Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
On February 3, 1984, the trial court promulgated the Order When does a publication have a corrupting tendency, or when can it
appealed from denying the motion for a writ of preliminary be said to be offensive to human sensibilities?
injunction, and dismissing the case for lack of merit
The issue is a complicated one, in which the fine lines have neither
The CA also dismissed the appeal due to the argument that freedom been drawn nor divided.
of the press is not without restraint.
Katigbak- "Whether to the average person, applying contemporary
In the SC, the petitioner claimed that: standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole
appeals to prurient interest."
1. The CA erred in holding that the police officers could without any
court warrant or order seize and confiscate petitioner's magazines Kalaw-Katigbak represented a marked departure from Kottinger in
on the basis simply of their determination that they are obscene. the sense that it measured obscenity in terms of the "dominant
theme" of the work, rather than isolated passages, which were
2. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the trial central to Kottinger (although both cases are agreed that
court and, in effect, holding that the trial court could dismiss the "contemporary community standards" are the final arbiters of what
case on its merits without any hearing thereon when what was is "obscene"). Kalaw-Katigbak undertook moreover to make the
submitted to it for resolution was merely the application of
determination of obscenity essentially a judicial question and as
petitioner for the writ of preliminary injunction. a consequence, to temper the wide discretion Kottinger had given
Issue: Was the seizure constitutional? unto law enforcers.
Held: No. Petition granted. Test for obscenity: "whether the The latest say on American jurisprudence was Miller v. California,
tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave which expressly abandoned Massachusettes, and established "basic
or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences guidelines," to wit: "(a) whether 'the average person, applying
and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being contemporary standards' would find the work, taken as a whole,
obscene may fall appeals to the prurient interest . . .; (b) whether the work depicts or
describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
Also, "whether a picture is obscene or indecent must depend upon defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken
the circumstances of the case, and that ultimately, the question is as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The lack of uniformity in American jurisprudence as to what "There must be objective and convincing, not subjective or
constitutes "obscenity" has been attributed to the reluctance of the conjectural, proof of the existence of such clear and present
courts to recognize the constitutional dimension of the problem. danger."
Apparently, the courts have assumed that "obscenity" is not As we so strongly stressed in Bagatsing, a case involving the delivery
included in the guaranty of free speech, an assumption that, as we of a political speech, the presumption is that the speech may validly
averred, has allowed a climate of opinions among magistrates be said. The burden is on the State to demonstrate the existence of
predicated upon arbitrary, if vague theories of what is acceptable to a danger, a danger that must not only be: (1) clear but also, (2)
society. present, to justify State action to stop the speech.
In the case at bar, there is no challenge on the right of the State, in The Court is not convinced that the private respondents have shown
the legitimate exercise of police power, to suppress smut provided the required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of
it is smut. For obvious reasons, smut is not smut simply because one the literature for which mandatory injunction had been sought
insists it is smut. So is it equally evident that individual tastes below. First of all, they were not possessed of a lawful court order:
develop, adapt to wide-ranging influences, and keep in step with (1) finding the said materials to be pornography, and (2) authorizing
the rapid advance of civilization. What shocked our forebears, say, them to carry out a search and seizure, by way of a search warrant.
five decades ago, is not necessarily repulsive to the present
generation. Has petitioner been found guilty for publishing obscene works
under Presidential Decrees Nos. 960 and 969? This not answered,
But neither should we say that "obscenity" is a bare (no pun one can conclude that the fact that the former respondent Mayor's
intended) matter of opinion. As we said earlier, it is the divergent act was sanctioned by "police power" is no license to seize property
perceptions of men and women that have probably compounded in disregard of due process. The PD’s don’t give the authorities the
the problem rather than resolved it. permission to execute high-handed acts.
Undoubtedly, "immoral" lore or literature comes within It is basic that searches and seizures may be done only through a
the ambit of free expression, although not its protection. In free judicial warrant, otherwise, they become unreasonable and subject
expression cases, this Court has consistently been on the side of the to challenge.
exercise of the right, barring a "clear and present danger" that
There is of course provision for warrantless searches under the
would warrant State interference and action. But the burden
to show this lies with the authorities. Rules of Court but as the provision itself suggests, the searchmust
have been an incident to a lawful arrest and it must be
on account fo a crime committed.
The Court rejected the argument that "[t]here is no constitutional religion. The CA also found the subject TV series “indecent, contrary
nor legal provision which would free the accused of all criminal to law and contrary to good customs.” Dissatisfied with the CA
responsibility because there had been no warrant, and there is no decision, petitioner INC appealed to the Supreme Court.
"accused" here to speak of, who ought to be "punished".
THE ISSUES:
Second, to say that the respondent Mayor could have validly
(1) Does respondent Board have the power to review petitioner’s
ordered the raid (as a result of an anti-smut campaign) without a
lawful search warrant because, in his opinion, "violation of penal TV program?
laws" has been committed, is to make the respondent Mayor judge, (2) Assuming it has the power, did respondent Board gravely abuse
jury, and executioner rolled into one. its discretion when it prohibited the airing of petitioner’s religious
Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA program?
THE FACTS: Several pre-taped episodes of the TV program “Ang THE RULING:
Iglesia ni Cristo” of the religious group Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) were [The Court voted 13-1 to REVERSE the CA insofar as the CA sustained
rated “X” – i.e., not for public viewing – by the respondent Board of the action of the respondent Board’s X-rating petitioner’s TV
Review for Moving Pictures and Television (now MTRCB). These TV Program Series Nos. 115, 119, and 121. It also voted 10-4 to AFFIRM
programs allegedly “offend[ed] and constitute[d] an attack against the CA insofar as the CA it sustained the jurisdiction of the
other religions which is expressly prohibited by law” because of respondent MTRCB to review petitioner’s TV program entitled “Ang
petitioner INC’s controversial biblical interpretations and its Iglesia ni Cristo.”]
“attacks” against contrary religious beliefs.
1. YES, respondent Board has the power to review petitioner’s TV
Petitioner INC went to court to question the actions of respondent program.
