Sanidad vs. COMELEC G.R. 90878, January 29, 1990

Facts: In a petition dated November 20, 1989, herein petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper columnist of the “OVERVIEW” for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras, assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167, which provides: Section 19.Continue reading “Sanidad vs. COMELEC G.R. 90878, January 29, 1990”

Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 79690-707, February 1, 1989 170 SCRA 1 (1989)

Facts: The court have examined carefully the lengthy and vigorously written Motion for Reconsideration dated October 18, 1988 filed by counsel for respondent Raul M. Gonzalez, relating to the per curiam Resolution of the Court dated October 7, 1988. We have reviewed once more the Court’s extended per curiam Resolution, in the light of theContinue reading “Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 79690-707, February 1, 1989 170 SCRA 1 (1989)”

Social Weather Station v. Comelec G.R. 147571, May 5, 2001

Facts: Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin the Commission on Elections from enforcing §5.4 of RA. No.9006 (Fair Election Act), which provides Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published seven (7) days before an election. Petitioners argueContinue reading “Social Weather Station v. Comelec G.R. 147571, May 5, 2001”

Balancing-of-Interests Test

Although the urgency of the public interest sought to be secured by Congressional power restricting the individual’s freedom, and the social importance and value of the freedom so restricted, “are to be judged in the concrete, not on the basis of abstractions,” a wide range of factors are necessarily relevant in ascertaining the point orContinue reading “Balancing-of-Interests Test”

Gonzales vs. COMELEC G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969 27 SCRA 835 (1969)

Facts: Petitioners so alleged in his action, which they entitled Declaratory Relief with Preliminary Injunction, filed on July 22, 1967, a proceeding that should have been started in the of Court of First Instance but treated by this Court as one of prohibition in view of the seriousness and the urgency of the constitutional issueContinue reading “Gonzales vs. COMELEC G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969 27 SCRA 835 (1969)”

Dangerous Tendency Rule

The “dangerous tendency” rule and explained “If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent, then such words are punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms.Continue reading “Dangerous Tendency Rule”

Clear and Present Danger Rule

“The ‘clear and present danger’ rule means that the evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high’ before the utterance can be punished. The danger to be guarded against is the ‘substantive evil’ sought to be prevented.” It has the advantage of establishing according toContinue reading “Clear and Present Danger Rule”

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Art. III, Sec. 4 I d., Sec. 18 (1) Purpose United States vs. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731 (1918) Burgos vs. Chief Of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984) New York Times vs. Sulliven, 380 U.S. 51 (1964) Restrictions Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 (1969) Social Weather Station v. Comelec, G.R. 147571, May 5, 2001Social WeatherContinue reading “FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION”