Art. III, Sec. 4.Freedom of Speech or Press and Assembly Flashcards
1
Q
Art. III, Sec. 4.
A
No law shall be passed abridging
the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
2
Q
what is Freedom of Speech, Press, and Expression?
A
It is defined as the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or
punishment.
3
Q
Acts Protected Under Section 4:
A
- Political Speeches
- Self or Artistic Expression
- Commercial Speech (Ads, etc.)
- Scientific information
- Symbolic Speeches (pins, etc.)
- Picketing
4
Q
Acts not covered (according to jurisprudence)
A
- Seditious speeches
- Libelous Speeches
- Obscene Speeches
- Contemptuous Speeches
5
Q
Forms of prior restraint:
A
- Censorship
- Closures
- Court injunctions
- System of Issuance of Permits and Licenses
6
Q
what is Subsequent Punishment ?
A
A restraint on Freedom of Speech, Press and Expression that comes
after the exercise of the said rights. this includes:
1. Criminal Prosecutions for Sedition, Libel, and Obscenity
2. Citation for Contempt
3. Suits for Damages
7
Q
TESTS ON RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION:
A
- Dangerous Tendency
- Clear and Present Danger
- Balancing of Interests
8
Q
Dangerous Tendency
A
If the words spoken create a dangerous tendency which the State has a right to prevent, then such words are punishable.
9
Q
The Clear and Present Danger Test
A
Whether the words are used
in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they
will bring about the substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. Substantive evil must
be extremely serious and its probability of occurrence is inevitable.
10
Q
Balancing of Interest
A
The courts will weigh or balance the conflicting social interests that will be affected by legislation. It
involves many considerations, but in the end, it will uphold what should be considered as the most
important interest.
11
Q
OBSCENITY:
A
are those which are offensive to chastity and decency or delicacy, or those that deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient (lewd) interest, and those which have the tendency to corrupt the minds
of the people. This is limited only to “Sexual Obscenity”.
12
Q
Distinction between libelous statements against private persons and public officials:
A
- As to private persons - Libelous statement is almost always punishable because a person has a
right to his reputation and integrity. It will raise no constitutional issues. You cannot raise Freedom of Expression as a defense because this can only be invoked against the State. - As to public officials - Matters which are essentially part of his private life are protected by the libel law. This will also raise no Constitutional questions since a public official is also entitled to
13
Q
Test to apply if a work is Obscene: (Miller vs. California)
A
- Whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work taken in its entirety appeals to prurient interest.
- Whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law.
- Whether the work taken as a whole lacks a serious literary, artistic, or scientific value.
14
Q
Freedom of Assembly
A
It is the right of the people to assemble peaceably for consultation and discussion of matters of public concern.
15
Q
ELEMENTS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION:
A
- Freedom from Previous Restraint or Censorship
- Freedom from Subsequent Punishment
16
Q
Freedom from Previous Restraint or Censorship
A
Government Restriction on forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.
17
Q
Hal McElroy, an Australian film-maker, wanted to join the People’s Power Revolution in a movie entitled “The 4-day Revolution”. The movie was a mixture of fiction and history to that in addition
to a love story, prominent personalities, like Enrile, had to be portrayed. While the production was in progress, Enrile obtained a court injunction to stop it. He argued that the film violated his right
to privacy. WON Sec. 4 also protects foreigners.
A
The court held that the Freedom of Expression protects not only citizens of the Philippines but also foreigners in our country. Sec.4 also extends to commercial media. Even if they did it for profit, they are also protected. The reason is that most media is privately owned
and operates for profit. To prohibit them would render Sec. 4 useless. Nobody can say anything
anymore.
18
Q
Hal McElroy, an Australian film-maker, wanted to join the People’s Power Revolution in a movie entitled “The 4-day Revolution”. The movie was a mixture of fiction and history to that in addition
to a love story, prominent personalities, like Enrile, had to be portrayed. While the production was in progress, Enrile obtained a court injunction to stop it. He argued that the film violated his right
to privacy. WON it violated Enrile’s right to privacy.
A
RULING2:As to the contention of Enrile that it violated his right to privacy. The SC looked at the particular circumstances and did not apply any formula to decide on the issue of which shall prevail: right to privacy or the freedom of expression. The court ruled that the events that were portrayed were of public interest and Enrile is also a public figure. And because of this, the SC is constrained to rule that his Right to Privacy shall give way to Freedom of Expression. Only the balancing of interest was used by the SC in deciding.(during this time, Enrile was a Senator)
What is protected by the Right to Privacy is unwarranted publicity and wrongful publicizing of private affairs. The trial judge should not have issued an injunction beforehand because of the preferred character of the Right of Freedom of Speech and of Expression. And while production was still in progress, no one knew whether the final outcome would pose a clear and present danger. There should have been no prior restraint because there was no basis yet.
19
Q
Kapunan was charged before a court martial for being involved in the failed coup attempt in 1998 against the govt. While under house arrest, he was also prohibited from giving interviews to the
press. He cannot give press statements or hold any press conference during his detention. He challenged the validity of the restriction, it being a form of prior restraint on the right of free expression.
A
The court held that the restriction was valid. Certain liberties may be validly denied him since he was a military man. He was given a discriminatory treatment because the court held that
it is essential that in order for the military to discharge of their duties, they must be subjected to a form of discipline. Meaning, this may also include the violation of Sec. 4.
20
Q
what is Subsequent Punishment?
A
A restraint on Freedom of Speech, Press and Expression that comes
after the exercise of the said rights.
21
Q
what does Subsequent Punishment include?
A
- Criminal Prosecutions for Sedition, Libel, and Obscenity
- Citation for Contempt
- Suits for Damages
22
Q
Purpose of Holding a Columnist in Contempt by the Court:
A
a. To shield the courts against the influence of newspaper comments on the court’s duty of administering justice on a pending case.
b. It is to vindicate the courts from any act or conduct calculated to bring them into disfavor of to destroy public confidence in them.
23
Q
Distinction between libelous statements against private persons and public officials:
A
- As to private persons - Libelous statement is almost always punishable because a person has a
right to his reputation and integrity. It will raise no constitutional issues. You cannot raise Freedom of Expression as a defense because this can only be invoked against the State. - As to public officials - Matters which are essentially part of his private life are protected by the libel law. This will also raise no Constitutional questions since a public official is also entitled to his integrity. But if the statements made are about matters which are connected with his official
acts, or when related to his mental, moral or physical fitness to be in office, it will now raise constitutional issues – never concerning him as a private individual. Statements that can also affect his function as an official (which are just purely destructive) are restricted. But as a public officer, you must also be prepared to address criticisms.
24
Q
Can you penalize people who are showing or selling obscene materials?
A
The city can pass an ordinance penalizing it. However, the State cannot pass a law preventing people from watching bold movies privately inside their own house.
25
Laborers picketed the SC while waiting for the resolution of their cases. They set up temporary shelters and took turns attacking the SC through a loud speaker. The SC ordered them to explain why they should not be cited for contempt.
The court stated that no pickets or determinations in order to influence or pressure courts shall be allowed within the vicinity of all courts. While citizens can invoke their right to speech, assembly and petition against courts, they must go through the proper channels. Any exercise of freedom of speech, expression and assembly done without complying with what is allowed in order to influence the courts is not constitutionally protected. The case presented here is an example of one which is not allowed.
26
Procedures to Hold a Rally:
1. Must apply for a permit
2. Must contain the date, time, and place of activity
3. Permit is for the place
4. Authorities can modify it if there is a Clear and Present Danger
5. If it is on private property, consent of the owner is sufficient
27
The permit must be filed:
o At the Mayor’s office
o At least 4 days before the activity
o And acted within 2 days by the office (otherwise, it is deemed granted by the Mayor)
28
What is libel?
