POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

October 30, 2016

Technique on How To Answer Exam Properly:

1. First, if the question is answerable by yes or no you must give either an affirmative or negative answer. For
example, No, the law is not valid or Yes, the law is valid.

2. Second, lay down or cite the rule, principle, doctrine or law as your legal basis. For example: Under the equal
protection clause in order to have a valid classification the following requisites must be present:

the classification must be based on substantial distinction;

it must be germane to the purpose of the law;

must not be limited to existing and present conditions only;

must apply equally to all members of the same class.

3. Followed by: In this case or Here . . . it violates the equal protection clause (cite the rule, doctrine, principle or
law as basis) because (ang dahilan or reason mo ang magli-link ng rule sa application to the set of case: X,Y, and
Z being singled out by law being having no substantial distinction. It does not apply to all the members of the same
class. It only applies to them. Take note, do not simply outline the rule only otherwise nagbigay ka lang ng batas.
Dapat may kaugnayan sa kaso. Moreover, do not immediately jump to your discussion without first laying down the
rule, principle, doctrine or law. These are your bases. Kahit tama ang discussion mo, so what? E kung wala ka
namang nilagay na basehan.

22.40
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
November 06, 2016

Article Three: Bill of Rights

(Insert): Pelaez vs. Governor General; Magdano vs. Silvosa; Hebron vs. Reyes

Section 3 (1). Privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except if there is a lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

Ano ang similarity ng section 3 at section 2? They are both rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, both right
to privacy the right to be left alone. This is one of the zones of privacy in the constitution. The other is section 2. There
are other zones of privacy in statutes like non-revelation of trade secrets in the Revised Penal Code, etc. Ano naman ang
kaibahan ng mga ito sa isat-isa? Section 2 ang sine-secure ay houses, paper, persons and effects. Nahahawakan ang
mga ito o tangibles. Ang communication at correspondence ay intangibles. Pero sinama sa protection pa rin. In fact
kahit wala ang section 3 par 1 sakop pa rin sa section 2 kaya lang ginawa sa consti na maliwanag. Dahil ang section 2
ay kinopya natin sa us constitution ay nagkaroon ng kaso sa America: Katz vs. US. Gumagamit siya ng payphone sa
booth at tumatawag siya para tumaya sa karera ng kabayo. Bawal sa us ang wagering using telephone. Para mahuli siya
at malaman ang conversation ay tungkol sa pustahan, police authorities placed a device hindi nakakabit sa phone pero
na-sensor ang sound waves malapit sa phone booth para marinig ang usapan. The police presented it in court as
evidence to prove the offense. He objected on the ground that there is no search warrant. The police argued na wala
silang kinukuha o seized kay Katz kaya no need for a search warrant. Nakikinig lang naman sila. US SC ruled that
protection against unreasonable search and seizure covers also intangibles like conversations and communications.
Dinaig pa natin ang US kasi sa kanila jurisprudence ito, sa atin we embedded it in our Constitution. Nagkakatalo lang sa
implementation. Hinawalay ito sa section 2 para i-emphasize na it is a different objectintangible things.

So inviolable yan. Except when there is a lawful order of the court. Ano ang tawag sa lawful order? E di search warrant
or search and seizure warrant. Therefore it must comply with the requisites of a valid warrant: existence of probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainants or
witnesses; particular description of the place to be searched or the person or things to be seized.

I have no problem with the first three requirements. Sa fourth meron: particular description of the thing to be seized
communication and conversation. How can the judge put in the warrant the particular description the conversations to
be seized when the same have yet to be uttered by the conversants? Hindi pa nga sila nagsasalita. Paano makaka-
comply? Bago sa compliance, any evidence obtained in violation of this section is inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. Hindi pwedeng tanggapin. Paragraph 2, Section 3: the Exclusionary Rule. You exclude it as inadmissible
evidence. Now, pwede ring iregulate or inhibit if public safety or order requires it as otherwise prescribed by law. There
is a law prescribing itRepublic Act 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law. It is a 1960s law. Under it it prohibits the
interception, seizure of any private conversation between two or more parties without the consent of the conversants
one or both with the use of a device like the detectaphone or Dictaphone or other similar device like the tape recorder.
Kunwari nag-uusap tayong dalawa tapos nire-record mo pag-uusap natin hindi ko alam it violates section 3, article 3 of
the Constitution. Therefore you cannot use it as an evidence in court. In fact that is a violation of RA 4200. Dito ang
epekto sa Constitution ng violation, inadmissible in evidence lang, walang parusa. Pero sa statute may parusang
imprisonment. Kunwaring nagle-lecture ako nang hindi ko alam nire-record mo pala. May violation ba ng RA 4200?
Wala dahil the lecture is not a private conversation. What about violation of intellectual property rights? Kung ikaw
lang ang gagamit at hindi mo pinagkakitaan o pahiram mo sa mga kasama mo based on fair use for academic purposes
walang violation. Pero kung pinagkakitaan mo hindi na fair use therefore may paglabag.

Sina A, B, at C ay magkakaibigan. Sina A at B nasa Manila habang si C ay nasa Davao. Sinabi ni C kay A na tatawag
siya sa kanya sa Linggo. Sinabi ni A kay B dahil gusto rin ni B na sorpresahin si A. Gamit ang extension phone unit
sabay na sinagot nina A at B ang tawag ni C. May mga bagay na sinabing hindi maganda si C tungkol kay B na narinig
ni B. Nag-testify si B laban kay C base sa kanyang narinig. Is there violation of Section 3 privacy of communication in
the Constitution? Hindi. What about RA 4200? No. The law makes mention of installing a device purposely and
deliberately to intercept the conversation. Moreover, telephone units are of common usage nowadays. Is it admissible in
evidence in court? Yes. Because when you talk via telephone there is nothing private in the conversation. Chances are
may nakakarinig na iba: partyline, crossline, extension line, public address system na nga ngayon. Or may nakikinig sa
labas ng room.