Board. The RTC ordered the respondent Board to grant petitioner
INC the necessary permit for its TV programs. But on appeal by the Petitioner contends that the term “television program” [in Sec. 3 of
respondent Board, the CA reversed the RTC. The CA ruled that: (1) PD No. 1986 that the respondent Board has the power to review
the respondent Board has jurisdiction and power to review the TV and classify] should not include religious programs like its
program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the respondent Board did program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.” A contrary interpretation, it is
not act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied permit for the urged, will contravene section 5, Article III of the Constitution which
exhibition on TV of the three series of “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” on the guarantees that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment
ground that the materials constitute an attack against another of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, The evidence shows that the respondent Board x-rated petitioners
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.” TV series for “attacking” either religions, especially the Catholic
Church. An examination of the evidence . . . will show that the so-
[The Court however] reject petitioner’s postulate. Petitioner’s public called “attacks” are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held
broadcast on TV of its religious program brings it out of the bosom dogmas and tenets of other religions. The videotapes were not
of internal belief. Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes viewed by the respondent court as they were not presented as
and ears of children. The Court iterates the rule thatthe exercise of evidence. Yet they were considered by the respondent court as
religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring
indecent, contrary to law and good customs, hence, can be
about the clear and present danger of some substantive evil which prohibited from public viewing under section 3(c) of PD 1986. This
the State is duty bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech and
more overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public
interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. xxx.
welfare. A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion can be
seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels the Court against The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other
its blind adoption as religion is and continues to be a volatile area of religions by petitioner but that gives it no excuse to interdict such
concern in our country today. . . [T]he Court] shall continue to criticisms, however, unclean they may be. Under our constitutional
subject any act pinching the space for the free exercise of religion to scheme, it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by
a heightened scrutiny but we shall not leave its rational exercise to protecting it against an attack by another religion. . . In
the irrationality of man. For when religion divides and its exercise fine, respondent board cannot squelch the speech of petitioner
destroys, the State should not stand still. Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other religions, even if said
religion happens to be the most numerous church in our country. In
2. YES, respondent Board gravely abuse its discretion when it a State where there ought to be no difference between the
prohibited the airing of petitioner’s religious program. appearance and the reality of freedom of religion, the remedy
[A]ny act that restrains speech is hobbled by the presumption of against bad theology is better theology. The bedrock of freedom of
invalidity and should be greeted with furrowed brows. It is the religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging
burden of the respondent Board to overthrow this presumption. If it the marketplace of duelling ideas. When the luxury of time permits,
fails to discharge this burden, its act of censorship will be struck the marketplace of ideas demands that speech should be met by
down. It failed in the case at bar. more speech for it is the spark of opposite speech, the heat of
colliding ideas that can fan the embers of truth.
In x-rating the TV program of the petitioner, the respondents failed development, and thereafter processing, analyzing, and publicly
to apply the clear and present danger rule. In American Bible Society reporting the results thereof. On the other hand, Kamahalan
v. City of Manila, this Court held: “The constitutional guaranty of Publishing Corporation publishes the Manila Standard, a newspaper
free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship of general circulation, which features news-worthy items of
carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any information including election surveys. SWS and Kamahalan
restraint of such right can be justified like other restraints on Publishing brought the action for prohibition with the Supreme
freedom of expression on the ground that there is a clear and Court to enjoin the Commission on Elections from enforcing §5.4 of
present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right RA 9006 (Fair Election Act), which provides that "Surveys affecting
to prevent.” In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, we national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days before
further ruled that “. . . it is only where it is unavoidably necessary to an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be
prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare published seven (7) days be- fore an election." SWS states that it
of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be wishes to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the
justified, and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the elections both at the national and local levels and release to the
danger.” media the results of such survey as well as publish them directly.
Kamahalan Publishing, on the other hand, states that it intends to
The records show that the decision of the respondent Board, publish election survey results up to the last day of the elections on
affirmed by the respondent appellate court, is completely bereft of 14 May 2001. They argue that the restriction on the publication of
findings of facts to justify the conclusion that the subject video election survey results constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise
tapes constitute impermissible attacks against another of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to
religion. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the justify such restraint. They claim that SWS and other pollsters
tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the conducted and published the results of surveys prior to the 1992,
threatened harm. Prior restraint on speech, including religious 1995, and 1998 elections up to as close as two days before the
speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the election day without causing confusion among the voters and that
showing of a substantive and imminent evil which has taken the life
there is neither empirical nor historical evidence to support the
of a reality already on ground. conclusion that there is an immediate and inevitable danger to tile
Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC voting process posed by election surveys. They point out that no
similar restriction is imposed on politicians from explaining their
Facts: The Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS), is a private non- opinion or on newspapers or broadcast media from writing and
stock, non-profit social research institution conducting surveys in publishing articles concerning political issues up to the day of the
various fields, including economics, politics, demography, and social election. Consequently, they contend that there is no reason for
ordinary voters to be denied access to the results of election constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression means that "the
surveys, which are relatively objective. government has no power to restrict expression because of its
message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." The
Issue: Whether §5.4 of RA 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional prohibition imposed by §5.4 cannot be justified on the ground that
abridgment of freedom of speech, expression, and the press. it is only for a limited period and is only incidental. The prohibition
Held: §5.4 of RA 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of may be for a limited time, but the curtailment of the right of
freedom of speech, expression, and the press. §5.4 lays a prior expression is direct, absolute, and substantial. It constitutes a total
restraint on freedom of speech, expression, and the press suppression of a category of speech and is not made less so because
prohibiting the publication of election survey results affecting it is only for a period of 15 days immediately before a national
candidates within the prescribed periods of 15 days immediately election and 7 days immediately before a local election. In fine, §5.4
preceding a national election and 7 days before a local election. is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of
Because of the preferred status of the constitutional rights of expression, (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a category of
speech, expression, and the press, such a measure is vitiated by a expression even though such suppression is only for a limited
weighty presumption of invalidity. Indeed, any system of prior period, and (3) the governmental interest sought to be promoted
restraints of expression comes to the Supreme Court bearing a can be achieved by means other than suppression of freedom of
heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. The expression.
