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
determining if the work is obscene or not, this looks into whether the average
person, applying contemporary "community standards", would find that
the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
Answer:
Miller vs. California
5. Freedom
of speech and of expression cannot be qualified by or subject to government
regulation.
Answer:
False
6. Malice
which the law presumes from every statement whose tenor is defamatory
Answer: Malice in law
7. The
following are essential to a democratic system of governance, except one
Answer: Freedom of contract
8. Onion-skinned
doctrine
Answer:
U.S. vs. Bustos
9. Commercial
speech is entitled to
Answer:
lesser protection compared to other
constitutionally guaranteed expression
10. The
freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than
the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media.
Answer:
True
11. Prior
restraint by government may be allowed in the following speech, except
Answer: Libelous or defamatory speech
12. A
speech that attacks another religion can be a subject of prior restraint.
Answer:
False
13. "Law"
in Art III Sec 4 isn’t limited to statutes and local ordinances; executive and
judicial actions shall also not abridge freedom of expression.
Answer: True
14. This rule in the restriction of
freedom of speech states that the evil consequence of the comment or utterance
must be 'extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high' before
the utterance can be punished.
Answer: Clear and present danger rule
15. Symbolic
speech is protected speech.
Answer: True
16. Can
be negated by evidence that, in fact, the alleged libelous or defamatory
utterance was made with good motives and justifiable ends, or that the
utterance was privileged in character
Answer: Malice in law
17. Presentation
in a sensational manner of a report containing derogatory information against a
public official makes the newspaper article libelous per se.
Answer: False
18. Unsolicited
advertisements, as in the case of email spams, are legitimate forms of expression.
Answer: True
19. Following
are the exceptions to the application of the right to information under the
Constitution, except one
Answer: Government-private sector contracts,
Chavez vs. PCGG (G.R. No. 130716)
20. Following
are aspects of freedom of the press, except
Answer: freedom from being exposed to misinformation
21. Which
is considered an act of aiding or abetting in a crime of libel as regards an
openly defamatory statement online?
Answer: None of the above
22. When
is proof of truth admissible in the defense against the crime of libel?
Answer:
23. The
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press is embodied in what provision
of the 1987 Constitution?
Answer: Article III, Section 4
24. The
right to information is a public right and as such, a private person is said to
have no right to or interest in information of public interest or concern by
mere fact that he is a citizen. He must show first that he is directly affected
by such information before he is allowed access thereto.
Answer:
False, The right of the people to information and access to
official records, documents and papers is a right guaranteed under Section 7,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner, a former solicitor general,
is a Filipino citizen. Because of the satisfaction of the two basic requisites
laid down by decisional law to sustain petitioner's legal standing, i.e. (1)
the enforcement of a public right (2) espoused by a Filipino citizen, we rule
that the petition at bar should be allowed. - Chavez vs. PCGG (G.R. No. 130716)
25. Becomes
necessary only if the malice in law has been rebutted
Answer: Malice in fact
Comments
Post a Comment