29
No IX - May the COMELEC (COMELEC) prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" places, public or private, such as on a private vehicle, and limit their location only to the authorized posting areas that the COMELEC itself fixes? Explain.
According to Adiong v. COMELEC. 207 SCRA 712 [1992], the prohibition is unconstitutional. It curtails the freedom of expression of individuals who wish to express their preference for a candidate by posting decals and stickers on their cars and to convince others to agree with them. It is also overbroad, because it encompasses private property and constitutes deprivation of property without due process of law. Ownership of property includes the right to use. The prohibition is censorship, which cannot be justified.
30
Is freedom of expression a political right?
This right is a political right because it allows indirect participation in the affairs of the government.
31
Do press statements of high officials threatening the press with prosecution, even if not reduced to formal orders or directives, forms of prior restraint?
It is sufficient that the press statements were made by respondents while in the exercise of their official functions. Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for and on behalf of the government in an official capacity is covered by the rule on prior restraint. The concept of an “act” does not limit itself to acts already converted to a formal order or official circular. Otherwise, the non formalization of an act into an official order or circular will result in the easy circumvention of the prohibition on prior restraint. The press statements at bar are acts that should be struck down as they constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints on the right to free speech and press. There is enough evidence of chilling effect of the complained acts on record. The warnings given to media came from no less the NTC, a regulatory agency that can cancel the Certificate of Authority of the radio and broadcast media. They also came from the Secretary of Justice, the alter ego of the Executive, who wields the awesome power to prosecute those perceived to be violating the laws of the land. After the warnings, the KBP inexplicably joined the NTC in issuing an ambivalent Joint Press Statement. After the warnings, petitioner Chavez was left alone to fight this battle for freedom of speech and of the press. This silence on the sidelines on the part of some media practitioners is too deafening to be the subject of misinterpretation.
32
The STAR, a national daily newspaper, carried an exclusive
report stating that Senator XX received a house and lot located at YY St., to a “public figure”.
Makati, in consideration for his vote cutting cigarette by 50%. The Senator sued the Star for libel claiming the report was completely false and malicious.
According to the Senator, there is no YY St. in Makati, and the tax cut was
d. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty
RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011
Facts: Due to the allegations that portions of the ponencia of Justice del
Castillo in Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary were plagiarized from the works
of foreign legal scholars, 38 professors of the University of the Philippines
issued a statement titled “Restoring Integrity” which was widely
circulated. The statement included phrases such as “a reprehensible act
of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land”
and “the supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of the Court
for even the most basic values of decency and respect”. Directed to show
cause why they should not be disciplined, respondents argued that the "show cause” orders interfered with their constitutionally mandated right
to free speech and expression.
Issue: Whether or not the respondents should be disciplined
Held: Yes. This Court has held that the right to criticize the courts and
judicial officers must be balanced against the equally primordial concern
that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence
or interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but
members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority
of this Court to discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts
and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the
limits of fair comment and common decency.
The accusatory and vilifying nature of certain portions of the Statement
exceeded the limits of fair comment and cannot be deemed as protected
free speech. For this reason, the Court cannot uphold the view of some
respondents that the Statement presents no grave or imminent danger to
a legitimate public interest.
only 20%. The defendants denied actual malice, claiming privilege communication and absolute freedom of the press to report on public officials and matters of public concern. If there was any error, the Star said it would publish the correction promptly. Is there actual malice in Star’s report. How is actual malice defined? Are the defendants liable for damages? Yambot v. Tuquero, 646 SCRA 249 (2011) (inaccurate, but not totally false)
Held: No. The reverse presumption applies not only to public officials but In the present case, we deem private respondent a public figure within the purview of the New York Times ruling. At any rate, we have also
defined “public figure” in Ayers Production Pty., Ltd. v. Capulong as
a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs and his character, has become a ‘public personage.’ He is, in other words, a celebrity. Obviously, to be included in this category are those who have achieved some degree of reputation by appearing before the public, as in the case of an actor, a professional baseball player, a pugilist, or any other entertainer. The list is, however, broader than this. It includes public officers, famous inventors and explorers, war heroes and even ordinary soldiers, infant prodigy, and no less a personage than the Great Exalted Ruler of the lodge. It includes, in short, anyone who has arrived at a position where the public attention is focused upon him as a person.
