Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 – Stef Macapagal

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Title Bayan v. Ermita GR Nos. 169838, 169881 25 April 2006 Azcuna, J.

169848,

Facts Bayan, KMU, and several individuals, after holding rallies in different occasions, were violently dispersed by policemen implementing Batas Pambansa No. 880 and the policy of “Calibrated Pre-emptive Response” being followed to implement the said BP. These groups and individuals seek to stop violent dispersals of rallies under the “no permit, no rally” and the CPR policies.

Issue/s W/N the requirement of a permit before holding a rally curtails the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

W/N BP 880 is vague and/or overbroad.

Ruling NO. BP 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place, and manner of the assemblies. Furthermore, the permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals, or public health. This is a recognized exception to the exercise of the right even under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, because the rule on the establishment of freedom parks was not followed, the court declared that after 30 days from the finality of the decision, no prior permit may be required for the exercise of holding public assemblies in any public park or plaza of a city or municipality until that city or municipality shall have complied with the institution of a freedom park. For without such alternative forum, to deny the permit would in effect be to deny the right. Advance notices should, however, be given to authorities to ensure proper coordination and orderly proceedings.

Doctrine In cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, and dispossessed, and the weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. These laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny. Maximum tolerance means the highest degree of restraint that the military, police, and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same.

NO. The law is very clear and is nowhere vague in its provisions. “Public” does not have to be defined. Its ordinary meaning is well-known. Not every

1

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 – Stef Macapagal

expression of opinion is a public assembly. The law refers to “rally, demonstration, march, parade, procession, or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public place.” So it does not cover any and all kinds of gatherings. Neither is the law overbroad. It regulates the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and petition only to the extent needed to avoid a clear and present danger of the substantive evils Congress has the right to prevent.

MTRCB v. ABS-CBN GR No. 155282 17 January 2005 Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

In 1991, ABSCBN aired “Prostituition,” an episode of the TV program “The Inside Story,” depicting some female students from PWU moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. When the episode was shown with the façade of the PWU building serving as the background of the episode, an uproar was caused in the said school’s campus. PWU filed letter-complaints with the

W/N BP 880 constitutes prior restraint/censorship.

NO. The content of the speech is not relevant to the regulation.

W/N the CPR causes a chilling effect on the exercise by the people of the right to peaceably assemble.

YES. In view of the maximum tolerance mandated by BP 880, CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the same thing as maximum tolerance and is illegal if it means something else. The CPR has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. It merely confuses our people and is used by the police agents to justify abuses. YES. The MTRCB has the power to screen, review, and examine all television programs, under PD 1986. The only exceptions from the MTRCB’s power of review are those expressly mentioned in Section 7 of the said law.

W/N “The Inside Story” should be subject to prior review and approval before showing.

W/N the MTRCB’s power to review televisions programs amounts to prior restraint.

There has been no declaration at all by the framers of the Constitution that freedom of expression and the press has a preferred status.

NO. MTRCB did not disapprove or ban the showing of the program. Neither did it cancel ABSCBN’s permit. It was

2

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 – Stef Macapagal

MTRCB, alleging that the episode besmirched the name of PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students.

merely penalized for its failure to submit to MTRCB “The Inside Story” for review and approval.

The MTRCB then fined ABSCBN P20k for not submitting the program for prior review. It was then decreed that all subsequent programs of “The Inside Story” and all other ABSCBN programs should be submitted to the MTRCB for review and approval before showing. Borjal v. CA GR No. 126466 14 January 1999 Bellosillo, J.

The RTC reversed the MTRCB. Borjal, the President of PhilSTAR Daily, Inc., and Soliven, the publisher and chairman of the Editorial Board of Philippine Star, were sued by Francisco Wenceslao for allegedly alluding to him in the “Jaywalker” column, wherein he was portrayed as an extortionist by using the conference for the revamp of transportation laws as a means of getting money from unwitting businessmen. Wenceslao filed a complaint with the National Press Club for unethical conduct, and with the courts for libel. The criminal case for libel was dismissed by the Assistant Prosecutor, which was sustained by the DOJ and by the Office of the President. Undeterred, Wenceslao filed a civil case against Borjal and Soliven based on the libel subject of the criminal complaints. The

W/N the “Jaywalker” articles constituted privileged communications as to exempt the author from liability.

YES. Privileged communications must be protective of public opinion. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. There is no denying that the questioned articles dealt with matters of public interest, as the conference that Wenceslao was allegedly soliciting funds for had the object to reinvent and reshape the transportation laws of the country. As such, it cannot but invite close scrutiny by the media obliged to inform the public of the legitimacy of the purpose of the activity and of the qualifications and integrity of the personalities behind it.

W/N Wenceslao is a public figure.

YES. A public figure is a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a

The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts.