Government thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for Re: Request for TV Coverage of the Trial of President Estrada
in enforcement of such restraint. There, thus a reversal of the
normal presumption of validity that inheres in every legislation. Sec. FACTS:
5.4 fails to meet criterion [3] of the O 'Brien test because the causal
The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) sent a letter
connection of expression to the asserted governmental interest
makes such interest "not related to the suppression of free requesting the SC to allow the live media coverage of the
expression." By prohibiting the publication of election survey results anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against
because of the possibility that such publication might undermine former Pres. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan “to assure the
the integrity of the election, §5.4 actually suppresses a whole class public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented
of expression, while allowing the expression of opinion concerning case in our history.”
the same subject matter by newspaper columnists, radio and TV The petition averred that public interest should be evident bearing
commentators, armchair theorists, and other opinion takers. In in mind the right of the public to vital information affecting the
effect, §5.4 shows a bias for a particular subject matter, if not nation. In effect, the petition seeks the re-examination of the
viewpoint, by referring personal opinion to statistical results. The
October 23, 1991 resolution of the SC in a case for libel filed by then are not compromised in secret conclaves of long ago. A public trial is
President Aquino. The said resolution resolved to prohibit live radio not synonymous with publicized trial, it only implies that the court
and television coverage of court proceedings, in view order to doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in the available
protect the parties’ right to due process, to prevent the distraction seats, conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial
of the participants in the proceedings and to avoid miscarriage of process.
justice. Video footages of court hearings for news purposes shall be
limited and restricted. The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the
press and the right to public information. It also approves of media's
Issue: Whether or Not live media coverage of the trial of the exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive
plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President means of conveying the proceedings to the public. Nevertheless,
Joseph E. Estrada should be permitted by the court. within the courthouse, the overriding consideration is still the
paramount right of the accused to due process which must never be
Held: The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition
allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions.
involve the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of
freedom of the press and the right to public information, on the MTRCB v. ABS-CBN
other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to
control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. When Facts:
these rights race against one another, jurisprudence tells us that the Respondent abs-cbn aired “Prosti-tuition”, an episode of the TV
right of the accused must be preferred to win. program “The Inside Story” produced and hosted by respondent
Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence Legarda. It depicted female students moonlighting as prostitutes to
until the contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted about its enable them to pay for their tuition fees.
individual settings nor made an object of public’s attention and PWU was named as the school of some of the students involved
where the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force and the façade of the PWU building served as the background of the
or influence but only be evidence and argument given in open episode. This caused upsoar in the PWU community and they filed a
court, where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded. letter-complaint to the MTRCB.
An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs MTRCB alleged that respondents
to him, more than anyone else, where his life or liberty can be held
critically in balance. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly 1) Did not submit “the inside story” to petitioner for review
dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights
2) Exhibited the same without its permission, thus violating sec 7 of Xxx
PD 1986 and some sections of MTRCB rules and regulations
b) to screen, review and examine all motion pictures herein defined,
ABS-CBN averred: TV programs, including publicity materials
1) The Inside Story is a public affairs program, news documentary The court in INC v. CA rules that PD 1986 gives MTRCB the power to
and socio-political editorial, its airing is protected by the screen, review and examine ALL TV PROGRAMS
constitutional provision on freedom of expression and of the press
*LESSON* where the law does not make any exceptions, courts may
2) Petitioners has no power, authority and jurisdiction to impose not exempt something therefrom, unless there is compelling reason
any form of prior restraint upon respondents. apparent in the law to justify it.
After hearing and submission of the parties’ memoranda, MTRCB Thus, when the law says “all TV programs”, the word all covers all tv
investigating committee ordered the respondents to pay P20,000 programs whether religious, public affairs, news docu, etc
for non-submission of the program
It then follows that since the Inside Story is a TV Program, MTRCB
MTRCB affirmed the ruling has the power to review it
Respondents filed a special civil action for certiorari with RTC QC. The only exemptions from the MTRCB’s power to review are those
RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondents, annulling and mentioned in Sec 7 of PD 1986
setting aside the decision and resolution of the MTRCB and
declaring and decreeing that certain sections of PD 1986 & MTRCB 1) TV programs imprinted or exhibited by Phil govt and/or
do not cover the TV program “Inside Story”, they being a public departments and agencies
affairs programs which can be equated to a newspaper 2) Newsreels
Hence, this petition In a desperate attempt to be exempted, respondents content that
Issue: Whether the MTRCB has the power or authority to review the Inside Story falls under the category of newsreels.
“Inside Story” prior its exhibition or broadcast by TV. MTRCB rules and reg defines newsreels as “straight news reporting,
Held: Sec 3 of PD 1986 enumerates the powers, functions as distinguished from analyses, commentaries, and opinions. Talk
and duties of the board: shows on a given issue are not considered newsreels.
Clearly, Inside Story is not a newsreel but more of a public affairs The only exceptions from the MTRCB’s power of review are those
program and within petitioner’s power of review. expressly mentioned in Section 7 of P. D. No. 1986, such as (1)
television programs imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine
Issue related to Consti law: Government and/or its departments and agencies, and (2)
Petitioner’s power to review television programs under Section 3(b) newsreels.
of P. D. No. 1986 does not amount to “prior restraint.” Chavez v. Gonzales
Ratio: Facts : Sometime before 6 June 2005, the radio station dzMM aired
It is significant to note that in Iglesia ni Cristo, this Court declared the Garci Tapes where the parties to the conversation discussed
that freedom of religion has been accorded a preferred status by "rigging" the results of the 2004 elections to favor President Arroyo.
the framers of our fundamental laws, past and present, “designed On 6 June 2005, Presidential spokesperson Ignacio Bunye (Bunye)
to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each held a press conference in Malacañang Palace, where he played
man to believe as his conscience directs x x x.” Yet despite the fact before the presidential press corps two compact disc recordings of
that freedom of religion has been accorded a preferred status, still conversations between a woman and a man. Bunye identified the
this Court, did not exempt the Iglesia ni Cristo’s religious program woman in both recordings as President Arroyo but claimed that the
from petitioner’s review power. contents of the second compact disc had been "spliced" to make it
appear that President Arroyo was talking to Garcillano. On 11 June
Respondents claim that the showing of “The Inside Story” is 2005, the NTC issued a press release warning radio and television
protected by the constitutional provision on freedom of speech and stations that airing the Garci Tapes is a "cause for the suspension,
of the press. However, there has been no declaration at all by the revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations"
framers of the Constitution that freedom of expressionand of the issued to them.5 On 14 June 2005, NTC officers met with officers of
press has a preferred status. the broadcasters group, Kapisanan ng mga Broadcasters sa Pilipinas
(KBP), to dispel fears of censorship. The NTC and KBP issued a joint
If this Court, in Iglesia ni Cristo, did not exempt religious programs
press statement expressing commitment to press freedom
from the jurisdiction and review power of petitioner MTRCB, with
more reason, there is no justification to exempt therefrom “The
Issue : WON the NTC warning embodied in the press release of 11
Inside Story” which, according to respondents, is protected by the
June 2005 constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on freedom
constitutional provision on freedom of expression and of the press,
of expression
a freedom bearing no preferred status.