The FNCLT was air undertaking infused with public interest. It was promoted as a joint project of the government and the private sector, and organized by top government officials and prominent businessmen. For this reason, it attracted media mileage and drew public attention not only to the conference itself but to the personalities behind as well. As its Executive Director and spokesman, private respondent consequently assumed the status of a public figure.
But even assuming ex-gratia argumenti that private respondent, despite the position he occupied in the FNCLT, would not qualify as a public figure, it does not necessarily follow that he could not validly be the subject of a public comment even if he was not a public official or at least a public figure, for he could be, as long as he was involved in a public issue. If a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it cannot suddenly became less so merely because a private individual is involved or because in some sense the individual did not voluntarily choose to become involved. The public's primary interest is in the event; the public focus is on the conduct of the participant and the content, effect and significance of the conduct, not the participant's prior anonymity or notoriety.
Since Senator XX is a public person and the questioned imputation is directed against him in his public capacity, in this case actual malice means the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (Borja v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 1 /1999). Since there is no proof that the report was published with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, the defendants are not liable for damage.
33
Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) printed an article headlined Judge
mauled me, says court employee. This is an incident between RTC Judge
Cruz and Robert Mendoza, administrative officer of the Office of the Clerk
of Court. Reckoning the article to be false and malicious, Judge Cruz
initiated a Complaint for libel. In particular, Judge Cruz protested the
following sentence in said article:
“According to Mendoza, Cruz still has a pending case of sexual harassment filed with the Supreme Court by Fiscal Maria Lourdes Garcia, also of the Makati RTC.”
Rebutting the statement, Judge Cruz alleged that there was no suit for sexual harassment pending against him before the Supreme Court. Respondents submits proof that another lawyer has raised the defense of sexual advances by Judge Cruz in the appeal of the contempt ruling filed by Judge Cruz against said lawyer. Issue: Whether or not the statements are libelous
Held: No. A newspaper should not be held to account to a point of suppression for honest mistakes, or imperfection in the choice of words. The questioned portion of the news article, while unfortunately not quite accurate, on its own, is insufficient to establish the element of malice in libel cases. We have held that malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is present when it is shown that the author of the libelous remarks made such remarks with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof.
34
Why is contempt punished?
There has to be balancing the need to respect the dignity of courts and freedom of expression. It will be very dangerous if the people will not respect the courts.
35
Facts: Published under the by-line of one Marichu Villanueva and titled
“Judiciary worse than PNP,” an item in the June 17, 1993 issue of the
Manila Standard, a metropolitan daily, reported that the results of the
latest opinion polls conducted by the Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS). showed the Judiciary to have an even lower satisfaction rating that the
Philippine National Police.
Said report appears to have prompted Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion,
presiding judge of Branch 104 of the Regional Trial Court at Quezon City,
motu proprio to initiate on the same date of June 17, 1993 proceedings
ordering the President of the SWS to: “explain why you should not be
held in contempt for distributing to the general public without prior
permission from any court your findings that the people have more
confidence with the police than with judges thereby tending directly or
indirectly to degrade the administration of justice”.
Issue: Whether or not SWS can be held in contempt
Held: Yes.
What was clearly implicit in the newspaper report about the results of the
SWS poll - in the words of Judge Asuncion, “that the people have more
confidence with the police than with the judges” – in light of the fact, of
which judicial notice is taken, that said report came out at a time when
there already was widespread publicity adverse to the judiciary, there can
be no doubt of its clear tendency to degrade the administration of justice.
