RAPPLER VS BAUTISTA (2016)

There is MOA between Rappler and the COMELEC that they would cover the vice presidential debates. Rappler however had an issue as to a
provision in the MOA, there was an imposition of a maximum of 2min. debate excerpts for news reporting. Two minutes lang ang pwede nimo
makuha nga excerpt from the broadcast. According to Rappler, this discriminates against it. The court said that this is not any form of restriction
on Rappler’s right to free speech because that regulation is reasonable. That restriction, the complete phrase is that allow a maximum of two
minutes of excerpt from the debates. Provided, that the use of excerpts longer than two minutes shall be subject to the consent of the Lead
Network concerned.

In other words it is no governmental restriction really on getting excerpts for more than 2min as long as you get the consent of the Lead Network
concerned. So really, the government is not proscribing Rappler as long as they get the consent of whoever covered that footage. Here the court
said that there was no violation as long as you get the consent.

We are already in freedom of expression, and we finished some of the cases discussing the restraints which we have discussed already kadtong
mga forms of restrictions, freedom of speech prior restraints, subsequent punishments, we have discussed some of the cases so take note of
them. Now we go to the second classification of restriction, we also learned that there are:

Two types of restrictions on free speech, we have

1. content-based restriction and

2. content-neutral restrictions.

Refresh your memory when we say it is a content-based restriction it is a restriction on the content of the speech.

CHAVEZ VS GONZALES

Remember the case of Chavez v Gonzales where the substance of the material of the CD itself sought to be suppressed whereas when we talk
about content-neutral restrictions it does not deal with the content of the speech but rather on the manner, the mode, the time and place
wherein the speech may be delivered so kato ang gina regulate.

DIOCESE VS COMELEC

However we learned in the case of Doicese v Comelec in that case the Court established the border between these two. The tarpaulin size it’s
supposed to deal the manner with which the speech is delivered but the court said that the size gap of the tarpaulin is in fact connected to its
content. Anyway take note of that case. So that is the general concept of a content-based restriction and the content-neutral restriction. If the
restriction is content-based the Supreme Court usually applies then the strictest tests that it can do on it because we are talking about a restriction
on your freedom to say something, the substance itself. The court has commonly applied the clear-and-present-danger test.

Where did we adopt all of these tests?

We adopt this tests from the United States Supreme Court and in your syllabus there is an enumeration here of the tests which have been
discussed by us, by our courts but thy were taken from US Supreme Court cases.