2005nr21 38 cons2poli freespeech

7/26/2019 2005nr21 38 Cons2poli Freespeech

1/49

NarrativesConstitutional Law II

Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola2005

Shared under Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-ShareAlie !"0 #hili$$ines license"

Some %i&hts%eserved"


2/49

'able o( Contents

)nited States vs" *ustos +G% L-,252. / March ,,/ """,

*ur&os v" Chie( o( Sta((. A1# +G% 32,. 2 4ecember ,/3

2 New 6or 'imes vs" Sullivan +!7 )S 253. March ,3

! In %89 4eclarator: %elie( %8 Constitutionalit: o( %A 3//0"

Gon;ales vs" Commission on 8lections +G% L-27/!!. ,/ A$ril , 5Social


3/49

Narratives E*erne GuerreroF

30 )nited States vs" *ustos +G% L-,252. / March ,,/First Division, Malcolm (J): 5 concur

1acts9 6n the latter 0art of 171$! numerous citizens of the 'ro*ince of 'am0anga assembled! the 0re0ared

and signed a 0etition to the 4ecuti*e ecretary through the law office of /rossfield 9 :;2rien! and $

indi*iduals signed affida*its! charging oman 'unsalan!


4/49


the wrongful act of any 0ublic officer to bring the facts to the notice of those whose duty it is to in?uire into and

0unish them. 6n the words of Mr. ,ustice Gayner! who contributed so largely to the law of libel. DThe 0eo0le

are not obliged to s0ea= of the conduct of their officials in whis0ers or with bated breath in a free go*ernment!

but only in a des0otism.D The right to assemble and 0etition is the necessary conse?uence of re0ublican

institutions and the com0lement of the right of free s0eech. -ssembly means a right on the 0art of citizens to

meet 0eaceably for consultation in res0ect to 0ublic affairs. 'etition means that any 0erson or grou0 of0ersons can a00ly! without fear of 0enalty! to the a00ro0riate branch or office of the go*ernment for a redress

of grie*ances. The 0ersons assembling and 0etitioning must! of course! assume res0onsibility for the charges

made. 'ublic 0olicy! the welfare of society! and the orderly administration of go*ernment ha*e demanded0rotection for 0ublic o0inion. The ine*itable and incontestable result has been the de*elo0ment and ado0tion

of the doctrine of 0ri*ilege. 'ri*ilege is classified as either absolute or ?ualified. Cith the first! we are not

concerned. -s to ?ualified 0ri*ilege! it is as the words suggest a 0rima facie 0ri*ilege which may be lost by

0roof of malice. - 0ertinent illustration of the a00lication of ?ualified 0ri*ilege is a com0laint made in good faith

and without malice in regard to the character or conduct of a 0ublic official when addressed to an officer or a

board ha*ing some interest or duty in the matter. *en when the statements are found to be false! if there is

0robable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith! the mantle of 0ri*ilege

may still co*er the mista=e of the indi*idual. 2ut the statements must be made under an honest sense of duty@

a self %see=ing moti*e is destructi*e. 'ersonal in


5/49


the freedom of the 0ress guaranteed under the fundamental law! and constitutes a *irtual denial of2urgos! et. al.;s freedom to e40ress themsel*es in 0rint. Thus state of being is 0atently anathematic to ademocratic framewor= where a free! alert and e*en militant 0ress is essential for the 0oliticalenlightenment and growth of the citizenry. -lthough the 0ublic officers would


6/49


him in his office! or want of official integrity! or want of fidelity to a 0ublic trust.D The


7/49


the alleged libel was true in all its factual 0articulars. nder such a rule! would%be critics of official conduct

may be deterred from *oicing their criticism! e*en though it is belie*ed to be true and e*en though it is in fact

true! because of doubt whether it can be 0ro*ed in court or fear of the e40ense of ha*ing to do so. They tend

to ma=e only statements which Dsteer far wider of the unlawful zone.D The rule thus dam0ens the *igor and

limits the *ariety of 0ublic debate. 6t is inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth -mendments.

30 In %89 4eclarator: %elie( %8 Constitutionalit: o( %A 3//0" Gon;ales vs" Commission on8lections +G% L-27/!!. ,/ A$ril ,

En Banc, Fernando (J): $ concur in result, % &iled o"n separate opinions

1acts9 Two new sections were included in the e*ised lection /ode! under e0ublic -ct >88#! whichwasa00ro*ed and too= effect on 15 ,une 17&5! 0rohibiting the too early nomination of candidates andlimiting the 0eriod of election cam0aign or 0artisan 0olitical acti*ity. :n "" ,uly 17&5! -rsenio Gonzalesand Felicisimo . /abigao filed an action entitled D+eclaratory elief with 'reliminary 6n88# would 0re


8/49


Ddangerous tendencyD rule. The /ourt is of the *iew that no unconstitutional infringement e4ists insofar as the

formation of organizations! associations! clubs! committees! or other grou0s of 0ersons for the 0ur0ose of

soliciting *otes or underta=ing any cam0aign or 0ro0aganda or both for or against a candidate or 0arty is

restricted and that the 0rohibition against gi*ing! soliciting! or recei*ing contribution for election 0ur0oses!