Held : When expression may be subject to prior restraint, apply in
this jurisdiction to only four categories of expression, namely: the highest political expressions of any electorate, and thus
pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advocacy of deserves the utmost protection. If ever there is a hierarchy of
imminent lawless action, and danger to national security. All other protected expressions, political expression would occupy the
expression is not subject to prior restrain Expression not subject to highest rank. The rule, which recognizes no exception, is that there
prior restraint is protected expression or high-value expression. Any can be no content-based prior restraint on protected expression. On
content-based prior restraint on protected expression is this ground alone, the NTC press release is unconstitutional. Of
unconstitutional without exception. A protected expression means course, if the courts determine that the subject matter of a
what it says – it is absolutely protected from censorship Prior wiretapping, illegal or not, endangers the security of the State, the
restraint on expression is content-based if the restraint is aimed at public airing of the tape becomes unprotected expression that may
the message or idea of the expression. Courts will subject to strict be subject to prior restraint. However, there is no claim here by
scrutiny content-based restraint. If the prior restraint is not aimed respondents that the subject matter of the Garci Tapes involves
at the message or idea of the expression, it is content-neutral even national security and publicly airing the tapes would endanger the
if it burdens expression The NTC action restraining the airing of the security of the State. The alleged violation of the Anti-Wiretapping
Garci Tapes is a content-based prior restraint because it is directed Law is not in itself a ground to impose a prior restraint on the airing
at the message of the Garci Tapes. of the Garci Tapes because the Constitution expressly prohibits the
enactment of any law, and that includes anti-wiretapping laws,
The NTC’s claim that the Garci Tapes might contain "false curtailing freedom of expression. The only exceptions to this rule
information and/or willful misrepresentation," and thus should not are the four recognized categories of unprotected expression.
be publicly aired, is an admission that the restraint is content-based However, the content of the Garci Tapes does not fall under any of
The public airing of the Garci Tapes is a protected expression these categories of unprotected expression.
because it does not fall under any of the four existing categories of
unprotected expression recognized in this jurisdiction. The airing of Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC
the Garci Tapes is essentially a political expression because it
exposes that a presidential candidate had allegedly improper FACTS:
conversations with a COMELEC Commissioner right after the close On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins
of voting in the last presidential elections. within a private compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of
The content of the Garci Tapes affects gravely the sanctity of the Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was approximately six feet (6′) by ten feet
ballot. Public discussion on the sanctity of the ballot is indisputably (10′) in size. They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral
a protected expression that cannot be subject to prior restraint. within public view. The first tarpaulin contains the message
Public discussion on the credibility of the electoral process is one of “IBASURA RH Law” referring to the Reproductive Health Law of
2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The second tarpaulin is the subject 4. Whether or not the assailed notice and letter for the
of the present case. This tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience removal of the tarpaulin violated petitioners’ fundamental
Vote” and lists candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team Buhay” with right to freedom of expression.
a checkmark, or “(Pro-RH) Team Patay” with an “X” mark. The
electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on 5. Whether the order for removal of the tarpaulin is a content-
the adoption of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the RH based or content-neutral regulation.
Law. Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by 6. Whether or not there was violation of petitioners’ right to
petitioners as comprising “Team Patay,” while those who voted property.
against it form “Team Buhay.”
7. Whether or not the tarpaulin and its message are
Respondents conceded that the tarpaulin was neither considered religious speech.
sponsored nor paid for by any candidate. Petitioners also conceded
that the tarpaulin contains names ofcandidates for the 2013 HELD:
elections, but not of politicians who helped in the passage of the RH
FIRST ISSUE: No.
Law but were not candidates for that election.
The Court ruled that the present case does not call for the
ISSUES:
exercise of prudence or modesty. There is no political question. It
1. Whether or not the size limitation and its reasonableness of can be acted upon by this court through the expanded jurisdiction
the tarpaulin is a political question, hence not within granted to this court through Article VIII, Section 1 of the
the ambit of the Supreme Court’s power of review. Constitution..
2. Whether or not the petitioners violated the principle of The concept of a political question never precludes judicial
exhaustion of administrative remedies as the case was not review when the act of a constitutional organ infringes upon a
brought first before the COMELEC En Banc or any if its fundamental individual or collective right. Even assuming arguendo
divisions. that the COMELEC did have the discretion to choose the manner of
regulation of the tarpaulin in question, it cannot do so by abridging
3. Whether or not COMELEC may regulate expressions made the fundamental right to expression.
by private citizens.
Also the Court said that in our jurisdiction, the
determination of whether an issue involves a truly political and non-
justiciable question lies in the answer to the question of whether
there are constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions actionable infringement of this right. The impending threat of
conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then our courts are criminal litigation is enough to curtail petitioners’ speech.
duty-bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of
In the context of this case, exhaustion of their
the government properly acted within such limits.
administrative remedies as COMELEC suggested in their pleadings
A political question will not be considered justiciable if prolongs the violation of their freedom of speech.
there are no constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions
conferred upon political bodies. Hence, the existence of THIRD ISSUE: No.
constitutionally imposed limits justifies subjecting the officialactions Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence
of the body to the scrutiny and review of this court. to support their position that they had the power to regulate the
tarpaulin. However, the Court held that all of these provisions
In this case, the Bill of Rights gives the utmost deference to
the right to free speech. Any instance that this right may pertain to candidates and political parties. Petitioners are not
be abridged demands judicial scrutiny. It does not fall squarely into candidates. Neither do they belong to any political party. COMELEC
any doubt that a political question brings. does not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of the
preferred right to freedom of expression exercised by a non-
SECOND ISSUE: No. candidate in this case.
The Court held that the argument on exhaustion of FOURTH ISSUE: Yes.
administrative remedies is not proper in this case.
The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political
Despite the alleged non-exhaustion of administrative consequences enjoys a high degree of protection.
remedies, it is clear that the controversy is already ripe
for adjudication. Ripeness is the “prerequisite that something had Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the tarpaulin is
election propaganda, being petitioners’ way of endorsing
by then been accomplished or performed by either branch or in this
case, organ of government before a court may come into candidates who voted against the RH Law and rejecting those who
the picture.” voted for it, holds no water.