Thus, Judge Asuncion can hardly be faulted for what, at a minimum, he
must have felt duty-bound to do in the circumstances. No question of
prior restraint or violation of the guarantee of free speech arises here,
what he did being, in essence, merely to initiate an inquiry into the source
and basis of the derogatory news report. And he forthwith abated the
proceedings upon receiving an explanation he deemed satisfactory.
36
What is Obscene material
‘something offensive to chastity, decency, or delicacy’ – as to corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or othr such article charged as being obscene may fall.”
37
What is the miller test?
Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken in its entirety, appeals to prurient interest.
- Sometimes referred to as the community standard
38
Facts: Several pre-taped episodes of the TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” of the religious group Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) were rated “X” – i.e., not for public viewing – by the respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television (now MTRCB). These TV programs allegedly “offend[ed] and constitute[d] an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law” because of petitioner INC’s controversial biblical interpretations and its “attacks” against contrary religious beliefs.
Issue: Can MTRCB review INC’s TV program and prohibit its airing?
Held: YES! The Court iterates the rule that the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public welfare. A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion can be seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels the Court against its blind adoption as religion is and continues to be a volatile area of concern in our country today. Across the sea and in our shore, the bloodiest and bitterest wars fought by men were caused by irreconcilable religious differences. Our country is still not safe from the recurrence of this stultifying strife considering our warring religious beliefs and the fanaticism with which some of us cling and claw to these beliefs. Even now, we have yet to settle the near century old strife in Mindanao, the roots of which have been nourished by the mistrust and misunderstanding between our Christian and Muslim brothers and sisters. The bewildering rise of weird religious cults espousing violence as an article of faith also proves the wisdom of our rule rejecting a strict let alone policy on the exercise of religion. For sure, we shall continue to subject any act pinching the space for the free exercise of religion to a heightened scrutiny but we shall not leave its rational exercise to the irrationality of man. For when religion divides and its exercise destroys, the State should not stand still.
39
Facts: On December 1 and 3, 1983, pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing, elements of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group, Auxilliary Services Bureau, Western Police District, INP of the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila, 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.
Issue: Whether or Not the seizure violative of the freedom of expression of the petitioner.
Held: Using the Kottinger rule: the test of obscenity is "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being obscene may fall." Another is whether it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency. Ultimately "whether a picture is obscene or indecent must depend upon the circumstances of the case and that the question is to be decided by the "judgment of the aggregate sense of the community reached by it." The government authorities in the instant case have not shown the required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the literature.
First of all, they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography, and (2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure, by way of a search warrant. The court provides that the authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge, if in their opinion an obscenity seizure is in order.
40
Petitioners were facing complaints before the City Prosecution Office of Manila for violation of Ordinance No. 7780 and Articles 200 and 201 of the RPC, which penalize the printing, publication and distribution of scandalous, obscene and pornographic materials. Before the Supreme Court, they challenged the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 7780 on the grounds that it violated their “constitutional right to free speech and
expression, repugnant to due process and privacy rights.” Meanwhile, the City Prosecutor dismissed the case against them for violation of Ordinance No. 7780, but found probable cause to charge them with violation of the RPC.
Judge: There would have been no problem had the fiscal not dismissed
7780. Why? Because the 4 requisites for judicial inquiry would be present.
they stand to be prosecuted, and they stand to be injured by the
ordinance. The only problem was the fiscal dismissed 7780. So, they have to mount a facial challenge.
Can they mount a facial challenge against the Ordinance on the ground that it is overbroad?
Held: NO. A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application only to free speech cases.
However, the present petition does not involve a free speech case; it stemmed, rather, from an obscenity prosecution. As both this Court and the US Supreme Court have consistently held, obscenity is not protected speech. No court has recognized a fundamental right to create, sell, or distribute obscene material. Laws that regulate or proscribe classes of speech falling beyond the ambit of constitutional protection cannot, therefore, be subject to facial invalidation because there is no "transcendent value to all society" that would justify such attack. Thus, a facial overbreadth challenge is improper as against an anti-obscenity statute.