3

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 – Stef Macapagal

trial court ruled in Wenceslao’s favor. The CA affirmed.

legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs and his character, has become a “public personage.” It includes anyone who has arrived at a position where the public attention is focused upon him as a person. As Executive Director and Spokesman of the said conference, Wenceslao consequently assumed the status of a public figure. W/N Borjal acted with malice in the publication of the articles.

NO. Borjal was moved by a sense of civic duty and prodded by his responsibility as a newspaperman to expose and denounce what he perceived to be a public deception. Surely, we cannot begrudge him for that. To be considered malicious, the libelous statements must be shown to have been written or published with the knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of whether they are false or not. The articles in the instant case can hardly be said to have been written with knowledge that these are false or in reckless disregard of what is false or not. They were based on reasonable grounds formed after the columnist conducted several personal interviews and after considering the varied documentary evidence provided him by his sources.

The privileged character of a communication destroys the presumption of malice. Mere error, inaccuracy, or even falsity alone does not prove actual malice. Errors or misstatements are inevitable in any scheme of truly free expression and debate. Consistent with good faith and reasonable care, the press should not be held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfections in the choice of language. There must be some room for misstatement of fact as well as for misjudgment. Only by giving them much leeway and tolerance can they courageously and effectively function as critical agencies in our democracy. A privileged communication may be either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly privileged. Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith. An example is found in Sec. 11, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution which exempts a member of Congress from liability for any speech or debate in the Congress or any Committee thereof. Upon the other hand, qualifiedly privileged communications containing defamatory imputations are not actionable unless found to have been made without good intention or justifiable motive. To this genre belong “private communications” and “fair and true report without

4

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 – Stef Macapagal

ABSCBN v. COMELEC GR No. 133486 28 January 2000 Panganiban, J.

COMELEC passed a resolution issuing a restraining order on ABSCBN from conducting exit polls after the 1998 elections, upon the belief that such project might conflict with the official COMELEC count, as well as the unofficial quick count of the Namfrel. ABSCBN prayed for a TRO against the COMELEC resolution, which was granted by the court. The exit polls were then actually conducted and reported by the media without any difficulty or problem.

W/N the freedoms of speech and of the press also protect the holding of exit polls and the dissemination of data derived therefrom.

YES. The freedoms of speech and of the press should be upheld when what is sought to be curtailed is the dissemination of information meant to add meaning to the equally vital right of suffrage. When faced with borderline situations in which the freedom of a candidate to speak or the freedom of the electorate to know is invoked against actions allegedly made to assure clean and free elections, this Court shall lean in favor of freedom. For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the State’s power to regulate should not be antagonistic. There can be no free and honest elections if, in the efforts to maintain them, the freedom to speak and the right to know are unduly curtailed.

W/N the COMELEC’s absolute ban on exit polling is valid.

NO. The assailed COMELEC resolution is too broad, since its application without qualification as to whether the polling is disruptive or not. Concededly, the Omnibus Election Code prohibits disruptive behavior around the voting centers. There is no showing, however, that exit polls or the means to interview voters cause chaos in voting centers. Neither has any evidence been presented proving that the presence of exit poll reporters near an election precinct tends to create disorder or confuse the voters.

any comments or remarks.” Doctrinally, the Court has always ruled in favor of the freedom of expression, and any restriction is treated an exemption. Any act that restrains speech should be greeted with furrowed brows. A government regulation is sufficiently justified if: 1. It is within the constitutional power of the government; 2. It furthers an important or substantial government interest; 3. The government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; 4. The incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. Even though the government’s purposes are legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties, when the end can be more narrowly achieved.

Dissent: Kapunan, J.

5

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 6 – Stef Macapagal

Osmena v. COMELEC GR No. 132231 31 March 1998 Mendoza, J.

Emilio Osmena and Pablo Garcia, candidates for public office in the 1998 elections, seek to invalidate provision of RA 6646 (Electoral Reform Law of 1987), which prohibits mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes, except to the COMELEC. They contend that the ban has not only failed to level the playing field, but actually worked to the grave disadvantage of the poor candidates by depriving them of a medium which they can afford to pay while their affluent rivals can always resort to other means of reaching voters.

W/N the ad ban is constitutional.

The clear-and-present danger test is not a sovereign remedy for all free speech problems. It was originally formulated for the criminal law and only later appropriated for free speech cases. To apply the said test to regulatory measures would be like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail when a regular hammer is all that is needed. YES. There is actually no suppression of political ads but only a regulation of time and manner of advertising. The term political “ad ban” is actually misleading, as although the provision prohibits the sale or donation of print space and air time to political candidates, it mandates the COMELEC to procure and itself allocate to the candidates space and time in the media. In this case, there is no total ban on political ads, much less restriction on the content of the speech.

6