either directly or indirectly! is e?ually free from constitutional infirmity. The restriction on freedom of assembly

as confined to holding 0olitical con*entions! caucuses! conferences! meetings! rallies! 0arades or othersimilar assemblies for the 0ur0ose of soliciting *otes or underta=ing any cam0aign or 0ro0aganda or both for

or against a candidate or 0arty! lea*ing untouched all other legitimate e4ercise of such 0oses a more difficult

?uestion. Be*ertheless! after a thorough consideration! it should not be annulled. The other acts! li=ewisedeemed included in Delection cam0aignD or D0artisan 0olitical acti*ityD ta4 to the utmost the


9/49


0ress. Q$.> lays a 0rior restraint on freedom of s0eech! e40ression! and the 0ress 0rohibiting the 0ublication

of election sur*ey results affecting candidates within the 0rescribed 0eriods of 1$ days immediately 0receding

a national election and 5 days before a local election. 2ecause of the 0referred status of the constitutional

rights of s0eech! e40ression! and the 0ress! such a measure is *itiated by a weighty 0resum0tion of in*alidity.

6ndeed! any system of 0rior restraints of e40ression comes to the u0reme /ourt bearing a hea*y

0resum0tion against its constitutional *alidity. The Go*ernment thus carries a hea*y burden of showing fails to meet criterion 3I of the : ;2rien test because the causal

connection of e40ression to the asserted go*ernmental interest ma=es such interest Dnot related to thesu00ression of free e40ression.D 2y 0rohibiting the 0ublication of election sur*ey results because of the

0ossibility that such 0ublication might undermine the integrity of the election! Q$.> actually su00resses a

whole class of e40ression! while allowing the e40ression of o0inion concerning the same sub shows a bias for a 0articular sub also =aldivar vs"Gon;ales +G% /057/

esolution En Banc, *er +uriam: 15 concur

1acts9 c-uired &rom ./ pril 1 decision2nri?ue -. Raldi*ar! go*ernor of the 0ro*ince of -nti?ue!sought! through a 0etition for /ertiorari! 'rohibition! and Mandamus! to restrain the andiganbayan andTanodbayan aul Gonzalez from 0roceeding with the 0rosecution and hearing of /riminal /ases 1"1$7to 1"1&1 and 1"1&3%1"155 on the ground that said cases were filed by said Tanodbayan without legaland constitutional authority! since under the 1785 /onstitution which too= effect on " February 1785! it isonly the :mbudsman (not the 0resent or incumbent Tanodbayan) who has the authority to file caseswith the andiganbayan. imilarly! nri?ue -. Raldi*ar! on substantially the same ground as the first0etition! 0rays that Tanodbayan Gonzalez be restrained from conducting 0reliminary in*estigations andfiling similar cases with the andiganbayan. The u0reme /ourt granted the consolidated 0etitions filedby Raldi*ar and nullified the criminal informations filed against him in the andiganbayan@ and orderedaul Gonzalez to cease and desist from conducting in*estigations and filing criminal cases with theandiganbayan or otherwise e4ercising the 0owers and functions of the :mbudsman.

*resent case2 Tanodbayan Gonzales allegedly made contumacious acts or statements in a 0leading filed before

the /ourt and in statements gi*en to the media. 6n its esolution dated " May 1788! the u0reme /ourt re?uired

Tanodbayan Gonzales to e40lain Dwhy he should not be 0unished for contem0t of court andAor sub


10/49


member of the bar.D Gonzales filed a motion for reconsideration.

Issue9 Chether the statements made by Tanodbayan Gonzales transcended the 0ermissible limits

of frees0eech.

eld9 The Dclear and 0resent dangerD doctrine is not a magic incantation which dissol*es all 0roblems anddis0enses with analysis and


11/49


0ower to su0er*ise and regulate the use and en


12/49


s0eech.

eld9 egardless of whether the /ommunications +ecency -ct of 177& (/+-) is so *ague that it *iolates the

Fifth -mendment! the many ambiguities concerning the sco0e of its co*erage render it 0roblematic for

0ur0oses of the First -mendment. For instance! each of the two 0arts of the /+- uses a different linguistic

form. The first uses the word Dindecent!D while the second s0ea=s of material that Din conte4t! de0icts ordescribes! in terms 0atently offensi*e as measured by contem0orary community standards! se4ual or

e4cretory acti*ities or organs.D Gi*en the absence of a definition of either term! this difference in language will

0ro*o=e uncertainty among s0ea=ers about how the two standards relate to each other and 1! Bo. 1>) of Miriam /ollege;sschool

0a0er (/hi% ho)! and magazine (-ng Magasing 'am0aniti=an ng /hi%ho)! the members of the editorial board!

and elly /ar0io! author of ibog! all students of Miriam /ollege! recei*ed a letter signed by +r. -leli e*illa! /hair

of the Miriam /ollege +isci0line /ommittee. The etter dated > Bo*ember 177> informed them that letters of

com0laint were Dfiled against you by members of the Miriam /ommunity and a concerned -teneo grade fi*e

student ha*e been forwarded to the +isci0line /ommittee for in?uiry and in*estigation. 'lease find enclosed

com0laints. -s e40ressed in their com0laints you ha*e *iolated regulations in the student handboo= s0ecifically

ection " letters 2 and ! 0ages 3# and 3"! ection > (Maand no. " (minor offenses) letter a! 0age 35. Lou are re?uired to submit a written statement in answer to the

chargeAs on or before the initial date of hearing to be held on Bo*ember 1$! 177>! Tuesday! 1## in the afternoon at

the +- /onference oom.D Bone of the students submitted their res0ecti*e answers. They instead re?uested +r.