Nagda-drive si A ng kotse kasama si B. Tumawag si C. A pressed the loud speaker so that B heard slanderous and
malicious statements of C against B. B testified against C. Is this valid? Yes. Was there violation of privacy of
communication? No. Because there is nothing private in the conversation. Moreover the loud speaker was pressed by A
which shows that the conversation was not intended to be so. Pero high tech ang kanyang phoneIPhone 26 S+++. It is
capable of automatically recording phone conversations without the party on the other end knowing that their
conversation is being recorded. Can the telephone conversation be used as evidence in court? No. Ni-record e. Even if it
is a cellular phone that was used, an electronic device which was not even contemplated by RA 4200 way back in the
1960s, still, what is central here is the recording capability of a device which was capitalized purposely and deliberately
to intercept a conversation. Besides during the time of the enactment of RA 4200 there were devices available in the
market that are capable of capturing audio and visual conversations on tape.

A is studying in a coffeeshop and records his own voice while he recites provisions and principles of law. Sa kabilang
mesa may nag-aaway at na-record sa device mo. Nalaman ng isa sa mga nag-aaway na may record ka at ginamit bilang
evidence sa korte laban sa kaaway niya. Is this valid? Yes. Is this a violation of RA 4200? No. There is nothing private
in the conversation between the two adversarial parties because it happened in full view at a coffee shop which is a
public place. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy to speak of.

Sa lobby ng isang hotel may nag-aaway at nakunan ng cctv. Pwede bang gamitin bilang ebidensya ang cctv recording?
Yes. Public place yun e. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in that place. In fact without a cctv recording
there might be bystanders or spectators capturing the incident on video.

A police officer is monitoring the cctv when he noticed a person committing theft approached the thief and arrested him
without a warrant. Is this valid? Yes. As a rule, for an arrest of a person to be valid it must be upon a lawful order of a
court based on probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examining under oath or affirmation the
complainant or witnesses, except in cases of warrantless arrest, which, among the enumerations to render an arrest
valid, an arrest made in flagrante delicto is allowed. Here, the cctv recording was used as basis by the police officer to
effect the arrest is considered an inflagrante delicto arrest at the precise moment while the crime is in progress in his
presence. Such arrest does not require a warrant from the court.

Ang problema sa search and seizure warrant to be issued by the court ay with respect sa 4 th requirement: the description
of the thing to be seized which is an intangible thing, that is, a conversation which is yet to be uttered by the
conversants. For logical reason, it is greatly impossible for the court to determine with specificity the description of the
conversation that is yet to exist. Thus, to comply with the fourth requisite, RA 4200 prescribed mechanics:

FIRST, the conversation to be seized just like any other thing subject of a seizure must have a connection to the offense
being charged. Kahit hindi recording, letter, correspondence, sumulat ka o sinulatan ka, pulis humingi ng search warrant
sa judge to seize a letter habang nasa koreyo o mail pa for the crime of rebellion. Nag isyu ng warrant, binuksan at
binasa ang sulat. Tapos may nabasa tungkol sa ibang crime tulad ng estafa which has nothing to do with the furtherance
of rebellion. Tapos ginamit ng police yun sulat na may sinasaad tungkol sa estafa at ginamit bilang ebidensya sa
nakabinbin na kasong estafa or ginamit para kasuhan ng estafa. Hindi pwedeng gamitin ito bilang ebidensya kahit
meron pang search warrant. Take note, that insofar as the police officer is concerned, he is an Intruder into the
conversation between the sender of the mail and the mail addressee which has nothing to do with the offense being
charged;

SECOND, kailangan nasa warrant kung sino ang pulis na magwa-wiretap, sino ang taong iwa-wiretap at anong
telephone number ang gagamitin na pang-wiretap, may period lang kung kailan lang siya magwa-wiretap. Ang validity
ng warrant ay ten (10) days. Extendible naman ito. Otherwise illegal ang search and seizure ng wiretapped
conversation. At inadmissible pa as evidence ang object ng seizure. Ang letter ay HINDI kasama sa Anti-Wiretapping
Act dahil wala namang wire o kable ang sulat. Pero pasok ito sa privacy of correspondence. So pag letter lang ang
epekto ay inadmissible in evidence lang. Example, may pulis na armado ng warrant: may probable cause determined
personally by the judge, at in compliance with the Anti-Wiretapping law andun lahat ng mechanics. At ang offense
charged ay rape. Dahil may warrant nag-wiretap at nakakuha ng conversation sa pagitan ng accused at co-accused.
Pare, anong ginawa mo sa panty ng babae? Sunugin mo na yan baka may makakita pa niyan. Is that a violation of the
Anti-Wiretapping law? Yes. Can it be used as evidence in court? No. Because the anti-wiretapping law is applicable
only to offenses involving public safety or order, national security offenses like rebellion, sedition, coup detat,
treason, espionage, inciting to sedition, inciting to rebellion. Hindi kasama ang mga ordinary crimes like rape,
UNLESS, it is in furtherance of said national security offenses.

You are an employee of a company. The supervisor wrote a letter to the manager reporting that your tardiness and
laziness at work. Merong imputation of a wrong laban sa iyo. Merong publication dahil sinabihan ang manager mo
(third party), identifiable (dahil ikaw ang tinutukoy). Libel ba? No. Kulang ng isang elementmalicious. Dapat ginawa
not in good faith or ginawa in bad faith. However if it is done out of a legal, moral, social duty such that you were
reported to the manager as to your conduct as an employee, the reporting is done out of legal, moral and social duty
hence not the same was not done in bad faith. Walang element of bad faith.

A professor catches you cheating in the exam. Sumulat sa dean at ni-report ka para magsagawa ng investigation for
possible disciplinary action. May imputation of the wrongnandadaya. May publicationsinabi sa dean (third party).
Identifiableikaw. Libel ba? No. Walang element of malice. Why? It is the legal, moral and social duty of the
professor to correct the misconduct of his student. Cheating is a misconduct.

Ikaw ay sumulat sa classmate mo sinabi mo mandaraya siya, tarantado siya at maghihirap siya sa pag-aaral niya. May
imputation of a wrongmasasama kasi ang sinabi. Identifiableclassmate mo. May malicewalang good faith na
makikita dahil in the first place it does not present anything of good value. Libel ba? No. Kulang ng isang element
publication. Dalawa lang kayo. Publication means there is a third party involved and you are making the issue public
outside the two of you. Walang honor o reputasyon na nasira dahil wala namang ibang nakarinig o nakaalam maliban sa
inyong dalawa.

