Media Law - Comm106

  Gonzales v. Comelec (April 18, 1969) Facts. Arsenio Gonzales, petitioner; Felicisimo R. Cabigao, co-petitioner;   Commission on Elections, respondent Senator Lorenzo Ta ñ ada (amicus curiae) Petitioners challenged the validity of two new sections included in the Revised Elect ion 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...

  Near v. Minnesota (argued: January 30 1931; dec ided June 1, 1931) Brief Fact Summary. A Minnesota law that “gagged” a periodical from publishing derogatory statements about local public officials was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court). Synopsis of Rule of Law. The freedom of press is essential to the nature of a free state but that freedom may be restricted by the government in certain situations. Facts. The Saturday Press published attacks on local officials September 24 - November 19, 1927; (eight subsequent dates in October and November 1927) (what and when) Jay M. Near (appellant and defendant) and Howard A. Guilford (defendant) They published and circulated nine editions of the periodical which were “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” to chief of police, Frank W. Brunskill; special law enforcement officer, Charles A. Davis; Minneapolis mayor, George E. Leach; county attorney/prosecutor who is also the relator in...

  New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)   Initial background. 1967 - Robert Mcnamara (then-secretary of defense) commissioned a secret government study on American involvement in Vietnam. The “classified” project has 47 volumes containing more than 7,000 pages. 1971 - Daniel Ellsberg secretly made 15 copies of the documents and passed them onto NYT. June 13, 1971 - The Times published “Pentagon Papers” After three installments, Nixon ordered restraining order, barring the papers’ further publication Second circuit COA affirmed order. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (June 26). Court issued opinions on June 30. Entire legal process took 15 days.   Facts. The US government sought an injunction against the publication by the NY Times over the contents of a classified study (what) entitled History of US Decision-Making Process on Vietnam Policy. Washington Post, too, beg...

  Corro v. Lising Facts: The search warrant was issued on September 29, 1983 (when) The Philippine Times office (where) RTC Judge Esteban Lising – issued warrant (who); Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo – PC CSI filed warrant (who) Printed copies; drafts for publication; newspaper dummies; subversive docs, articles, handbills, leaflets, banners, printed matters; machines – typewriter, duplicating, mimeographing, tape recording, video, tapes (what were seized) Sedition - indirect act of treason; Art 142 Revised Penal Code (why) Issues: Whether or not the search warrant was valid   Held: No. Search warrants authorizing the return of books and accounts “showing all business transactions” of certain persons, regardless of whether legal or otherwise, contravenes the Bill of Rights. Things to be seized should be particularly described.   Decisions/ruling: Search warrant No. Q-00002 issued by respondent judge was declared null and void and accordingly set aside. ...

  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...

  Navarro v. Villegas (G.R. L-31687, 26 Feb 1970)   Resolution: 1 concur in separate opinion, 2 dissented Facts. On February 24, 1970, Nelson Navarro (petitioner), acting in behalf of the Movement of a Democratic Philippines, wrote a letter to Antonio J. Villegas (respondent), the Mayor of the City of Manila, applying to hold a rally at Plaza Miranda on February 26, 1970 from 4 to 11 p.m.   On the same day, the respondent wrote a reply, denying his request on the grounds that, they have temporarily adopted the policy of not issuing any permit for the use of Plaza Miranda for rallies or demonstrations during weekdays due to the events that happened from the past week.   On the same letter, the respondent gave the petitioner an option to use the Sunken Garden near Intramuros for its rally, and for it to be held earlier for it to end before dark. Mayor Villegas has not denied nor absolutely refused the permit sought by Navarro. The petitioner filed suit ...

  Gonzales vs. Katigbak Facts: The motion picture in question, Kapit sa Patalim , was classified “For Adults Only.” There is the further issue then, also one of first impression, as to the proper test of what constitutes obscenity in view of the objections raised. In a resolution of a sub-committee of respondent Board of October 23, 1984, a permit to exhibit the film Kapit sa Patalim under the classification “For Adults Only,” with certain changes and deletions enumerated was granted. Then on November 12, 1984, respondent Board released its decision to withhold issuance of permit to exhibit until these deficiencies are supplied. Hence this petition. This Court, in a resolution of January 12, 1985, required respondent to answer. In such pleading submitted on January 21, 1985, as one of its special and affirmative defenses, it was alleged that the petition is moot as "respondent Board has revoked its questioned resolution, replacing it with one immediately granting petitioner...