevant to the problem that city addresses.
 Renton ordinance is narrowly tailored to affect only that category of
teathers shown to produce the unwanted secondary effects thus
avoiding flaw that proved fatal to the regulation.
 Not underinclusive, because at time Renton ordinance was
enacted, any other adult business was located in or was
contemplating moving into Renton.
WON RENTON ORIDINANCEALLOWS FOR REASONABLE
ALERNATIVE AVENUES OF COMMUNICATION:
 It leaves some 520 acres or more than 50% of entire land area of
Renton open to use as adult theaters.
 Respondents claim: ―practically none‖ :::no commercially viable : all
occupied
 Respondents must fend for themselves in real estate market on
equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees
 First amendment requires only that Renton refrain from effectively
denying respondents a reasonable opportunity to open and operate
an adult theater within the city, and the ordinace before us easily
meets such requirement.
In sum: Renton ordinance represents a valid government response to
admittedly serious problems created by adult theaters. Renton has not
used ―the power of zone as a pretext of suppressing expression but
rather has sought to make some areas available for adult theaters and
their patrons, while at the same time preserving the quality of life in the
community at lrgge by preventing theaters from locating n other areas.
BETHEL SCH. V. FRASER
Facts:
 1983: Fraser : a student at Bethel High school made a speech
promoting a fellow student for the student elective office in
presence of 600 HS students, many of which are 14 y/o.
15 | P a g e
 The activity was a school sponsored educational program in self-
government
 Speech referred to candidate used elaborate, graphic and explicit
sexual metaphor
 Fraser‘s teachers informed him in advance that the speech was
inappropriate and that he should not deliver it.
 When he finally delivered the speech, there were different reactions
among the students. Some hooted and yelled, some gestured
graphically simulated sexual activities, and some were
embarrassed.
 Bethel High school: Disciplinary rule –prohibits use of obscene
language
 Rationale: It interferes substantially the educational process
 School administrators claim that he violated such rule and gave
him some time to explain
 Accordingly a penalty of suspension and removal from the list of
candidates for graduation was given to him.
 Hearing officers determined the speech to be indecent, lewd and
offensive of modesty and decency.
 Respondent, by his father as guardian ad litem brought this action
in the US District Court for Western District of Washington. He
alleged that it violates his son‘s freedom of speech and asked for
damages.
 District court awarded damages. He was able to graduate and had
been elected as graduation speaker.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT BETHEL HIGH SCHOOL COMMITTED A
VIOLATION TO FRASERS RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
 Schools---interest : Protect captive audience (minors) from ewd
and indecent language,
 Purpose of pubic education is to prepare students for citizenship
and inculcate in them the habits and manners of civility values
 These fundamental values of habits and manners of civility is
essential to a democratic society.
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
 First amendment guarantees wide freedom on matters of adult
public discourse.
 But Rights of adult is not = to right of students in public schools.
 Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education
to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.
 Indeed fundamental values necessary to maintainance of
democratic political system disfavor the use of terms of debate
highly offensive or highly threatening to others.
 Inculcation of these values is truly a work of the schools.
 The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools
is not confined in books. Schools must teach by example the
shared values of civilized order.
 The schools as instruments of state, may determine that essential
lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in school that
tolerates lewd, indecent and offensive speech and conducts such
as that indulged in by this confused boy
 Pervasive sexual innuendo offensive to both teachers and
students.
 Obscenity: such utterances are no essential part of any expression
of ideas and are of such slight social values as a step to truth any
benefit may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by social
interest in order and morality
HAZELWOOD V KUHLMEIER
This case concerns extent to which educators may exercise editorial control
over contents of high school newspaper produced as part of school’s
journalism curriculum.
Facts:
 Petitioners, Hazel School District and various school officials
 Respondents are 3 students who are staff members of Spectrum,
the school newspaper, they contend that school officials violated
their First Amendment rights by deleting 2 pages of articles from
their May 13 1983 issue.
16 | P a g e
 SUBJECT MATTER OF SPECTRUM THAT WERE OBJECTED
1.) Stories described 3 Hazelwood experiences with pregnancy
o Identity : secret BUT identifiable from text.
o Reference to sexual activity and birth control were
inappropriate from some of younger students at school.
o Violates: Right of privacy
2.) Impact of Divorce on students at school
o Students parents should have been given an opportunity to
respond to these remarks or to consent to their publication.
 No time to make the necessary changes in the stories before the
scheduled press run and that newspaper would not appear before
the end of the school year.
 Accordingly, Principal Reynolds directed to withhold such topics
from the publication.
 District Court –denied injunction + schools officials may impose
restraints on students speech so long as their decision has a
substantial and reasonable basis.
 CA—public forum because newspaper was intended tto be and
operated as a conduit for student viewpoint. Spectrum, a public
forum precluded school officials from censoring its contents except
when necessary to avoid material and substantial intereference
with school work or discipline or rights of others.
 Only if publication of articles : could have resulted in tort liability to
school.
ISSUE: WON SCHOOL OFFICIALS MAY IMPOSE RESTRAINTS ON
STUDENTS SPEECH IN PUBLICATION OF SCHOOL SPONSORED
NEWSPAPER BY JOURNALIM CLASS
HELD:
 Students in the public schools do not ―shed their constitutional right
to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate—
unless school authorities have reason to believe that such
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS
expression will ―substantially interfere with the work of school or
impinge of other students‖
 We have nonetheless recognized that first amendment rights of
students in the public schools ―are not automatically coextensive
with the rights of adults in other settings‖ (Bethel School District v.
Fraser) and must be applied in light of special characteristics of
school environment
 Fraser : student could be disciplined for having delivered a speech
that was sexually explicit but not legally obscene at an official
school assembly because the school was entitled to disassociate
itself from speech in a manner
 School facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school
authorities have by policy or by practice opened those facilities for
indiscriminate use by general public or by some segment of public
such as student organization.
 Journalism II course, included development of journalistic skills
under deadline pressure, the legal, moral, ethical restriction
imposed upon journalists within school community and
responsibility and acceptance of criticism for articles of opinion.
 Journalism teacher: both authority to exercise and in fact exercised
great deal of control over spectrum.
 Students were permitted to exercise some authority over contents
of Spectrum was fully consistent with Curriculum Guide objective of
teaching Journalism II students leadership responsibilities as issue
and page editors.
 They reserved forum for its unintended purpose as supervised
learning experience for journalism students. School officials are
entitled to regulate the contents of Spectrum in any reasonable
manner.