Ikaw ay sumulat sa classmate mo. Sinabi mo siya ay mandaraya sa exam. However, you photocopied the letter and
distributed it among your classmates. Is this libel? Yes. Where is your good faith para sabihan mo ang mga classmates
mo? Sana sinabi mo sa professor mo o sa proper authorities. Wala namang magagawa ang classmates mo. Wala kang
intensyon except to malign your classmate.

Minura-mura mo ang classmate mo sa loob ng isang room na kayong dalawa lang ang nakakarinig. Walang libel dito.
Pero kung kinuha mo ang public address system ng Arellano, pinagmumura mo ang classmate mo, ang kanyang tatay
ay magnanakaw at ang nanay ay pokpok, this is a clear case of libel. Ganun din kung pinaskil mo sa bulletin board.
Totoo namang nandadaya siya sa exam! Maaaring totoo pero tandaan mo na ang katotohanan ay hindi depensa sa
libeltruth is not a defense against libel. The test is not whether a remark or statement is true or not. The test in libel
cases is whether there is good faith or bad faith. Nasaan ang good faith dun? Kung gusto mo na tulungan ang kaklase
mo na makapagbago para hindi na mandaya sa exam dapat sinabi mo sa tamang otoridad. Hindi dapat ipagkalat sa
ibang tao.

May kumakalat na papel sa campus. Nakasulat: isang guwapong propesor ng Arellano College of Law
nakikipagrelasyon sa kanyang estudyante. May isang tao na nakabasa: propesor ako, dito ako nagtuturo sa Arellano
College of Law, higit sa lahat guwapo ako. Ako ang tinutukoy dito! Is this libel? No. The subject of the libel must be
identifiable with specificity. Plain description of his personal identity or of his professional background is not sufficient.

Mga Pilipino tamad! Pilipino ako. Tamad ako? Libel? No. Wala namang tinutukoy na specific na tao. General
statement nga e.
However, hindi mo kailangang banggitin ang pangalan ng isang tao para maging libel kung ang description ay
tumutumbok sa kanya. Isang senador ng Pilipinas na isang noontime show host. Isa lang siya kahit hindi mo
pangalanan.

Sa Privilege Communication may legal, social at moral duty. Ito ay either absolute o conditional. Absolute:
members of Congress, members of Judiciary, officials ng executive branch like the President. Sinabi ni Senator Maceda
sa kanyang privilege speech na may mga artista na nagpupunta ng Brunei na binabayaran for sex ng king, kasama sa
pangalan si Ruffa Gutierrez. Yun ibang pinangalanan binawi niya pero hindi ang pangalan ni Ruffa. Walang nagawa si
Annabel dahil ito ay absolute privilege communication in the performance of his official function. Pero nung nag-guest
siya sa show ni Julie Yap Daza hindi siya nagbanggit dahil baka mademanda siya. Hindi ito privilege communication in
the performance of his official function. Ang Presidente naglabas ng listahan ng sangkot sa droga. He is doing this in
the performance of his official function. Again this is privilege communication which is absolute. Kung hindi official
function hindi siya pwedeng idemanda sa ngayon dahil immune siya from suit. Pag tapos na ang termino niya pwede na.
Si fiscal in prosecuting an accused cannot be charged with libel for imputing a wrong against the latter because he is
doing it in the performance of a legal duty. Trabaho niya ito otherwise tanggal siya sa trabaho. A judge sentenced you
guilty for the commission of a crime. This is done in the performance of his official function as a matter of legal duty as
a member of the bench.

In conditional privilege communication in the case of members of the media, they are allowed to exercise such
privilege by reporting on television or radio court proceedings or congressional hearings. Since it is conditional the
condition is that the reporting should be a fair and straightforward reporting. No commentaries are allowed to be
stated. Hindi pwedeng pumasok na po ang akusado sa loob ng hukuman at tinawag na ang mga testigo. Mukhang
guilty! This is wrong. Kaya hindi basta pinapayagan ang mga camera sa court. Sa ibang bansa sketch lang ang
pinapakita sa public. Because the camera may impress different interpretations to the viewers. But in the case of the
Maguindanao Massacre the High Court allowed the entrance of cameras inside the court room. The reason of the Court
is for the benefit of the publics right to information on matters of public interest. This is a dilemma however that the
court had to face where it had to strike a good balance between the publics right to know and the courts fair
administration of justice. Baka kasi ma-impluwensyahan si judge. Ang technology can be used to find a common
ground to serve mutually these two interests. Pwede na ang isang camera sa loob ng court room, isa lang ang pwesto at
controlled by the Supreme Court ang pagpaling nito. Isa lang ang camera kasi sa dami ng interested parties at liit ng
silid. Pero makapal ang guidelines na nilabas ng SC.

Isa pang conditional privilege communication, hindi pwedeng i-compel ang asawa magsalita tungkol sa mga bagay na
pinag-usapan nilang mag-asawa kagabi bago sila natulog. Except kung silang dalawa ang nagdedemandahan. Hindi rin
pwede pilitin ang isang doctor na magsalita tungkol sa sakit ng kanyang pasyente unless ang pasyente mismo ang
magsiwalat. This is covered by doctor-patient privilege communication. Ganun din ang abogado. Hindi pwedeng pilitin
ibulgar kung ano ang pinag-usapan nila ng kanyang akusado unless ang akusado ang maglalabas sa publiko. This is
covered by attorney-client privilege communication. Any act outside of this violates legal ethics for lawyers or what is
called ambulance chasing. Also include guidance counsellor-ward relationship sa conditional privilege
communication.

Bumili ka ng condom ang tatak amparo meaning to protect. Habang bumibili ka nakita mo si Sarah Lahbati. Inusisa
mo ang pharmacist kung ano ang binili. Hindi pwede magsalita ang pharmacist otherwise matatanggalan siya ng
lisensya.