Petitioners’ exercise of their right to speech, given the The Court held that while the tarpaulin may influence the
message and their medium, had understandable relevance success or failure of the named candidates and political parties, this
especially during the elections. COMELEC’s letter threatening the does not necessarily mean it is election propaganda. The tarpaulin
filing of the election offense against petitioners is already an
was not paid for or posted “in return for consideration” by any Under this rule, “the evil consequences sought to be
candidate, political party, or party-list group. prevented must be substantive, ‘extremely serious and the degree
of imminence extremely high.’” “Only when the challenged act has
By interpreting the law, it is clear that personal opinions overcome the clear and present danger rule will it pass
are not included, while sponsored messages are covered. constitutional muster, with the government having the burden of
The content of the tarpaulin is a political speech overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality.”
Political speech refers to speech “both intended and received as a Even with the clear and present danger test, respondents
contribution to public deliberation about some issue,” “fostering failed to justify the regulation. There is no compelling and
informed and civic minded deliberation.” On the other hand, substantial state interest endangered by the posting of the tarpaulin
commercial speech has been defined as speech that does “no more as to justify curtailment of the right of freedom of expression. There
than propose a commercial transaction.” The expression resulting is no reason for the state to minimize the right of non-candidate
from the content of the tarpaulin is, however, definitely political petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private property. The size
speech. of the tarpaulin does not affect anyone else’s constitutional rights.
Content-based restraint or censorship refers to restrictions The Court held that even though the tarpaulin is readily
“based on the subject matter of the utterance or speech.” In seen by the public, the tarpaulin remains the private property of
contrast, content-neutral regulation includes controls merely on the petitioners. Their right to use their property is likewise protected by
incidents of the speech such as time, place, or manner of the the Constitution.
speech. Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective
The Court held that the regulation involved at bar is confiscation of private property or constitutes an arbitrary or
content-based. The tarpaulin content is not easily divorced from the unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because it is
size of its medium. repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process and equal
protection of the laws.
Content-based regulation bears a heavy presumption of
invalidity, and this court has used the clear and present danger rule The Court in Adiong case held that a restriction that
as measure. regulates where decals and stickers should be posted is “so broad
that it encompasses even the citizen’s private property.”
Consequently, it violates Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution
which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance
without due process of law.
FACTS:
SEVENTH ISSUE: No. The present case involves motions seeking reconsideration of the
Court’s decision dismissing the petitions for the declaration of
The Court held that the church doctrines relied upon by unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the
petitioners are not binding upon this court. The position of the
Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. The motions, of which there are 10
Catholic religion in the Philippines as regards the RH Law does not in all, have been filed by the several petitioners.
suffice to qualify the posting by one of its members of a tarpaulin as
religious speech solely on such basis. The enumeration of The Philippine Press Institute, Inc. (PPI) contends that by removing
candidates on the face of the tarpaulin precludes any doubt as to its the exemption of the press from the VAT while maintaining those
nature as speech with political consequences and not religious granted to others, the law discriminates against the press. At any
speech. rate, it is averred, "even nondiscriminatory taxation of
Doctrine of benevolent neutrality constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional”, citing in
support the case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania.
With religion looked upon with benevolence and not
hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Invc., (CREBA), on
under certain circumstances. Accommodations are government the other hand, asserts that R.A. No. 7716 (1) impairs the
policies that take religion specifically into account not to promote obligations of contracts, (2) classifies transactions as covered or
the government’s favored form of religion, but to allow individuals exempt without reasonable basis and (3) violates the rule that taxes
and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. Their should be uniform and equitable and that Congress shall "evolve a
purpose or effect therefore is to remove a burden on, or facilitate progressive system of taxation”.
the exercise of, a person’s or institution’s religion.
Further, the Cooperative Union of the Philippines (CUP), argues that
As Justice Brennan explained, the “government may take
legislature was to adopt a definite policy of granting tax exemption
religion into account . . . to exempt, when possible, from generally
to cooperatives that the present Constitution embodies provisions
applicable governmental regulation individuals whose religious
on cooperatives. To subject cooperatives to the VAT would
beliefs and practices would otherwise thereby be infringed, or to
therefore be to infringe a constitutional policy.
create without state involvement an atmosphere in which voluntary
religious exercise may flourish.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not, based on the aforementioned grounds of the as it may increase the debt of one person and lessen the security of
petitioners, the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law should be declared another, or may impose additional burdens upon one class and
unconstitutional. release the burdens of another, still the tax must be paid unless
prohibited by the Constitution, nor can it be said that it impairs the
RULING: obligation of any existing contract in its true legal sense. It is next
No. With respect to the first contention, it would suffice to say that pointed out that while Section 4 of R.A. No. 7716 exempts such
since the law granted the press a privilege, the law could take back transactions as the sale of agricultural products, food items,
the privilege anytime without offense to the Constitution. The petroleum, and medical and veterinary services, it grants no
reason is simple: by granting exemptions, the State does not forever exemption on the sale of real property which is equally essential.