e*illa to transfer the case to the egional

Constitutional Law II.2005 E ,0 F


13/49


:ffice of the +e0artment of ducation! /ulture and 0orts (+/) which under ule 66 of +/ :rder 7>!eries of 177"! su00osedly had ) +eborah igon >th year student and couldgraduate as summa cum laudeI sus0ension u0 to May 177$@ ($) lizabeth Valdezco sus0ension u0 to(summer) March 177$@ (&) /amille 'ortuga :ctoberianI graduation 0ri*ileges withheld! including di0loma@

(5) ,oel Tan sus0ension for " wee=s to e40ire on " February 177$@ (8) Gerald Gary enacido "nd year

studentI 40elled and gi*en transfer credentials@ (7) elly /ar0io 3rd year studentI +ismissed and gi*en

transfer credentials@ (1#) ,erome Gomez 3rd year studentI +ismissed and gi*en transfer credentials@ and

(11) ,ose Mari amos -rt editor of /hi%ho! "nd year studentI 40elled and gi*en transfer 0a0ers. aid

students thus filed a 0etition for 0rohibition and certiorari with 0reliminary in


14/49


substantial disorder or in*asion of the rights of others. Further! the 0ower of the school to in*estigate isan ad


15/49


1acts9 2etween ,une 7 and ,une ">! 17>5! in the town of Tagbilaran! 2ohol! :scar s0uelas y Mendoza had his

0icture ta=en! ma=ing it to a00ear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a 0iece of ro0e sus0ended from the

limb of a tree! when in truth and in fact! he was merely standing on a barrel. -fter securing co0ies of his

0hotogra0h! s0uelas sent co0ies of same to se*eral news0a0ers and wee=lies of general circulation! not only in

the 'ro*ince of 2ohol but also throughout the 'hili00ines and abroad! for their 0ublication with a suicide note orletter! wherein he made to a00ear that it was written by a fictitious suicide! -lberto e*eniera and addressed to the

latter;s su00osed wife! stating therein in 0art that Dif someone as=s you why 6 committed suicide! tell them 6 did it

because 6 was not 0leased with the administration of o4as. Tell the whole world about this. -nd if they as= why 6

did not li=e the administration of o4as! 0oint out to them the situation in /entral uzon! the u=balaha0s. Tell them

about ,ulio Guillen and the banditry of eyte. +ear wife! write to 'resident Truman and /hurchill. Tell them that

here in the 'hili00ines our go*ernment is infested with many itlers and Mussolinis. Teach our children to burn

0ictures of o4as if and when they come across one. 6 committed suicide because 6 am ashamed of our

go*ernment under o4as. 6 cannot hold high my brows to the world with this dirty go*ernment. 6 committed suicide

because 6 ha*e no 0ower to 0ut under ,uez de /uchillo all the o4as 0eo0le now in 0ower. o! 6 sacrificed my own

self.D s0uelas was charged for *iolating -rticle 1>" of the e*ised 'enal /ode! which 0unishes those who shall

write! 0ublish or circulate scurrilous libels against the Go*ernment of the 'hili00ines or any of the duly constituted

authorities thereof or which suggest or incite rebellious cons0iracies or riots or which tend to stir u0 the 0eo0leagainst the lawful authorities or to disturb the 0eace of the community. s0uelas admitted the fact that he wrote the

note or letter and caused its 0ublication in the Free 'ress! the *ening Bews! the 2isaya! amdang and other local

0eriodicals and that he had im0ersonated one -lberto e*eniera by signing said 0seudonymous name in said note

or letter and 0osed himself as -lberto e*eniera in a 0icture ta=en wherein he was shown hanging by the end of a

ro0e tied to a limb of a tree. s0uelas was! after trial! con*icted in the /ourt of First 6nstance of 2ohol of a *iolation

of the abo*e article. The con*iction was affirmed by the /ourt of -00eals. s0uelas a00ealed.

Issue9 Chether sedition laws unnecessarily curtain the citizenSs freedom of e40ression.

eld9 The freedom of s0eech secured by the /onstitution Ddoes not confer an absolute right to s0ea= or0ublish

without res0onsibility whate*er one may choose.D 6t is not Dunbridled license that gi*es immunity for e*ery 0ossible

use of language and 0re*ents the 0unishment of those who abuse this freedom.D o statutes against sedition ha*e

always been considered not *iolati*e of such fundamental guaranty! although they should not be inter0reted so as

to unnecessarily curtail the citizen;s freedom of e40ression to agitate for institutional changes. Bot to be restrained

is the 0ri*ilege of any citizen to criticize his go*ernment and go*ernment officials and to submit his criticism to the

Dfree trade of ideasD and to 0lead for its acce0tance in Dthe com0etition of the mar=et.D owe*er! let such criticism

be s0ecific and therefore constructi*e! reasoned or tem0ered! and not a contem0tuous condemnation of the entire

go*ernment set%u0. uch wholesale attac= is nothing less than an in*itation to disloyalty to the go*ernment. erein!

no 0articular ob" 0unishes not only all libels against the Go*ernment

but also Dlibels against any of the duly constituted authorities thereof.D The Do4as 0eo0leD in the Go*ernment

ob*iously refer at least to the 'resident! his /abinet and the ma


16/49


dirty! itlers and Mussolinis were naturally directed. :n this score alone the con*iction could beu0held. To to0 it all! s0uelas 0roclaimed to his readers that he committed suicide because he hadDno 0ower to 0ut under


17/49


reco*ery of damages alleging the defamatory character of the abo*e 0ublication of his 0icture. -ftertrial duly had! he was awarded '$!### as actual damages! another '$!### as moral damages! and'1!### for attorney;s fees. That


18/49


/ourt.