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

This is addressed to the Legislative and Quasi-Legislative bodies because of the words no law. There are Five rights
mentioned here: Speech, Expression, Press, Peaceful Assembly and Petition for Redress. Kung igu-group mo sila into
two: speech, expression and press belong to one group; and assembly and petition to another group. Kung tatawagin mo
sila sa isang right lahat sila freedom of speech and expression. Noong lumang constitutions natin tulad ng kinopya natin
sa US Constitution wala yun expression. Siningit lang yun. For emphasis lang ng naman na hindi lang oral speech ang
covered o communication kundi pati written and other forms of communication and expression like the wearing of
armbands, headbands, hand gestures, emblems, sculpture, music the use of a jingle, arts. So all forms of expression are
covered. Whether they are oral, gestures, hand signals, yellow ribbon, red ribbon, lahat may meaning. Bakit kasali ang
assembly? Kasi it is a form of expression. Anong saysay ng petition sa government kung ikaw lang mag-isa. Hindi
bawal basta peaceful. Itaas ang sahod, ibaba ang matrikula at pamasahe at gasolina. Sabi ni Wendell Philips the bright
consuming rights of freedom. Katapat lang nito religion. Kaya nasa First Amendment ng US Constitution. This defines
what we are as a human being. Nakaka-communicate at nakaka-express kasi tayo.

Ito nakatutok na naman sa government dahil no law shall be passed. Sa US vs. Bustos, sinabi ng Supreme Court ang
kasaysayan ng free speech and expression in the Philippines sinimulan sa the Philippine A Century Hands by Dr. ???
hanggang sa Dekalogo ni Mabini, ang La Solidaridad, ang mga Kababaihan ng Malolos, the development of the
Constitution from the Malolos Constitution hanggang sa 1987 Constitution. Why is free speech important especially in
a democratic State like the Philippines? It is important because there must be a full discussion of public officers and
their public function. Public officers should not be thin-skinned or onion-skinned balat-sibuyas. You expect criticism
which must be for the common good. Nung tinanggap mo ang trabaho for public office. They have the right to be
criticized because their salary comes from the people.

Public opinion is the source of liberty and democracy. The test here is bonafide or good faith at nabanggit na ito sa
privilege communication. Sa New York Times vs. Sullivan a landmark case on free speech which cited the importance
of free press. Public discussion is a political duty. It is a right to speak ones mind. Nag-publish ang New York Times
ng isang story tungkol sa isang police na pinad-lock daw ng police ang isang school canteen sa iskwelahan na parang
racist siya. Sabi ng hepe na si Sullivan, he is the commissioner of the city he is the one being referred to na nag-utos ng
closure dahil wala namang iba. Kahit sabihin mo na ikaw yun ikaw ay public official and it pertains to your official
function. You should not be thin-skinned. Kung meron mang erroneous sa report sabi ng SC erroneous statement is
inevitable in free speech. Kung babawasan ang guarantee sa free speech simply because it might be erroneous the one
that will suffer is the free debate. Whatever is sided to the field of libel is taken from the free debate. Kapag nagkaroon
ng speech may speaker. Merong intended receiver. Pag nagsasalita ka ng wala kang kausap medyo may sayad ka o
nagkakabisado ka. In between nandiyan ang speech.

A police officer applies for a warrant to search a publishing house. According to him said publishing house is producing
smut materials which are obscene thus an affront to the peoples public morals. The court should deny the application.
As a rule a warrant to search a place must be based on facts and circumstances which have a direct connection to the
probable cause. Here, the police in saying that the materials in the premises are obscene is not based on facts and
circumstances but his mere conclusion of law.

Assumptions: (1) imputation of a wrong, vice (may tulo ka or to blacken the memory of the dead) or defect (cheater
ka); (2) publication; and (3) identifiable:

SPEAKER (person) SPEECH (content) RECEIVER (person) LIBEL? (if statement is . . .)

1. Private private private True: Yes; False: Yes.

Example: Hoy pare alam mo ba na si Tasing ay nakiki-apid sa driver ko. Truth is not a defense against libel.
You cannot publish the private life of a private person. This is called GAG Law. I am curious why this
law does not appear in discussions in law books. Another is SHIELD Law. Under this law, a reporter
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of his information. Otherwise remove this protection and obtain
the information from the reporter by compulsion no one will witness or whistleblow on issues involving
corrupt acts of public official for fear of either imprisonment or violence or even death. As a result the
public will suffer. They will no longer be informed.

2. Private Private Public True: Yes; False: Yes

Being a public official does not mean losing his private life.

In Nos. 1 and 2 malice is presumed or there is malice in law because involved is the private life of a private person. It
need not be proved. Take note that malice is an element. In libel the offending party has the burden of proving all the
elements except this one because it is presumed in this particular case.

3. Private Public (official function) Public True: Yes;

False: With malice: Yes;
Without malice: No.

Mario is a public official who entered into a government contract which provides stipulations and agreements that are
disadvantageous to public interest. As a citizen I have a privilege communication to say that. I have a legal, moral and
social duty to say this because the disadvantageous agreements affect the public who are taxpayers. I filed an action.
Thus, the public official filed libel against me. All elements are present. The question is whether there is malice. Hindi
ko naman talaga trabaho mag-report nang ganito, concern lang ako. Since ako ang sinampahan ng libel, the public
official must prove that I did it in the absence of good faith therefore with malice. There is bad faith in order to convict
me. Here there is no presumption of malice because my publication is not about his private life but his public and
official function affecting public interest. This is not malice in law but malice in fact.

4. Press Private Private True: Yes; False: Yes.

A member of the press has no business reporting the private life of a private person. It does not give you an extra
privilege to malign a private person about his private life. In fact dahil private matter ito at walang public interest
involved, ito ay malice in law agad. Presumed agad ang malice.

5. Press Public Private True: No:

False: With malice: Yes;
Without malice: No.

Paano nagkaroon ng public interest ang isang isyu patungkol sa isang private person. Maybe because the private person
is a public figure. Sino ang mga ito? Those who because of their profession, lifestyle, fame, accomplishment, mode of
living or by adopting a calling which gives a public a legitimate interest in their doings, affairs, character have become a
public personage or celebrities. The SC cited in Ayer Productions vs. Judge Capulong. Kung may public interest
about that private person parang naging public person na rin siya dahil public figure siya.