waive the exercise of its sovereign prerogative. Indeed, in The sale of food items, petroleum, medical and veterinary services,
withdrawing the exemption, the law merely subjects the press to etc., which are essential goods and services was already exempt
the same tax burden to which other businesses have long ago been under Section 103, pars. (b) (d) (1) of the NIRC before the
subject. The PPI asserts that it does not really matter that the law enactment of R.A. No. 7716. Petitioner is in error in claiming that
does not discriminate against the press because "even R.A. No. 7716 granted exemption to these transactions, while
nondiscriminatory taxation on constitutionally guaranteed freedom subjecting those of petitioner to the payment of the VAT. Finally, it
is unconstitutional." The Court was speaking in that case (Murdock is contended that R.A. No. 7716 also violates Art. VI, Section 28(1)
v. Pennsylvania) of a license tax, which, unlike an ordinary tax, is which provides that "The rule of taxation shall be uniform and
mainly for regulation. Its imposition on the press is unconstitutional equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of
because it lays a prior restraint on the exercise of its right. The VAT taxation”. Nevertheless, equality and uniformity of taxation means
is, however, different. It is not a license tax. It is not a tax on the that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class be
exercise of a privilege, much less a constitutional right. It is imposed taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make
on the sale, barter, lease or exchange of goods or properties or the reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation. To
sale or exchange of services and the lease of properties purely for satisfy this requirement it is enough that the statute or ordinance
revenue purposes. To subject the press to its payment is not to applies equally to all persons, forms and corporations placed in
burden the exercise of its right any more than to make the press pay similar situation. Furthermore, the Constitution does not really
income tax or subject it to general regulation is not to violate its prohibit the imposition of indirect taxes which, like the VAT, are
freedom under the Constitution. regressive. What it simply provides is that Congress shall "evolve a
progressive system of taxation." The constitutional provision has
Anent the first contention of CREBA, it has been held in an early been interpreted to mean simply that "direct taxes are . . . to be
case that even though such taxation may affect particular contracts, preferred [and] as much as possible, indirect taxes should be
minimized." The mandate to Congress is not to prescribe, but to enacted sections 844 and 1119. Section 844 of the Revised
evolve, a progressive tax system. Ordinances of 1927 prohibits as an offense against public peace,
and section 1262 of the same Revised Ordinance penalizes as a
As regards the contention of CUP, it is worth noting that its theory misdemeanor, "any act, in any public place, meeting, or procession,
amounts to saying that under the Constitution cooperatives are tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with other
exempt from taxation. Such theory is contrary to the Constitution persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or
under which only the following are exempt from taxation: charitable disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly." And
institutions, churches and parsonages, by reason of Art. VI, §28 (3), section 1119 provides that "The streets and public places of the city
and non-stock, non-profit educational institutions by reason of Art. shall be kept free and clear for the use of the public, and the
XIV, §4 (3). sidewalks and crossings for the pedestrians, and the same shall only
With all the foregoing ratiocinations, it is clear that the subject law be used or occupied for other purposes as provided by ordinance or
bears no constitutional infirmities and is thus upheld. regulation: Provided, That the holding of athletic games, sports, or
exercises during the celebration of national holidays in any streets
Assembly and Petition or public places of the city and on the patron saint day of any
Primicias v. Fugoso district in question, may be permitted by means of a permit issued
by the Mayor, who shall determine the streets or public places, or
Facts: The Philippine Legislature has delegated the exercise of the portions thereof, where such athletic games, sports, or exercises
police power to the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, which may be held: And provided, further, That the holding of any parade
according to section 2439 of the Administrative Code is the or procession in any streets or public places is prohibited unless a
legislative body of the City. Section 2444 of the same Code grants permit therefor is first secured from the Mayor, who shall, on every
the Municipal Board, among others, the following legislative such occasion, determine or specify the streets or public places for
powers, to wit: "(p) to provide for the prohibition and suppression the formation, route, and dismissal of such parade or procession:
of riots, affrays, disturbances and disorderly assemblies, (u) to And provided, finally, That all applications to hold a parade or
regulate the use of streets, avenues, parks, cemeteries and other procession shall be submitted to the Mayor not less than twenty-
public places" and "for the abatement of nuisances in the same," four hours prior to the holding of such parade or procession." An
and "(ee) to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper action of mandamus was instituted by Cipriano Primicias, a
for sanitation and safety, the furtherance of prosperity and the campaign manager of the Coalesced Minority Parties against
promotion of morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, Valeriano Fugoso, as Mayor of the City of Manila, to compel the
and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants." Under the latter to issue a permit for the holding of a public meeting at Plaza
above delegated power, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, Miranda on Sunday afternoon, 16 November 1947, for the purpose
of petitioning the government for redress to grievances on the regulating the holding of public meeting or assembly at any street
ground that Fugoso refused to grant such permit. Due to the or public places, the provisions of said section 1119 regarding the
urgency of the case, the Court, after mature deliberation, issued a holding of any parade or procession in any street or public places
writ of mandamus, as prayed for in the petition on 15 November may be applied by analogy to meeting and assembly in any street or
1947, without prejudice to writing later an extended and reasoned public places.
decision.
The provisions of the said ordinance are construed to mean that it
Issue: Whether the Mayor of Manila may be compelled to issue a does not confer upon the Mayor the power to refuse to grant the
permit to use Plaza Miranda to hold a public meeting. permit, but only the discretion, in issuing the permit, to determine
or specify the streets or public places where the parade or
Held: The right to freedom of speech, and to peacefully assemble procession may pass or the meeting may be held. The Court cannot
and petition the government for redress of grievances, are adopt the other alternative construction or construe the ordinance
fundamental personal rights of the people recognized and under consideration as conferring upon the Mayor power to grant
guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic countries. But it is a or refuse to grant the permit, which would be tantamount to
settled principle growing out of the nature of well-ordered civil authorizing him to prohibit the use of the streets and other public
societies that the exercise of those rights is not absolute for it may places for holding of meetings, parades or processions, because
be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment
such a construction would make the ordinance invalid and void or
of others having equal rights, nor injurious to the rights of the violative of the constitutional limitations. As the Municipal Board is
community or society. empowered only to regulate the use of streets, parks, and other
The power to regulate the exercise of such and other constitutional public places, and the word "regulate," as used in section 2444 of
rights is termed the sovereign "police power," which is the power to the Revised Administrative Code, means and includes the power to
prescribe regulations, to promote the health, morals, peace, control, to govern, and to restrain, but can not be construed as
education, good order or safety, and general welfare of the people. synonymous with "suppress" or "prohibit,", the Municipal Board can
This sovereign police power is exercised by the government through not grant the Mayor a power which it does not have. In view of all
its legislative branch by the enactment of laws regulating those and the foregoing, the petition for mandamus was granted and, there
other constitutional and civil rights, and it may be delegated to appearing no reasonable objection to the use of the Plaza Miranda,
political subdivisions, such as towns, municipalities and cities by Quiapo, for the meeting applied for, the mayor was ordered to issue
authorizing their legislative bodies called municipal and city councils the corresponding permit, as requested.
to enact ordinances for the purpose. Herein, as there is no express
and separate provision in the Revised Ordinance of the City
Malabanan v. Ramento Affairs of GAUF; Tomas B. Mesina, in his capacity as the Dean of
Student Affairs of GAUF; Atty. Leonardo Padilla, in his capacity as
Facts: Crispin Malabanan, Evilio Jalos, Ben Luther Lucas, Sotero Chief Legal Counsel & Security Supervisor of GAUF; Atty. Fablita
Leonero and June Lee were officers of the Supreme Student Council Ammay, Rosendo Galvante and Eugenia Tayao, in their capacities as
of the Gregorio Araneta University Foundation. They sought and members of the Ad Hoc Committee of GAUF and before the
were granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports. On 20 October 1982,
from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. on 27 August 1982. Pursuant to such Anastacio D. Ramento, as Director of the National Capital Region,
permit, along with other students, they held a general assembly at
found Malabanan, et. al. guilty of the charge of having violated
the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science basketball court paragraph 146(c) of the Manual for Private Schools more specifically
(VMAS), the place indicated in such permit, not in the basketball their holding of an illegal assembly which was characterized by the
court as therein stated but at the second floor lobby. At such violation of the permit granted resulting in the disturbance of
gathering they manifested In vehement and vigorous language their classes and oral defamation. The penalty was suspension for one
opposition to the proposed merger of the Institute of Animal academic year. Hence, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and
Science with the Institute of Agriculture. At 10:30 A.M., the same mandamus.