Issue9 Chether the news0a0er is liable for libel arising from an article entitled DB26 men raid offices

of 3 cityusurers.D

eld9 2asing an action for libel on the headline! oftentimes it is the only 0art of the article which is read!ma=es Huisumbing;s 0osition untenable as reading merely the headline herein! nobody would e*en sus0ect

that Huisumbing was referred to. ibel cannot be committed e4ce0t against somebody and that somebody

must be 0ro0erly identified. The identity of Huisumbing is re*ealed in the body of the news item! but nowhere

in the conte4t is the 0etitioner 0ortrayed as one charged with or con*icted of the crime of usury.The /ourt

belie*es that nobody reading the whole news item would come to the conclusion that Borberto Huisumbinghad been accused or con*icted of usury. The headline com0lained of may fairly be said to contain a correct

descri0tion of the news story. The fact that the raid was conducted by anti%usury agents following recei0t of a

com0laint against Huisumbing and two others! cou0led with the announcement by the /hief of the B26 -nti%

sury +i*ision that criminal action would be filed in the city fiscal;s office! naturally would lead one to thin=

that the 0ersons in*ol*ed were usurers. Bothing in the headline or the conte4t of the article suggested the

idea that Huisumbing was already charged with or con*icted of the crime of usury. The word DusurerD sim0ly

means one who 0ractices usury or e*en a mere money lender! but certainly not a usury con*ict. There is no

e*idence in the record to 0ro*e that the 0ublication of the news item under consideration was 0rom0ted by

0ersonal ill will or s0ite! or that there was intention to do harm! and that on the other hand there was Dan

honest and high sense of duty to ser*e the best interests of the 0ublic! without self%see=ing moti*e and with

malice towards none.D *ery citizen of course has the right to en


19/49


That was because Mindalano had the ad*antage of ha*ing li*ed with an -merican family and wastherefore fluent and literate in nglish. 2ut as soon as the datus wo=e u0 to the blessings of thetrans0lanted -merican 0ublic school system! as soon as they could s0ea= and read and write in nglish!0olitical leadershi0 again became *irtually their e4clusi*e domain. There must be some irony in that.DThey alleged that! contrary to the article! the Mindalanos Dbelong to no less than > of the 1& oyal

ouses of anao del ur!D that the statement that the late -mir Mindalano! grand 0atriarch of theMindalano clan! had li*ed with an -merican family! a statement which! they alleged! a0art from beingabsolutely false! Dhas a distinct re0ugnant connotation in Maranao society.D /ontending finally that2ulletin! et. al. had with malice inflicted Dso much damage u0on the social standing of the 0laintiffsD as toDirre0arably in


20/49


ascri0tion! whether correct or not! cannot be defamatory. Furthermore! 0ersonal hurt or embarassmentor offense! e*en if real! is not! howe*er! automatically e?ui*alent to defamation. The law againstdefamation 0rotects one;s interest in ac?uiring! retaining and en".#7(a)(3) (1787). -fter a trial! he was con*icted! sentenced to one year in 0rison! and fined P"!###.

The /ourt of -00eals for the Fifth +istrict of Te4as at +allas affirmed ,ohnson;s con*iction but the Te4as /ourtof /riminal -00eals re*ersed holding that the tate could not! consistent with the First -mendment! 0unish

,ohnson for burning the flag in these circumstances.

Issue9 Chether 0ublicly burning an -merican flag as a means of 0olitical 0rotest is a 0art of the

constitutionalguarantee of freedom of e40ression.

eld9 The First -mendment literally forbids the abridgment only of Ds0eech!D but the /ourt has long

recognized that its 0rotection does not end at the s0o=en or written word. Chile the /ourt has re


21/49


demonstration that coincided with the con*ening of the e0ublican 'arty and its renomination of onald

eagan for 'resident. The e40ressi*e! o*ertly 0olitical nature of this conduct was both intentional and

o*erwhelmingly a00arent. -t his trial! ,ohnson e40lained his reasons for burning the flag as follows DThe

-merican Flag was burned as onald eagan was being renominated as 'resident. -nd a more 0owerful

statement of symbolic s0eech! whether you agree with it or not! couldn;t ha*e been made at that time. 6t;s

?uite a


22/49


ser*ed as a technical ad*iser of /ongressman Fabian ison! then /hairman of the ouse of e0resentati*es

ub%/ommittee on 6ndustrial 'olicy. +uring the congressional hearings on the trans0ort crisis sometime in

e0tember 1788 underta=en by the ouse ub%/ommittee on 6ndustrial 'olicy! those who attended agreed to

organize the First Bational /onference on and Trans0ortation (FB/T) to be 0artici0ated in by the 0ri*ate

sector in the trans0ort industry and go*ernment agencies concerned in order to f ind ways and means to sol*e

the trans0ortation crisis. More im0ortantly! the ob


23/49


Cenceslao was described as 4ecuti*e +irector and 0o=esman and not as a conference organizer. The 0rintout

and tentati*e 0rogram of the conference were de*oid of any indication of Cenceslao as organizer. The 0rintout

which contained an article entitled DCho :rganized the B/T UD did not e*en mention Cenceslao;s name! while the

tentati*e 0rogram only denominated Cenceslao as DVice /hairman and 4ecuti*e +irector!D and not as organizer.