6. Press Private Public

7. Press Public Public True: No; False: No.

Kung public official ang involve na may kinalaman sa kanyang public function at member ka ng press. At dahil trabaho
bilang press ay mag-report ang presumption ng law ay ginawa mo ang reporting out of legal, social and moral duty. So
walang presumption ng malice. Kung meron mang malice, it is the public official who will prove that you did it out of
bad faith and there is malice. Hindi ikaw ang magpapatunay na you did it in good faith.

Summary:

Private(Private)Private: Apply GAG Law because the statement is about the private life of a person.

Private(Private)Public: Apply GAG Law because the statement is about the private life of a person.

Press(Private)Public: Apply GAG Law because the statement is about the private life of a person.

In all the foregoing cases malice is presumed because it is about the private life of a person.

PrivatePublicPrivate/Public, the private person who does not even possess a duty to make an information public
must prove he did it out of good faith. The one accusing libel is not the proper party to prove that you did it out of bad
faith. Kasi nga hindi niya naman talaga trabaho yun e.

PressPublicPrivate/Public, the presumption is that the press member did it out of good faith because it his job or
duty to report. The one accusing libel should prove the member of the press did it out of bad faith.

Public official, personage, figure, pagka public ang interest walang libel. Kapag private interest merong libel kasi
private life. Kapag presspublicpublic walang libel because it involves a public official regarding his official public
function and the one who is making the publication or reporting has the duty to do so. The public official accused of a
wrong doing must prove bad faith on the part of the member of the press to prove a case of libel. The presumption kasi
ay walang malice. Kung hindi mapatunayan, walang libel, whether true or false ang inulat ng press. Why? Kasi hindi
naman pwede ma-guarantee lahat ng oras ang truthfulness ng isang report. Pag ni-require ang press lahat ng sasabihin
ay totoo, wala nang magrereport dahil sa takot na maparusahan. Paano kung reliable source but it turned out not to be
true tapos kakasuhan mo siya. Wala nang magrereport. The public will suffer ultimately dahil hindi na sila mabibigyan
ng chance na ma-inform.
So, lahat ng klase ng speeches and expression ay covered ng protection. These are all protected speeches. Pero may
mga unprotected speeches like those that are alarming and scandalousalarm and scandal. Sabi nga ni Thomas
Jefferson you do not have the right to shout fire inside a movie house. Ibig lang niya sabihin ay hindi porket may free
speech ka pwede ka magsalita ng kahit ano anytime and anywhere. Hindi absolute. Pero syempre fundamental right ito
e. One of the highest in the hierarchy lalo kung may clear and present danger. Another example is inciting to sedition
or rebellion. Pero bago mo malaman kung ano ito dapat alam mo kung ano ang sedition or rebellion. It is a crime, an act
to overthrow a government through violence or forcethe means of which na hindi maganda. Now you dont have to
wait for the actual rebellion or sedition to happen by the time na mangyari yun wala ng gobyerno na magpo-protekta sa
iyo. Kaya ang inciting palang ay crime na. Halimbawa, na isang crowd or assembly ka syempre mainit ang ulo ng tao.
Sugod tayo sa Palasyo putulin ang ulo ng Presidente. This is inciting to sedition kahit sumugod sila o hindi. There is a
pent up of emotion being in a rally tapos public official ka pa. Meaning capable ka of inciting. Kasi kung ang
magsasabi nito ay taong grasa, hindi siya paniniwalaan at hindi niya mapapasunod ang tao. Take note walang inciting to
commit rape. Another is libel, defamation, hate or curse words, fighting words. Hindi porke pinupuri hindi libel yun. Uy
beautiful eyes ka e duling. Galing mo rumampa e pilay. Praise undeserved is libel in disguise. Hindi porke nagmumura
libel na. Putang ina Puta ang inamay imputation of a wrong. Malicious ba? Depende sa sitwasyon. Parang sa mga
nakatambay sa kanto murahan nang murahan pero hindi naman nag-aaway.

An affront on the Constitutional guarantee on a persons right to free speech:

Prior restraint an official government restriction on the ? ? ? CHECK YOUR BOOK ! ! !

This is not absolute. May limitation. Doon sa Luneta hostage taking incident dapat nagkaroon ng news blackout. Yung
hostage taker may tv sa loob ng bus at nakikita niya ang bawat report ng media sa labas. Nakita niya ang kapatid niya
kinakaladkad ng pulis. Nabwisit. Kaya pinatay ang mga hostages. A prior restraint in this case is justified dahil
merong clear and present danger.

Ganun din ang isang grupo ng media practitioners na inimbitahan sa pamamagitan ng isang liham ng isang heneral na
sundalo sa isang military camp para sa isang palitan ng political views and opinion. Imbes na paunlakan ang paanyaya
nagsampa ng petisyon sa High Court ang nasabing grupo on the ground that the actuation and conduct of the army
general is in the nature of a prior restraint. Sagot ng army general hindi pa ripe for a controversy ang petisyon dahil
invitation pa lang naman at wala pa siyang ginagawa. Therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction for a judicial
review of the petition. The Court however says it can take cognizance of and has jurisdiction over the case on the
ground of transcendental importance because it involves curtailment of a fundamental rightfreedom of speech.
Sagot ng militar wala namang prior restraint that could create a chilling effect kasi invitation lang naman. Pwede
silang pumunta o hindi. Invitation man pero how can one refuse an invitation from a military general at a military camp
no less. The High Court ruled that the invitation is a form of prior restraint which creates a chilling effect. Last, the
Court acquired jurisdiction to prevent the same incident from being repeated in the future, and to guide the member of
the bench and the bar.