41
No IX - May the COMELEC (COMELEC)
prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on
"mobile" places, public or private, such as on a
private vehicle, and limit their location only to
the authorized posting areas that the
COMELEC itself fixes? Explain.
According to Adiong v. COMELEC. 207 SCRA
712 [1992], the prohibition is unconstitutional. It
curtails the freedom of expression of individuals who wish to express their preference for a candidate by posting decals and stickers on their cars and to convince others to agree with them. It is also overbroad, because it encompasses private property and constitutes deprivation of property without due process of law. Ownership of property includes the right to
use. The prohibition is censorship, which cannot be justified.
42
No. 16: The Secretary of Transportation and Communications has warned radio station operators against selling blocked time, on the claim that the time covered thereby are often used by those buying them to attack the
present administration. Assume that the department implements this warning and orders owners and operators of radio stations not to
sell blocked time to interested parties without prior clearance from the Department of Transportation and Communications.
You are approached by an interested party affected adversely by that order of the Secretary of Transportation and Communications. What would you do regarding that ban on the sale of blocked time? Explain
your answer
I would challenge its validity in court on the ground that it constitutes a prior restraint on freedom of expression. Such a limitation is valid only in exceptional cases, such as where the
purpose is to prevent actual obstruction to recruitment of service or the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops, or for the purpose of enforcing the primary requirements of decency or the security of community life. (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S,
697 (1931)). Attacks on the government, on the other hand, cannot justify prior restraints. For as has been pointed out, "the interest of society and the maintenance of good government
demand a full discussion of public affairs.
Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life
may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience," (United States
v Bustos, 37 Phil. 741 (1918)).
43
What is the effect if the court applies the strict scrutiny test?
Answer: In this instance, the court starts with the heavy presumption that the law is unconstitutional. Thus, the government has the burden of proving that the restriction (i) is necessary to achieve a compelling State interest, and (ii) is the least restrictive means to protect such interest or the means chosen is narrowly tailored to accomplish the interest.
(compelling state interest=clear and present danger)
44
On June 9, 2005, DOJ Secretary Gonzales ordered the NBI to go after media organizations “found to have caused the spread, the playing and the printing of the contents of a tape” of an alleged wiretapped conversation involving the President and a COMELEC Commissioner about fixing votes in the 2004 national elections. Two days later, the NTC issued a press release stating that:
It has been … established that the said tapes are false and/or fraudulent after a prosecution or appropriate investigation, the concerned radio and television companies are hereby warned that their broadcast/airing of such false information and/or willful misrepresentation shall be just cause for the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations issued to the said companies.
What type of restriction is this?
45
An example of a content based restraint on free speech is a regulation prescribing
A. maximum tolerance of pro-government demonstrations.
B. a no rally-no permit policy.
C. when, where, and how lawful assemblies are to be conducted.
D. calibrated response to rallies that have become violent.
46
Petitioners were facing complaints before the City Prosecution Office of Manila for violation of Ordinance No. 7780 and Articles 200 and 201 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalize the printing, publication and distribution of scandalous, obscene and pornographic materials. Before the Supreme Court, they challenged the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 7780 on the grounds that it violated their “constitutional right to free speech and expression, repugnant to due process and privacy rights”. Meanwhile, the City Prosecutor dismissed the case against them for violation of Ordinance No. 7780, but found probable cause to charge them with violation of the Revised Penal Code. Can they mount a facial challenge against the Ordinance on the ground that it is overbroad?
Held: No. A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application only to free speech cases. However, the present petition does not involve a free speech case; it stemmed, rather, from an obscenity prosecution. As both this Court and the US Supreme Court have consistently held, obscenity is not protected speech. No court has recognized a fundamental right to create, sell, or distribute obscene material. Laws that regulate or proscribe classes of speech falling beyond the ambit of constitutional protection cannot, therefore, be subject of facial invalidation because there is no “transcendent value to all society that would justify such attack. Thus, a facial overbreadth challenge is improper as against an anti-obscenity statute.