Bo less than Cenceslao himself admitted that the FB/T had se*eral organizers and that he was only a 0art of the

organization. ignificantly! Cenceslao himself entertained doubt that he was the 0erson s0o=en of in 2or is not an e4clusi*e list of ?ualifiedly 0ri*ileged communications since fair

commentaries on matters of 0ublic interest are li=ewise 0ri*ileged. The rule on 0ri*ileged communications had itsgenesis not in the nation;s 0enal code but in the 2ill of ights of the /onstitution guaranteeing freedom of s0eech

and of the 0ress. 'ublications which are 0ri*ileged for reasons of 0ublic 0olicy are 0rotected by the constitutional

guaranty of freedom of s0eech. This constitutional right cannot be abolished by the mere failure of the legislature to

gi*e it e40ress recognition in the statute 0unishing libels. The conce0t of 0ri*ileged communications is im0licit in the

freedom of the 0ress. 'ublic 0olicy! the welfare of society! and the orderly administration of go*ernment ha*e

demanded 0rotection of 0ublic o0inion. The ine*itable and incontestable result has been the de*elo0ment and

ado0tion of the doctrine of 0ri*ilege. Fair commentaries on matters of 0ublic interest are 0ri*ileged and constitute a

*alid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general e*ery

discreditable im0utation 0ublicly made is deemed false! because e*ery man is 0resumed innocent until his guilt is


24/49


articles were written and 0ublished without good moti*es or


25/49


lawful in itself but from a source who has obtained it unlawfully.

eld9 Q"$11(1)(c)! as well as its 'ennsyl*ania analog! is in fact a content%neutral law of general a00licability.

D+eciding whether a 0articular regulation is content based or content neutral is not always a sim0le tas=. -s a

general rule! laws that by their terms distinguish fa*ored s0eech from disfa*ored s0eech on the basis of the

ideas or *iews e40ressed are content based.D 6n determining whether a regulation is content based or contentneutral! the /:urt loo=s to the 0ur0ose behind the regulation@ ty0ically! Dgo*ernment regulation of e40ressi*e

acti*ity is content neutral so long as it is D at 35")! but it is no

less worthy of constitutional 0rotection.

323 Cabansa& vs" 1ernande; +G% L-/73. ,/ ctober ,57

First Division, Bautista ngelo (J): concur

1acts9-0olonio /abansag filed on 13 ,anuary 17>5 in the /ourt of First 6nstance of 'angasinan a com0laint

see=ing the e5. The hearing was 0ost0oned to 8 -ugust 17>5. :n that day only one witness testified and the

case was 0ost0oned to "$ -ugust 17>5. Thereafter! three incidents de*elo0ed! namely (1) a claim for

damages! (") issuance of a writ of 0reliminary in


26/49


Magsaysay assumed office! he issued 4ecuti*e :rder 1 creating the 'residential /om0laints and -ction

/ommission ('/-/)! which was later su0erseded by 4ecuti*e :rder 17 0romulgated on 15 March 17$>.

-nd on 1" -ugust 17$>! -0olonio /abansag! a00arently ir=ed and disa00ointed by the delay in the

dis0osition of his case! wrote the '/-/ a letter co0y of which he furnished the ecretary of ,ustice and the

4ecuti*e ,udge of the /ourt of First 6nstance of 'angasinan. 0on recei0t of the letter! the ecretary of

,ustice indorsed it to the /ler= of /ourt! /ourt of First 6nstance of 'angasinan! instructing him to re?uire thestenogra0hers concerned to transcribe their notes in /i*il /ase 7$&>. The cler= of court! u0on recei0t of this

instruction on "5 -ugust 17$>! referred the matter to ,udge ,esus '. Morfe before whom the case was then

0ending informing him that the two stenogra0hers concerned! Miss 6lluminada -belo and ,uan Gas0ar! ha*ealready been assigned elsewhere. :n the same date! ,udge Morfe wrote the ecretary of ,ustice informing

him that under the 0ro*isions of -ct "383 and ection 1" of ule >1 of the ules of /ourt! said stenogra0hers

are not obliged to transcribe their notes e4ce0t in cases of a00eal and that since the 0arties are not 0oor

litigants! they are not entitled to transcri0tion free of charge! aside from the fact that said stenogra0hers were

no longer under his ! -tty. Manuel Fernandez filed a motion

before ,udge Morfe 0raying that /abansag be declared in contem0t of court for an alleged scurrilous remar=

he made in his letter to the '/-/ to the effect that he! /abansag! has long been de0ri*ed of his land Dthru

the careful maneu*ers of a tactical lawyerD! to which counsel for /abansag re0lied with a counter% charge