Minsan ang nangyayari sa freedom of speech nakakabangga ang right to privacy ng isang tao. Dito merong balancing
of interest: Lagunzad vs. Gonzales. Ginawan ng libro ang buhay ni Moises Padilla base sa kanyang public life. Later
may isang producer binili ang copyright ng libro para gawing pelikula. Imbes na puro patayan ginawa ng director
naglagay ng konting romance sa pagitan ni Moises Padilla at ng kanyang tiyahin para hindi naman boring. Napanood ng
pamilya ni Moises at sinabi na paglabag ito sa kanilang right to privacy. Sabi ng producers kung sila naman ang
pipigilan sa pagpapalabas ito ay curtailment ng kanilang right to freedom of expression. The petitioner argued he
already purchased the right to the book. The family (heirs) of Moises Padilla claims that their prior consent to portray
publicly episodes of the life of the deceased, his mother and other relatives was not sought by the petitioner. The right to
protect the memory of the dead is also for the benefit of the living. Sabi ng petitioner, Padilla is a public figure the fact
that no one has the property right over the life of Moises Padilla. The SC says being a public figure does not ipso facto
destroy in toto a persons right to privacy. A little romance was even included in the film which was not based on real
life. Petitioner maintains that it violates his right to free speech and expression. The SC reminds the petitioner that this
right is not absolute and has limitation especially when there is presence of a clear and present danger, or, in this case,
balancing of interest: right to privacy on the one hand, and right to free speech and expression on the other. Under
the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the balancing tilts to the right of privacy.

Compared this to Ayer Productions vs. Judge Capulong. Nagkaroon ng People Power and an Australian film outfit
wants to produce a film on the subject. Prior consent of the main personalities was sought. Enrile declined for personal
reasons. The film outfit proceeded with the filming minus Enrile. Learning that the film proceeded Enrile petitioned the
court to order the respondent to cease, stop and desist filming of A Dangerous Life. It violates his right to privacy. The
outfit argued that stopping them would curtail their freedom of speech and expression. The High Court ruled in favor of
freedom of speech and expression. Enrile cited the Lagunzad case. The High Court explains that right to privacy is not
absolute; it has limitations. A limitation is permissible if the person is a public figure and the information sought
about him or sought to be published about him constitute matters of public concern. People Power Edsa
Revolution is not only a matter of national concern but of international concern. Enrile is a person who by his
accomplishment, fame, lifestyle, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his
doings, affairs, and character has become a public personage or a celebrity. The Court adds the following differences
between the Lagunzad case and Enriles:

In Lagunzad there was no prior restraint. In fact kaya nga nalaman ng pamilya dahil napanood nila ang pelikula. Sa
kaso ni Enrile hindi pa ginagawa ang pelikula pinatitigil na. Nag-file na agad ng TRO si Enrile.

Another limitation in the freedom of speech and expression is it is limited to the fair administration of justice. Kaya nga
ba pag may pending case we cannot publicly discuss the merits of the case otherwise that is sub judice and will be cited
by the court in contempt. Bakit bawal ang discussion on the merits of the case? Baka ma-influence ang court in making
the decision. Meron isang kaso nagdecide ang court in favor of A vs. B. B is a group of farmers. Luis Taruc the founder
of Hukbalahap which later became a rebel group, wrote a letter to the secretary of justice asking bakit mali ang desisyon
ng court. The court involved cited him in contempt dahil may subjudice. Sabi ng High Court the subjudice rule is not
applicable because the case has become final. The judge is not exempt from public criticism. Tapos na nga e paano pa
maimpluwensyahan ang kaso?

Noong panahon ni Cory Aquino nagkaroon ng kudeta. First time na magkaroon tayo ng commander-in-chief na babae.
At the height of the kudeta Cory did not appear in public as advised by his advisers. Louie Beltran wrote in his weekly
column and accused the President of hiding under her bed at the height of the coup. Cory denied it. Mr. Beltran said it
was only a figure of speech. Cory would have let the accusation pass on the ground of their friendship but to avoid
demoralization of the military Cory filed libel case against Louie Beltran who argues that he only exercised his right to
free press. Mr. Beltran was acquitted but did not live to witness it.

Raul Gonzales was the SOJ of Gloria Arroyo while Narvasa was a Justice of the High Court. Gonzales a former head of
the now defunct Tanodbayan, Ombudsman at present, revealed an expose(i) that the Office of the Tanodbayan has been
receiving letters from the Justices of the High Court asking for accommodation and requests for assistance in favor of
friends and associates, most of which are from Justice Narvasa or the famous Dear Raul letters. With the aid and
consent of Raul the Philippine Inquirer published these letters. Gonzales was told by the High Court to stop what he is
doing and the Court will conduct an internal investigation. But Gonzales did not heed so he was cited in contempt. The
only case decided by the High Court that did not discussed the facts but only disposed of a decision. The purpose is to
avoid erosion of the publics trust in the High Court. Gonzales was disbarred. His license was later restored when he
was appointed as SOJ of Gloria. So for the fair administration of justice the right to free press is limited.

Nestle(i) corporation has a long history of labor strikes in the Philippines. In one case while awaiting a decision of the
High Court the people rallied along Taft Avenue in front of the High Court office. The loud noise created prevented the
Court from performing its duties. Later the Court issued a circular appointing a distance between the protesters who
want to express their right to speech and expression and any judicial boards all over the country to enable the courts to
perform their function in ensuring a fair administration of justice.

Another unprotected speech is obscenity. In the US porn is not prohibited except to minors. Porke ba nakahubo o
nakahubad obscene na? Si Venus de Milo nakahubo. UP Oblation din. Sa anatomy books puro nakahubo at hubad.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholdermotto ito ng mga pangit. So ano ang standard? Standard of the Pope (popish)?
Pimp (laswa)? Dapat may common standardAverage Person Test. Who is he? Looking at literature or film whether
obscene or not un average person kung para kanino available yun material. Kaya mahalaga ang oras ng pagtatanghal o
pagpapalabas. Saan ipapalabas? Sino mga manonood? Kung ang palabas mo sa television ay religiousAng Dating
Daan, tapos nagagalit ka sa Tamang Daan. Biglang nagsalita si Eli Soriano at sabihan si Michael ng INC: Daig pa ang
putang babae. MTRCB suspended the airing of the program at kinasuhan si Eli. He answered that it was only a figure
of speech. Maaari nga. Pero nasa primetime slot na kung saan maraming nanonood na kabataan na hindi alam kung alin
ang figure of speech sa hindi. Isa pa, it is a religious program kaya maraming nanonood. Therefore, the Average Test
standard shall be of a child because a child is most probably watching the program. And in the average standard of a
child what could be a figure of speech for Eli Soriano is obscene for a child.