day, they marched toward the Life Science Building and continued
their rally. It was outside the area covered by their permit. They Issue: Whether the students were properly meted out a year
continued their demonstration, giving utterance to language suspension due to the disruption of classes in GAUF attended by the
severely critical of the University authorities and using megaphones students’ concerted activity
in the process. There was, as a result, disturbance of the classes
being held. Also, the non-academic employees, within hearing Held: Malabanan, et.al. are entitled to their rights to peaceable
distance, stopped their work because of the noise created. They assembly and free speech. They enjoy like the rest of the citizens
were asked to explain on the same day why they should not be held the freedom to express their views and communicate their thoughts
to those disposed to listen in gatherings. They do not, to borrow
liable for holding an illegal assembly. Then on 9 September 1982,
they were informed through a memorandum that they were under from the opinion of Justice Fortas in Tinker v. Des Moines
preventive suspension for their failure to explain the holding of an Community School District, "shed their constitutional rights to
freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." While,
illegal assembly in front of the Life Science Building. The validity
thereof was challenged by Malabanan, et. al. both before the Court therefore, the authority of educational institutions over the conduct
of First Instance of Rizal in a petition for mandamus with damages of students must be recognized, it cannot go so far as to be violative
against Cesar Mijares, in his capacity as the President of GAUF, of constitutional safeguards. On a more specific level, there is
Gonzalo del Rosario, in his capacity as the Director for Academic persuasive force to this formulation in the Fortas opinion: "The
principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate
students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of element of arbitrariness intrudes. That would give rise to a due
activities. Among those activities is personal intercommunication process question. To avoid this constitutional objection, it is the
among the students. This is not only an inevitable part of the holding of the Court that a one-week suspension would be
process of attending school; it is also an important part of the punishment enough.
educational process. A student's rights, therefore, do not embrace
merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals
playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours, he may Facts: Petitioners are public school teachers from various schools in
express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict Metro Manila who were simultaneously charged, preventively
in Vietnam, if he does so without 'materially and substantially suspended, and eventually dismissed in October 1990 by the
interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
operation of the school' and without colliding with the rights of (DECS) in connection with the administrative complaints filed before
others. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for its office by their respective principals for participating in a mass
any reason — whether it stems from time, place, or type of action/strike and subsequently defying the return-to-work order by
behavior — materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial DECS constituting grave misconduct., gross neglect of duty, gross
disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not violation of Civil Service Law, Rules and Regulations and reasonable
immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." office regulations, refusal to perform official duty, gross
It does not follow, however, that Malabanan, et. al. can be totally insubordination conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
absolved for the events that transpired. Admittedly, there was a service and absence without official leave (AWOL), in violation of
violation of the terms of the permit. The rally was held at a place Presidential Decree 807, otherwise known as the Civil Service
other than that specified, in the second floor lobby, rather than the Decree of the Philippines. Petitioners contend they are merely
basketball court, of the VMAS building of the University. Moreover, participating in a peaceful assembly to petition the government for
it was continued longer than the period allowed. The "concerted redress of their grievances in the exercise of their constitutional
activity went on until 5:30 p.m." The University could thus, take right and insist their assembly does not constitutes as a strike as
disciplinary action. On those facts, however, an admonition, even a there is no actual disruption of classes.
censure — certainly not a suspension — could be the appropriate
penalty. A one-year period of suspension is much too severe, While Issue: Whether or not the petitioners’ exercise of their right to
the discretion of both the University and Director Ramento is freedom to assembly and petition were valid.
recognized, the rule of reason, the dictate of fairness calls for a
Held: The court held that previous jurisprudence laid down a rule
much lesser penalty. If the concept of proportionality between the
that public teachers in the exercise of their right to ventilate their
offense committed and the sanction imposed is not followed, an
grievances by petitioning the government for redress should be from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., respectively); and that they informed the
done within reasonable limits so as not to prejudice the public respondent Company of their proposed demonstration.
welfare. The conduct of mass protests during school days while
abandoning classes is highly prejudicial to the best interest of public 3) The Philippine Blooming Mills Inc., called for a meeting with the
service. The court stresses that teachers are penalized not because leaders of the PBMEO after learning about the planned mass
they exercised their right to peaceably assemble but because of the demonstration. During the meeting, the planned demonstration
manner by which such right was exercised, i.e., going on was confirmed by the union. But it was stressed out by the union
that the demonstration was not a strike against the company but
unauthorized and unilateral absences thus disrupting classes in
various schools in Metro Manila which produced adverse effects was in factual exercise of the laborers inalienable constitutional
upon the students for whose education the teachers were right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom for
responsible. petition for redress of grievances.
2) Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a 6) The lower court decided in favour of Philippine Blooming Mills
mass demonstration at Malacañang on March 4, 1969, in protest Co., Inc., and the officers of the PBMEO were found guilty of
against alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in by bargaining in bad faith. The PBMEO’s motion for reconsideration
the workers in the first shift (from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M.) as well as those was subsequently denied by the Court of Industrial Relations for
in the regular second and third shifts (from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. and being filed two days late.