0raying that -tty. Fernandez be in turn declared in contem0t because of certain contem0tuous remar=s madeby him in his 0leading. -cting on these charges and counter%charges! on 1> e0tember 17$>! ,udge Morfe

dismissed both charges but ordered /abansag to show cause in writing within 1# days why he should not be

held liable for contem0t for sending the abo*e letter to the '/-/ which tended to degrade the court in the

eyes of the 'resident and the 0eo0le. /abansag filed his answer stating that he did not ha*e the slightest

idea to besmirch the dignity or belittle the res0ect due the court nor was he actuated with malice when he

addressed the letter to the '/-/@ that there is not a single contem0tuous word in said letter nor was it

intended to gi*e the /hief 4ecuti*e a wrong im0ression or o0inion of the court@ and that if there was any

inefficiency in the dis0osal of his case! the same was committed by the


27/49


0resent contem0t 0roceedings! it was far from his mind to 0ut the court in ridicule and much less to belittle or

degrade it in the eyes of those to whom the letter was addressed for! undoubtedly! he was com0elled to act

the way he did sim0ly because he saw no other way of obtaining the early termination of his case. This is

clearly inferable from its conte4t wherein! in res0ectful and courteous language! /abansag ga*e *ent to his

feeling when he said that he Dhas long since been de0ri*ed of his land thru the careful maneu*ers of a tactical

lawyerD@ that the case which had long been 0ending Dcould not be decided due to the fact that the transcri0t ofthe records has not! as yet! been transcribed by the stenogra0hers who too= the stenogra0hic notesD@ and

that the Dnew ,udges could not 0roceed to hear the case before the transcri0tion of the said notes.D -nalyzing

said utterances! one would see that if they e*er criticize! the criticism refers! not to the court! but to o00osingcounsel whose Dtactical maneu*ersD has allegedly caused the undue delay of the case. The grie*ance or

com0laint! if any! is addressed to the stenogra0hers for their a00arent indifference in transcribing their notes.

The only disturbing effect of the letter which 0erha0s has been the moti*ating factor of the lodging of the

contem0t charge by the trial


28/49


+issatisfied with this decision! -baya too= the 0resent a00eal.

Issue9 Chether -baya;s act! in 0ublishing the news story! be considered indirect contem0t.

eld9 There is nothing in the story which may e*en in a slight degree indicate that -baya;s ultimate 0ur0ose

in 0ublishing it was to im0ede! obstruct or degrade the administration of


29/49


guarantee of freedom of the 0ress.K :n "7 Bo*ember 1735! the lower court entered an order!im0osing u0on Mangahas the nominal fine of '"$! or in case of insol*ency! $ days in 0rison@ thiswithout 0re


30/49


and -ntonio Gonzales! union leaders of Nimberly 6nde0endent abor nion for olidarity! -cti*ism and

Bationalism%:lalia in the Nimberly case to a00ear before the /ourt on 1> ,uly 1785 at 1#3# a.m. and then

and there to show cause why they should not be held in contem0t of court. -tty. ,ose /. s0inas was further

re?uired to show cause why he should not be administrati*ely dealt with. :n the a00ointed date and time! the

indi*iduals a00eared before the /ourt! re0resented by -tty. ,ose /. s0inas! in the absence of -tty.

'otenciano Flores! who was still recu0erating from an o0eration. -tty. s0inas! for himself and in behalf of theunion leaders concerned! a0ologized to the /ourt for the acts! together with an assurance that they will not be

re0eated. e li=ewise manifested to the /ourt that he had e40lained to the 0ic=eters why their actions were

wrong and that the cited 0ersons were willing to suffer such 0enalty as may be warranted under the

circumstances. e! howe*er! 0rayed for the /ourt;s leniency considering that the 0ic=et was actually

s0earheaded by the leaders of the D'ag=a=aisa ng Manggagawa sa Timog NatagaloganD ('-M-BT6N)! an

unregistered loose alliance of about 5$ unions in the outhern Tagalog area! and not by either the nion of

Fili0ro m0loyees or the Nimberly 6nde0endent abor nion. To confirm for the record that the 0erson cited

for contem0t fully understood the reason for the citation and that they will abide by their 0romise that said

incident will not be re0eated! the /ourt re?uired the res0ondents to submit a written manifestation to this

effect! which res0ondents com0lied with on 15 ,uly 1785.

Issue9 Chether the res0ondents should be cited for contem0t for their continued 0ic=eting at theu0reme/ourtSs 0remises.

eld9 The right of 0etition is conceded to be an inherent right of the citizen under all free go*ernments.

owe*er! such right! natural and inherent though it may be! has ne*er been in*o=ed to shatter the standards

of 0ro0riety entertained for the conduct of courts. For Dit is a traditional con*iction of ci*ilized society

e*erywhere that courts and


31/49


0owers! to wit D(0) to 0ro*ide for the 0rohibition and su00ression of riots! affrays! disturbances and disorderly

assemblies! (u) to regulate the use of streets! a*enues! 0ar=s! cemeteries and other 0ublic 0lacesD and Dfor

the abatement of nuisances in the same!D and D(ee) to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and

0ro0er for sanitation and safety! the furtherance of 0ros0erity and the 0romotion of morality! 0eace! good

order! comfort! con*enience! and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.D nder the abo*e delegated