May literature na obscene, hindi sine-censor ang buong literature kundi ang mga particular passages and the rest iiwan.
Lalo kung isolated part lang naman. In relation to films, parts thereof that are obscene do not constitute banning the
entire film. Only those parts that are obscene that are deleted. This is Isolated Passage Test of obscenity means only
particular passages are restrained. But this was changed in the light of US vs. Roth. If the dominant theme of the
literature or film has a social redeeming value even if there are isolated passage/s of nudity or obscenity the entire film
or literature is not obscene based on the dominant theme which has a social redeeming value. Dominant Theme Test or
Social Redeeming Value Test. These tests are pronounced in the Roth Doctrine.

Although there is a certain social redeeming value but the dominant theme of the film or literature only caters to the
prurient interest (makamundong pagnanasa) then it is obscene. Doon titingnan sa dominant theme.

Schindlers List, a 1993 American epic historical period drama film, directed and co-produced by Steven Spielberg.
Merong ayaw na eksena ang MTRCB un pumping scene between a soldier and his wife. Ramos reversed the decision of
the MTRCB. Had it reached the SC the dominant theme test would have been applied.

On the other hand, when the dominant theme of a one-hour film shows for a full 50 minutes raping and pure sexual
adventures with only 10 minutes devoted to impart to the audience that crime does not pay, although there is presence
of a social redeeming value but the dominant theme (raping and pure sexual adventures) caters to the prurient interest
then it is obscene.

A photographer takes pictures of female natives of the Mountain Province exposing their breasts. Community
Standard Test is applied. Under this test the culture, belief and values of a community shall be taken into account.

Bakit ang isang pelikula pinayagan maipalabas sa France pero dito sa Pilipinas hindi? Examine on a larger view the
culture and values of the French and the Filipinos then compare. It could be the reason based on the National Standard
Test.

Sabi naman ng US napakalaki nito para magkaroon ng one national character. May area na napaka-loose like Las
Vegas, there are conservatives. Dapat doon sa community lang. Sino sa community ang daming tao dun? Only the
aggregate community using the Aggregate Community Standard Test.

Dati walang Board of Censors for tv and film dahil wala pang naimbentong television at film. Then came film or
motion picture with no sound. Films are exhibited without cuts on the first day of showing. In the event there are
obscene parts they are cut. Wala nga namang prior restraint pero may isolated passage because they are obscene and
obscenity is an unprotected speech. Kaya lang ang problema lalo sa mga Pilipino sa sitwasyong ganito maparusahan
man ang director, producer at lahat-lahat na, hindi na maiaalis sa isip ng tao na nakapanood ng obscene na pelikula. So
merong clear and present danger sa public morals. Kaya pinayagan ang Board of Censors but with conditions
because it is a form of restraint na kahit ano na lang ang tatanggalin.

Burden of proof is on the State not on anyone else;

Decision of the Board is appealable to the regular courts.

Ngayon noong panahon ni Marcos ang tawag ay Board of Censors. When martial law was declared censorship is an
anathema (vehement dislike) to a democratic order. To remove the stigma of censorship Board of Review for
Motion Pictures and Television chaired by Maria Kalaw Katigbak. Later it was changed to MTRCB by virtue of
PD 1986. Classify kung G, PG, PG-13, PG-17, etc. at pwede sila mag-cut. Kasagsagan ng martial law some
distinguished film and tv heavyweights criticized MTRCB for its imprudent judgments. A film by Lino Brocka Kapit
Sa Patalim was given the X rating. Questioned it before the MTRCB on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
The High Court ruled that indeed there was abuse of discretion but such was not grave. The Roth Doctrine was
applied. Later what was sought by the film community is self-censorship. During the time of President Estrada,
Chairperson Armida Siguion Reyna made it a policy not to cut but only review and classify although PD 1986 they are
allowed to cut. Submit for review and classification to the MTRCB, if marked X the film will not be shown. In order to
reverse the decision the producer and director, based on the review and recommendation of the Board, will do the taking
out of scenes restrained for exhibition for being obscene. If the classification is changed to one degree lower and the
producer and director appeals for an improved rating, again, based on the review and recommendation of the Board,
they will have to do the taking out of scenes themselves. So forth and so on. Take note that even titles of films as well
as advertisements fall under the jurisdiction and control of the MTRCB: Patikim Ng P Nya., Mano Nyo Pa.
Under the rules and guidelines of the Board kahit na ang title ay hindi literal na masama pero kung ang tunog o pag-
conjugate ng words or dialects, foreign or local, at may ibang dating, obscene yun. Ang classification ay depende sa
committee na nagpapasya. Ano ang standard? Walang malinaw na standard to guide the film producers and directors
lalo kapag gawa na ang film. It is tantamount to curtailment of their right to free expression. Ngayon meron na.
TemaLengwaheKarahasanSekswalHorrorDroga.
Least restricted ang print media: dyaryo, libro. Hindi kasi agad available ang ganitong materials sa publiko. Bibili ka
pa at babasahin mo pa. Iintindihin mo pa.

Sa film kahit hinango sa libro mabilis ang transmission ng mensahe sa audience. Mas mabilis kasi passive kaya mas
restricted kaysa sa print.

Pero mas restricted ang television dahil mas mabilis ang access. Buksan lang ang television okay na. Considered ang
day and time kaya mas restricted kaysa sa film.

Pero mas restricted ang radio kaysa sa television depende sa day and time. Sa tv magbubukas ka pa. Sa radio kahit
hindi ikaw ang magbukas o ibang tao kahit saang lugar maririnig mo na agad ang broadcast. It is more pervasive than
television.

Ang pinaka-restricted ay live shows dahil hindi madadaya tulad ng frontal nudity o anumang sexual adventure unlike
sa film. People vs. Padan Y Alova.

Because of the speed of technology obscene videos that are being viewed online become uncontrollable. The questions
are: who will regulate? How will you regulate?