Issue: herein private respondent firm to rally to the defense of, and take
up the cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report to work
Whether or not to regard the demonstration against police officers, free from harassment, vexation or peril and as consequence
not against the employer, as a violation of freedom expression in perform more efficiently their respective tasks enhance its
general and of their right of assembly and petition for redress of
productivity as well as profits.
grievances
2) To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against
Whether or not the collective bargaining agreement is an inhibition the employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and
of the rights of free expression, free assembly and petition of the hence a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a
employers cause for the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating
Held: employees, stretches unduly the compass of the collective
bargaining agreement, is “a potent means of inhibiting speech” and
1) Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the
human rights are imprescriptible. If human rights are extinguished constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful assembly
by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to and of petition.
limit the power of government and ceases to be an efficacious
shield against the tyranny of officials, of majorities, of the influential The collective bargaining agreement which fixes the working shifts
and powerful, and of oligarchs — political, economic or otherwise. of the employees, according to the respondent Court Industrial
Relations, in effect imposes on the workers the “duty … to observe
The demonstration held petitioners on March 4, 1969 before regular working hours.” The strain construction of the Court of
Malacañang was against alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen, Industrial Relations that a stipulated working shifts deny the
not against their employer, herein private respondent firm, said workers the right to stage mass demonstration against police
demonstrate was purely and completely an exercise of their abuses during working hours, constitutes a virtual tyranny over the
freedom expression in general and of their right of assembly and mind and life the workers and deserves severe condemnation.
petition for redress of grievances in particular before appropriate Renunciation of the freedom should not be predicated on such a
governmental agency, the Chief Executive, again the police officers slender ground.
of the municipality of Pasig. They exercise their civil and political
rights for their mutual aid protection from what they believe were The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice.
police excesses. As matter of fact, it was the duty of herein private Because the refusal on the part of the respondent firm to permit all
respondent firm to protect herein petitioner Union and its members its employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against
from the harassment of local police officers. It was to the interest alleged police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight (8)
petitioners from the service constituted an unconstitutional several of their members. They further allege that on October 6,
restraint on the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and 2005, a multi-sectoral rally which KMU also co-sponsored was
freedom petition for redress of grievances, the respondent firm scheduled toproceed along España Avenue in front of the UST and
committed an unfair labor practice defined in Section 4(a-1) in going towards Mendiola bridge. Police officers blocked them along
relation to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, otherwise known as Morayta Street and prevented them from proceeding further. They
the Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8 guarantees were then forcibly dispersed, causing injuries on one of them. Three
to the employees the right “to engage in concert activities for … other rallyists werearrested.
mutual aid or protection”; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair
labor practice for an employer interfere with, restrain or coerce All petitioners assail Batas Pambansa No. 880 The Public Assembly
employees in the exercise their rights guaranteed in Section Three. Act of 1985, some of them in toto and others only Sections 4, 5, 6,
12, 13(a), and 14(a), as well as the policy of CPR. They seek to stop
The Supreme Court set aside as null and void the orders of Court of violent dispersals of rallies under the “no permit, no rally” policy
Industrial Relations. The Supreme Court also directed the re- and the CPRpolicy announced on Sept. 21, 2005.
instatement of the herein eight (8) petitioners, with full back pay
from the date of their separation from the service until re-instated, Petitioners Bayan, et al., contend that BP 880 is clearly a violation of
minus one day’s pay and whatever earnings they might have the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and
realized from other sources during their separation from the Political Rights and other human rights treaties of which the
service. Philippines is a signatory.
Bayan v. Ermita
They argue that B.P. No. 880 requires a permit before one can stage
Facts: Rallies of September 20, October 4, 5 and 6, 2005 is at issue. a public assembly regardless of the presence or absence of a clear
BAYAN’s rally was violently dispersed. 26 petitioners were and present danger. It also curtails the choice of venue and is thus
injured,arrested and detained when a peaceful mass action they repugnant to the freedom of expression clause as the time and
was preempted and violently dispersed by the police. KMU asserts place of a public assembly form part of the message for which the
that the right to peaceful assembly, are affected by Batas Pambansa expression is sought.
No. 880 and the policy of “Calibrated Preemptive Response” (CPR)
being followed to implement it. KMU, et al., claim that on October Petitioners Jess del Prado, et al., in turn, argue that B.P. No. 880 is
4, 2005, a rally KMU co-sponsored was to be conducted at the unconstitutional as it is a curtailment of the right to peacefully
Mendiola bridge but police blocked them along C.M. Recto and assemble and petition for redress of grievances because it puts a
Lepanto Streets and forcibly dispersed them, causing injuries to condition for the valid exercise of that right. It also characterizes
public assemblies without a permit as illegal and penalizes them and that the permit is for the use of a public place and not for the
allows their dispersal. Thus, its provisions are not mere regulations exercise of rights; and that B.P. No. 880 is not a content-based
but are actually prohibitions. Regarding the CPR policy, it is void for regulation because it covers all rallies.
being an ultra vires act that alters the standard of maximum
tolerance set forth in B.P. No. 880, aside from being void for being Issue: Whether or Not BP 880 and the CPR Policy unconstitutional.
vague and for lack of publication.
Held: No question as to standing. Their right as citizens to engage in
KMU, et al., argue that the Constitution sets no limits on the right to peaceful assembly and exercise the right of petition, as guaranteed
assembly and therefore B.P. No. 880 cannot put the prior by the Constitution, is directly affected by B.P. No. 880. B.P. 880 is
requirement of securing a permit. And even assuming that the not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that
legislature can set limits to this right, the limits provided are simply regulates the time, place and manner of the assemblies. It
unreasonable: First, allowing the Mayor to deny the permit on clear refers to all kinds of public assemblies that would use public places.
and convincing evidence of a clear and present danger is too The reference to “lawful cause” does not make it content-based
comprehensive. Second, the five-day requirement to apply for a because assemblies really have to be for lawful causes, otherwise
permit is too long as certain events require instant public assembly, they would not be “peaceable” and entitled to protection.
otherwise interest on the issue would possibly wane.As to Maximum tolerance1 is for the protection and benefit of all rallyists
the CPR policy, they argue that it is preemptive, that the and is independent of the content of the expressions in the rally.
government takes action even before the rallyists can perform their There is, likewise, no prior restraint, since the content of the speech
act, and that no law, ordinance or executive order supports the is not relevant to the regulation.
policy. Furthermore, it contravenes the maximum tolerance policy
of B.P. No. 880 and violates the Constitution as it causes a chilling The so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place in
effect on the exercise by the people of the right to peaceably our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that
assemble. shrouds freedom. It merely confuses our people and is used by
some police agents to justify abuses. Insofar as it would purport to
Respondents argued that petitioners have no standing. BP 880 differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, this was declared
entails traffic re-routing to prevent grave public inconvenience and null and void.
serious or undue interference in the free flow of commerce and
trade. It is content-neutral regulation of the time, place and manner The Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, are DIRECTED
of holding publicassemblies. According to Atienza RA. 7160 gives the to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with
Mayor power to deny a permit independently of B.P. No. 880. and Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or
designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every
city and municipality of the country. After thirty (30) days from the
finality of this Decision, subject to the giving of advance notices, no
prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to peaceably
assemble and petition in the public parks or plazas of a city or
municipality that has not yet complied with Section 15 of the law.