0ower! the Munici0al 2oard of the /ity of Manila! enacted sections 8>> and 1117. ection 8>> of the e*ised:rdinances of 17"5 0rohibits as an offense against 0ublic 0eace! and section 1"&" of the same e*ised

:rdinance 0enalizes as a misdemeanor! Dany act! in any 0ublic 0lace! meeting! or 0rocession! tending to

disturb the 0eace or e4cite a riot@ or collect with other 0ersons in a body or crowd for any unlawful 0ur0ose@ ordisturb or dis?uiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly.D -nd section 1117 0ro*ides that DThe

streets and 0ublic 0laces of the city shall be =e0t free and clear for the use of the 0ublic! and the sidewal=s

and crossings for the 0edestrians! and the same shall only be used or occu0ied for other 0ur0oses as

0ro*ided by ordinance or regulation 'ro*ided! That the holding of athletic games! s0orts! or e4ercises during

the celebration of national holidays in any streets or 0ublic 0laces of the city and on the 0atron saint day of

any district in ?uestion! may be 0ermitted by means of a 0ermit issued by the Mayor! who shall determine the

streets or 0ublic 0laces! or 0ortions thereof! where such athletic games! s0orts! or e4ercises may be held

-nd 0ro*ided! further! That the holding of any 0arade or 0rocession in any streets or 0ublic 0laces is

0rohibited unless a 0ermit therefor is first secured from the Mayor! who shall! on e*ery such occasion!determine or s0ecify the streets or 0ublic 0laces for the formation! route! and dismissal of such 0arade or

0rocession -nd 0ro*ided! finally! That all a00lications to hold a 0arade or 0rocession shall be submitted to

the Mayor not less than twenty% four hours 0rior to the holding of such 0arade or 0rocession.D -n action of

mandamus was instituted by /i0riano 'rimicias! a cam0aign manager of the /oalesced Minority 'arties

against Valeriano Fugoso! as Mayor of the /ity of Manila! to com0el the latter to issue a 0ermit for the holding

of a 0ublic meeting at 'laza Miranda on unday afternoon! 1& Bo*ember 17>5! for the 0ur0ose of 0etitioning

the go*ernment for redress to grie*ances on the ground that Fugoso refused to grant such 0ermit. +ue to the

urgency of the case! the /ourt! after mature deliberation! issued a writ of mandamus! as 0rayed for in the

0etition on 1$ Bo*ember 17>5! without 0re


32/49


0rocessions! because such a construction would ma=e the ordinance in*alid and *oid or *iolati*e of theconstitutional limitations. -s the Munici0al 2oard is em0owered only to regulate the use of streets!0ar=s! and other 0ublic 0laces! and the word Dregulate!D as used in section ">>> of the e*ised

-dministrati*e /ode! means and includes the 0ower to control! to go*ern! and to restrain! but can not beconstrued as synonymous with Dsu00ressD or D0rohibit!D! the Munici0al 2oard can not grant the Mayor a

0ower which it does not ha*e. 6n *iew of all the foregoing! the 0etition for mandamus was granted and!there a00earing no reasonable ob


33/49


eld9 The right to freedom of s0eech and to 0eacefully assemble! though guaranteed by our /onstitution! isnot absolute! for it may be regulated in order that it may not be Din


34/49


Free s0eech! li=e free 0ress! may be identified with the liberty to discuss 0ublicly and truthfully any matter of

0ublic concern without censorshi0 or 0unishment. There is to be then no 0re*ious restraint on the

communication of *iews or subse?uent liability whether in libel suits! 0rosecution for sedition! or action for

damages! or contem0t 0roceedings unless there be a Dclear and 0resent danger of a substanti*e e*il that the

tateI has a right to 0re*ent.D Freedom of assembly connotes the right of the 0eo0le to meet 0eaceably for

consultation and discussion of matters of 0ublic concern. 6t is entitled to be accorded the utmost deferenceand res0ect. 6t is not to be limited! much less denied! e4ce0t on a showing! as is the case with freedom of

e40ression! of a clear and 0resent danger of a substanti*e e*il that the state has a right to 0re*ent. The sole


35/49


motion dated Bo*ember "7 to withdraw 0etition on the ground that the 0ermit being sought in the

0rayer%rally to be held on > +ecember 1783 from 1## to # 'M has been granted by Gordon.

Issue9 Chether the 0ermit a00licant should be the acti*e 0arty to determine if a 0ermit has been

issued to itbefore a 0etition for mandamus is filed in court.

eld9 The action for mandamus could ha*e been ob*iated if only 0etitioner too= the trouble of *erifying on

Bo*ember "3 whether or not a 0ermit had been issued. - 0arty desirous of e4ercising the right to 0eaceable

assembly should be the one most interested in ascertaining the action ta=en on a re?uest for a 0ermit.