In the case of St. Therese College. Yun batang estudyante nag-post ng medyo sexually provocative photos. She shared
them in public. STC took disciplinary actions on the student. The girl in turn counter-filed an action. The SC ruled that
since her social networking account was not placed in private settings she cannot a have a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
Kasama sa right to freedom of speech, expression and press ay ang right to peaceably assemble. What is protected by
the Constitution is a peaceful assembly. Contrary wise the Constitutions protection is wanting. Kung gusto mong
magkaroon ng assembly hindi mo kailangan ng permit from the government. To assemble is a fundamental right. You
do not ask a permission from government to talk or to associate as part of your humanity. But why is permit necessary
prior to holding a rally? It is to advice the government of a rally so it can take the necessary precaution to prevent any
untoward incident. Moreover it is not for the exercise of the right but in order for the usage of the place fair. Dahil
hindi naman private ang kalsada. Baka magsalpukan ang pro and anti rallyists kaya dapat may schedule din at may
specific na lugar, at ang purpose is not contrary to law. In the event a permit is denied, kailangan: First, i-inform
ang applicant agad-agad so that they can seek judicial recourse. Second, kailangan ang reason for the denial ay
merong clear and present danger and the burden to show it is on the government and not on the applicant. In JBL
Reyes case he led a rally of protesters but was denied prior permit by the local government of Manila, Mayor Bagatsing
at that time. The denial was on the reason that there is clear and present danger based on a repoort. The High Court
ruled that the city government of Manila must prove that there was indeed such serious contingency that existed based
on a report. But such report was not submitted.

A rally or assembly in front of the US Embassy is prohibited within 500 meters pursuant to the Geneva Convention.
The High Court ruled that no proof was shown that the rally held was within the prohibited 500 meters. Second,
assuming it is, it should still be tested against the clear and present danger test, a Constitutional doctrine higher than
any Convention. Pero actually wala namang conflict sa pagitan ng international law and constitutional law because sa
international law on civil and political rights and the universal declaration of human rights because these laws protect
these rights against State intervention. Ngayon there is BP 880 or the Public Assembly Act a rally held in a private
place no permit is required from the government except from the owner of the private property. Unless the owner
himself is part of the rally. No permit likewise is required in compounds of state universities and colleges, subject to
the reasonable rules and regulations of the school. If a rally is held in a Freedom Park. Under RA 7160 every LGU
must designate a freedom park where people can stage a rally without a permit: Luneta, Sunken Garden, QC Memorial
Circle and Plaza Miranda are examples of freedom parks. In David vs. Arroyo the SC says if LGUs do not designate a
freedom park then all open spaces and areas in the city are freedom parks. Nag-rally sa plaza ang isang religious sect,
hindi binigyan ng permit ng mayor dahil isasagawa sa harap ng simbahan ng kalabang relihiyon. The mayor should
assign an alternative location. The location should be capable of being seen in full public view. Huwag naman yun lugar
na walang dumadaan dahil walang makikinig sa mga protesters.

Former Senator Butz Aquino led a rally to Malakanyang. They were stalled by police officers. Since a church was near
the Palace Butz and company argued that they were really going to St. Jude to hear mass. The police likewise prevented
them. Butz petitioned the High Court alleging that the government violated their right to freedom of expression, speech
and religion. The High Court ruled that even assuming for arguments sake that the rallyists were going to hear mass but
Malakanyang is the seat of government the location of which is adjacent to St. Jude, shouting protests against the
government. What the police did was a valid restriction of their rights.

Students of Gregorio Araneta Colleges Foundation protested the tuition fee increases the school imposed. A permit
was issued which stated that the rally shall be for two hours and shall be limited to the gymnasium of the school. At
the end of the allotted time the protesters moved about shouting and blowing horns which caused a terrible disruption of
class sessions and lectures. The students were penalized by the school with expulsion. Sabi ng Court, may duty ang
school to impose reasonable rules and regulations therefore valid ang exercise. Ang hindi valid ay ang penalty
imposed. Not commensurate to the offense because they were exercising a constitutional right. Of course it may be
limited pero napakabigat ng penalty of expulsion. The school later decided to lift the order and the students were just
disallowed to enrol for the next semester because their contract has ended. Given the change in policy, the Court ruled
that the contract of a student with a school is no longer per semester but until he graduates therefrom.

Isang student hindi pa natatapos ang course hindi na pwede mag-enroll sa school. He argues that his contract is until his
graduation. The reason is not based on his political ideology but on his poor academic performance. Such rules and
regulations are reasonable and are within the prerogative of the school administration to pursue.

Public school teachers held a rally. They were disciplined by the DepEd. The discipline was appropriate because there
was stoppage of work in government being public employees and their not allowed to hold a rally which is equivalent to
a strike in the private sector.

Anti-Cybercrime Act. Here, what were declared as constitutional and valid is the regulation of acts in violation of
the use of the internet, aiding and abetting the commission of cybercrimes like:

illegal access;

illegal interference,

illegal data interference,

misuse of devices,

cybersquatting,

computer-related forgery,

computer-related fraud,

computer-related theft.

Declared unconstitutional:

aiding and abetting in the commission of cybercrime for commercial communication or advertisement through the
use of the internet or spam.

Bakit ipagbabawal yun e wala pang computer ginagawa na ang pagbibigay ng flyers for commercial purposes. Pwede
namang i-block yun kung ayaw ng recipient yun. Paano kung gusto pala, na-deprive pa siya ng information.

Child Pornography Act. Aiding and abetting the commission of libel. Kunwari sinabi mo ang kaklase mo ay lahi ng
mga walang hiya. Libelous ito. Worse nilagay mo pa sa internet. At ang mga friends mo naman nag-Like or nag-
Retweet. Hindi abetting or aiding ang pag-Like. Ano ba ang nila-Like? Minsan kahit ano ang ilagay sa FB basta
gustong i-Like pwede. Iba kapag comment: tama yan! Ako rin niloko niyan. Another libel na ito.

Fear of subsequent punishment

This is also not absolute and has a limitation. Inciting to sedition, libel may punishment ito.