Skip to main content

Case Digest: Gonzales v. Comelec (April 18, 1969)

 

Gonzales v. Comelec (April 18, 1969)

Facts.

  1. Arsenio Gonzales, petitioner; Felicisimo R. Cabigao, co-petitioner;  Commission on Elections, respondent
  2. Senator Lorenzo Tañada (amicus curiae)
  3. Petitioners challenged the validity of two new sections included in the Revised Election Code under RA 4880, which prohibits (1) early nomination of candidates, and (2) limits the election campaign period, on constitutional grounds that it invokes the liberty of free speech and free press, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

 

Issue.

Whether/n the freedom of expression be limited

 

Held.

Yes. The freedom of expression is not absolute.

However, the necessary two-thirds vote was not obtained, so “there is no occasion for the power to annul statutes.” (Refer below for the ruling)

 

The Court, in Cabansag v. Fernandez, provides two (2) tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for permissible restriction:

  1. Clear and present danger rule - the evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence high before the utterance can be punished. The “danger” must not only be clear but also present. The danger must not only be probable but very likely inevitable.
  2. Dangerous tendency rule - “if the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has the right to prevent, then such words are punishable.” It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force, violence or unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms.

●       “Bring to mind the principle that, the relation between remedy and evil should be of such proximity that unless prohibited, conduct affecting these rights would create a ‘clear and present danger’ that will bring about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” (from Sanchez’ opinion)

Ruling.

Republic Act no. 4880 cannot be declared unconstitutional.

The petition is dismissed and the writ of prayed for is denied.

 

Supplementing facts.

1.)    July 22, 1967 - Petitioners filed action titled Declaratory Relief with Preliminary Injunction

2.)    The Constitutional provision says that, “no treaty or law may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the (Supreme) Court.”

3.)    The petitioners postulated that the right of peaceable assembly is violated by the prohibition on holding political assemblies for a period lasting for more than one year; that the right to to form associations is contravened by forbidding, for the same period, the formation of political groups, that the freedom of speech and of the press is unduly unrestricted by a legislative fiat (order) against speeches and whatsoever whether favorable or not except during the number of days immediately preceding the election. - from Sanchez

4.)    “The clear and present doctrine rightly viewed requires that not only there should be an occasion for the imposition of such restrictions but also that they be limited in scope.”

 

Legal terms.

  1. Amicus curiae - Latin for “friend of the court:” a person or group who is not a party to an action, but has a strong interest in the matter, will petition the court for permission to submit a brief in the action with the intent of influencing the court’s decision. (www.law.cornell.edu)
  2. preliminary injunction - an injunction that may be granted before or during trial, with the goal of preserving the status quo before final judgment.
  3. Proviso - a condition, stipulation, or limitation inserted in a document (legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com)
  4. Vis-a-vis - French term for “in relation to”
  5. Imprimatur - Latin; Let it be printed
  6. Prima facie - “at first face,” “at first appearance,” “at first impression”
  7. Motu propio - (Latin for: "on his own impulse") describes an official act taken without a formal request from another party.
  8. In toto - as a whole

 

Concurring and Dissenting.

Sanchez - see page 9 for the  principle features of which are contained in Section 1, inserting Sections 50-A and 50-B between Sections 50 and 51 of the Revised Election Code 

Subsections c, d, and e of Section 50-b inserted into the Revised Election Code by RA 4480 run smack against the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press, because of vagueness. Because of the indefiniteness created in subsections c, d and e, they readily lend themselves to harsh applications. A vague statute becomes unjust.

 

Dissenting.

Castro. Section 50-b of the Revised Election Code constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of the freedoms of speech, of the press, of peaceful assembly, and of lawful association.

Votes for the total excision (removal) of the statute - of which Dizon, Zaldivar and Capistrano, JJ concur

 

Concurring and Dissenting.

Barredo - votes with Mr. Castro to declare unconstitutional Section 50(b) of RA 4880

Concurring Opinion.

Concepcion, C.J.,

Reyes, J.B.L.,

Makalintal and Teehankee, JJ.,

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. no. 168338 (February 15, 2008)

  Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. no. 168338 (February 15, 2008) Summary of rule of law. Any attempt to restrict press freedom and the right to free speech and free expression must be met with an examination so critical that only a danger that is clear and present would be allowed to curtail it. Facts. The case originates from events that occurred a year after the 2004 national and local elections . 1.       On 5 June 2005, an audiotape of a mobile phone conversation allegedly between the President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a Comelec high-ranking official was released by Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye. It was audiotaped allegedly through wiretapping. 2.       Two versions of the tape were produced: one supposedly the complete version, and the other a spliced, “doctored” version, which would suggest that the President had instructed the Comelec official to manipulate the election results. 3.       On 7 June 2005, for...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Digest: Burgos v. Chief of Staff

  Burgos v. Chief of Staff Facts: 1.       Metropolitan Mail; We Forum; Jose Burgos, Jr. (publisher-editor of We Forum); Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano, executive judge of the Court of First Instance, Q.C.; Col. Rolando Abadilla, warrant petitioner (who) 2.       The two search warrants were issued on December 7, 1982 (when) 3.       No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Q.C. (where) 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Ave. Q.C. (where) 4.       Office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles, articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of, numerous papers, documents, books, other written literature (what were seized). There were subversive documents from the publications - direct act of treason (why) 5.       Aside from the We Forum documents and equipment and subversive documents said to be promoting the objectives of s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Digest: Borjal vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126466)

  Borjal vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126466)   Primary Holding. Requisites for a libel suit: The victim should be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named ;   Not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the person attacked or defamed - at least a third person could identify him to be the object of the libelous publication.   Facts. The conference, which according to private respondent, was estimated to cost around Php1, 815,000.00   would be funded through solicitations from various sponsors. On February 28, 1989, at the organizational meeting of the FNCLT, private respondent Francisco Wenceslao was elected Executive Director. As such, he wrote numerous solicitation letters to the business community for the support of the conference. Between May and July 1989, a series of articles written by petitioner Borjal was published on different dates in his co...
Post a Comment
Read more