st
Question of whether 1 amendment requires a school to tolerate
particular speech ::: ability to silence a student‘s personal
expression that happens to occur on the school premises

st
is different from question of whether 1 amendment requires school
affirmatively to promote particular student speech. :::authority over
17 | P a g e
school-sponsored publications, and other expressive activities
might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school.
 Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over this form of
students expression to assure that participants learn whatever
lessons the activity is designed to teach, that readers or listeners
are not exposed to materials that may be inappropriate for their
level of maturity, and that vews of the individual speaker are no
erroneously attributed to school
 Principal Reynolds acted reasonably in requiring deletion from may
13 issue of Spectrum of such articles.
 The legal, moral, and ethical restrictions imposed upon journalists
with a school community includes adolescent subjects and readers.
BAYAN v. ERMITA
Facts:
 Petitioner Citizens and Taxpayers + Right as organizations and
individuals : Violated ::: participated in a rally
 BP 880 & its No Permit No Rally Policy
 (Free exercise of such right without prejudice to right of others to
Life Liberty and Property)
 Important features
 Permit not required : Freedom Park/Private Property with
consent of owner
 Filed with City of Mayor at least 5 working days before
 Acknowledged and posted : Conspicuous place city and
municipal building
 Duty to grant : Unless Clear and Convincing Evidence—Public
assembly : Create Present Danger to Public Order, Public
Order, Public Safety, Public convenience, morals and health
 Act w/in 2 working days : refusal to accept : Paste on any
premises –deemed filed
 In case: (Imminent danger: Mayor shall inform applicant and
accord right to be heard)
 Denial  Remedy  RTC (decide within 24 hours)
 CONSTI 2 CASE DIGESTS

 Mayor: Designate route/re-route vehicular traffic: Assure ::: no
serious / Undue interference with free flow of commerce and
trade
 Take measures : Peaceful assembly
 Police non-interference atleast 100 meters away
 No arrest unless violating statute
 Create freedom parks within 6 moths
ARGUMENTS
 Requires permit regardless of presence/absence of danger
 Curtails choice of venue (time & place) : Part of message
 Not content neutrl
 Curtails right to peaceful assembly and redress of grievances:
not mere regulation but prohibition
 5 days: too long
 Pre-emptive: government already knows
 Chilling effect
PUBLIC PURPOSE: Traffic re-routing, prevent public
inconvenience and unde interference of commerce and trade
CPR: responsible and judicious means allowed by existing laws :
protect public interest and restore public order
 Fair and Impartial reading shows that it refers to all kinds of public
assemblies that would use public plaes not content based
regulation (x) refer to any subject
 Yes, fundamental personal right is recognized and guaranteed by
the Constitution.
 Exercise of Right is not absolute:: may be so regulated (not
injurious) to equal enjoyment of others with equal rights
 Simply regulates Place + Time + Manner : Assemblies
 UDHR + ICCPR
- Allows limitations: recognize & respect to rights and freedoms of
others
- Respect to right and reputation of others
 Mandate: At least 1 suitable freedom park
 No permit prior to establishment of freedom park :: for without such
forum, to deny permit = deny rights
 Calibrate Pre-emtive response : not valid : if it means the same as
maximum tolerance; maximum tolerance remains ; confuses
people & may be susceptible to abuse.
 If after 30 days from finality of this decision, no freedom park :
designated, ALL PUBLIC PARKS AND PLAZAS OF
MUNICIPALITY = Freedom park : No prior permit required to hold
assembly therein.

BASIS OF CLAIM: Art 3 Sec 4 : Protects freedom of speech,

expression, press, peaceably assembly and redress of grievances

- Basic functional democratic policy without which all rights,

meaningless and unprotected.
 Right to peaceably assemble & petition redress of grievances is
together with freedom of speech, of expression and of press enjoys
primacy in the realm of constitutional protection.
 BP 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction
that regulates PTM

18 | P a g e