Media Law - Comm106

1. In her daily morning radio program at DYUP, Janna Namula was red-faced in anger lambasting the members of the President's cabinet and other Malacanang officials, describing them as utterly dishonest and wasteful of people's money. The following day, a group of officials and employees of the Presidential Communications Operations Office who heard the broadcast and felt alluded to, considering they have been accused before of spending millions on food catering and out-of-town trips, filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Namula for uttering what the group claimed to be defamatory statements in her radio program. If you were the judge, how would you resolve the case? Decide with reasons.   Answer: There was no definite person or persons dishonored. The crime of libel or oral defamation is a crime against honor such that the person or persons dishonored must be identifiable even by innuendos; otherwise, the crime against honor is not committed. The PCOO was not named nor its

  1.       The party-list Gabay sa Ideolohiya at Hakbang Abante para sa Kalusugan (GIAHAK) wants access to the lists of offers made by the World Health Organization representatives and its accredited pharmaceutical firms, including all annexes and attachments to the lists, during the negotiation process for the mass procurement of vaccines against COVID-19. Should GIAHAK be given access to said lists?   Answer: No, because the said offers during the diplomatic negotiation process were made in confidence and disclosing them could impair our ability to deal with international agencies or foreign governments in the future.   2.     Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel.               Answer: Privileged communication   3.     The complementing regime that limits freedom of speech and of the press are                Answer: prior restraint and subsequent punishment   4.     In determini

  ABS-CBN v. COMELEC (2000) Facts. The Resolution was issued by the Comelec upon “information from a reliable source that ABS-CBN (Lopez Group) has prepared a project, with PR groups to conduct radio-TV coverage of the elections...and to make an exit survey of the … vote during the elections for national officials particularly for President and Vice president, results of which shall be (broadcast immediately.” The electoral body believed that such project might conflict with the official Comelec count, as well as the unofficial quick count of the National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). It also noted that it had not authorized or deputized petitioner ABS-CBN to undertake the exit survey. On 9 May 1998, this Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order prayed for by petitioner. We directed the Comelec to cease and desist, until further orders, from implementing the assailed Resolution or the restraining order i

  MTRCB v. ABS-CBN (2005) Facts. Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), petitioner; ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and Loren Legarda, respondents On October 15, 1991 at 10:45 p.m, ABS-CBN aired “Prosti-tuition” an episode of the TV program “The Inside Story” produced and hosted by Loren Legarda. It depicted female students moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. In the course of the program, student prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some faculty members were interviewed. The Philippine Women’s University (PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of the PWU building at Taft Avenue, Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode. Its showing caused uproar in the PWU community. Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, chancellor and trustee of the PWU, and the Parents and Teachers Association filed letter complaints with petitioner

  Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014) Facts. The government has the duty to and the right to prevent cybercrimes from happening and punish their perpetrators, hence the Cybercrime Prevention Act.   But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime law for regulating undesirable cyberspace activities violate certain of their constitutional rights. Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the 21 provisions of the cybercrime law that regard certain acts as crimes and impose penalties for their commission as well as provisions that would enable the government to track down and penalize violators. Pending hearing and adjudication of the issues presented in these cases, on February 5 2013, the Court extended the original 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) that it earlier issued on October 9 2012, enjoining respondent government agencies from implementing the cybercrime law until further orders.