Becessarily! after a reasonable time or! if the day and time was designated for the decision on the re?uest!

such 0arty or his re0resentati*e should be at the office of the 0ublic official concerned. 6f he fails to do so! a

co0y of the decision reached! whether ad*erse or fa*orable! should be sent to the address of 0etitioner. 6n

that way! there need not be waste of time and effort not only of the litigants but li=ewise of a court from which

redress is sought in case of a denial or modification of a re?uest for a 0ermit. ately! se*eral 0etitions of this

character ha*e been filed with the u0reme /ourt. 6t could be due to the lac= of =nowledge of the guidelines

set forth in the e4tended o0inion. te0s ha*e been ta=en to send the egional Trial


36/49


eld9 Malabanan! et.al. are entitled to their rights to 0eaceable assembly and free s0eech. They en


37/49


hardly the timid diffident ty0es. They are li=ely to be asserti*e and dogmatic. They would be ineffecti*e ifduring a rally they s0ea= in the guarded and ! eli German! amon 'edrosa! Tirso antillan! ,r.! Ma. uisa-ndal! Bie*a Malinis! icardo a*ia! /esar /ortes! +anilo eyes! ,ose eyes! ,osefina Mate! ourdes

/alma! Mildred ,uan! :li*e Guanzon! Fernando /ochico! herman /id! Bazareno 2entulan! oslina

+onaire! Mario Martinez! 2eatriz Teylan! -ngelina a0id! osemarie Flores! +aniel Van oto! dgardo

Mercader! Belly -gustin! Marily Magcalas! +a*id /han! -rsenio alansang! Belson +e Guzman! Marciano

-raneta! /esar Meneses! +ionisio ellosa! Mario antiago! e*erino antos! eonora antos! Bimfa

+oronilla! Florence Guinto! osalina Manansala! 'erci*al :stonal! Tommy Macaranas! oger Bicandro!!

com0osed of about $# businessmen! students and office em0loyees con*erged at ,.'. aurel treet! Manila!

for the ostensible 0ur0ose of hearing Mass at the t. ,ude /ha0el which ad


38/49


to the free e4ercise of religion is genuine and *alid! still 2arangan! et. al.;s reaction to the " :ctober 178>

mass action may not be characterized as *iolati*e of the freedom of religious worshi0. ince 175"! when

mobs of demonstrators crashed through the Malacaang gates and scaled its 0erimeter fence! the use by the

0ublic of , '. aurel treet and the streets a00roaching it ha*e been restricted. Chile tra*el to and from the

affected thoroughfares has not been absolutely 0rohibited! 0assers%by ha*e been sub


39/49


+e0artment of ducation! /ulture and 0orts (+/)! -costa! et. al. were administrati*ely charged with such

offenses as gra*e misconduct! gross neglect of duty! gross *iolation of ci*il ser*ice law! rules and regulations

and reasonable office regulations! refusal to 0erform official duty! gross insubordination! conduct 0re


40/49


imitati*e in the young audience will misunderstand these scenes. The 2oard ga*e Malaya films an o0tion to

ha*e the film reclassified to For%General%'atronage if it would agree to remo*e the obscene scenes and 0are

down the *iolence in the film. - motion for reconsideration was filed by Gonzales! in behalf of Malaya Films!

ino 2roc=a! ,ose F. acaba! and +ulce H. aguisag! stating that the classification of the film DFor -dults

:nlyD was without basis. Then on 1" Bo*ember 178>! the 2oard released its decision D-cting on the

a00licant;s Motion for econsideration dated "7 :ctober 178>! the 2oard! after a re*iew of the resolution ofthe sub%committee and an e4amination of the film! esol*es to affirm in toto the ruling of the sub%committee.

/onsidering! howe*er! certain *ital deficiencies in the a00lication! the 2oard further esol*es to direct the

/hairman of the 2oard to Cithhold the issuance of the 'ermit to e4hibit until these deficiencies are su00lied.D

:n 1# ,anuary 178$! Gonzales! et. al. filed the 0etition for certiorari with the u0reme /ourt.

Issue9 Chether the 2oard of e*iew for Motion 'ictures and Tele*ision ha*e the 0ower to classifythe mo*ieJNa0it sa 'atalimK under the classification JFor -dults :nlyK and im0ose conditions to editthe material to allow it a JGeneral 0atronageK rating.

eld9 Motion 0ictures are im0ortant both as a medium for the communication of ideas and the e40ression of the

artistic im0ulse. Their effects on the 0erce0tion by our 0eo0le of issues and 0ublic officials or 0ublic figures as well

as the 0re*ailing cultural traits is considerable. The Dim0ortance of motion 0ictures as an organ of 0ublic o0inion

lessened by the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as to inform.D There is no clear di*iding line

between what in*ol*es =nowledge and what affords 0leasure. 6f such a distinction were sustained! there is a

diminution of the basic right to free e40ression. 'ress freedom Dmay be identified with the liberty to discuss 0ublicly

and truthfully any matter of 0ublic concern without censorshi0 or 0unishment.D This is not to say that such freedom!

as is the freedom of s0eech! absolute. 6t can be limited if Dthere be a ;clear and 0resent danger of a substanti*e e*il

that the tateI has a right to 0re*ent.;D /ensorshi0 or 0re*ious restraint certainly is not all there is to free s0eech or

free 0ress. 6f it were so! then such basic rights are emasculated. 6t is! howe*er! e4ce0t in e4ce0tional circumstances

a sine ?ua non for the meaningful e4ercise of such right. This is not to deny that e?ually basic is the other im0ortant

as0ect of freedom from liability. To a*oid an unconstitutional taint on its creation! the 0ower of the 2oard is limited to

the classification of films. 6t can! to safeguard other constitutional ob


41/49


such an abuse can be considered gra*e. -ccordingly! certiorari does not lie.

330 La&un;ad vs" Soto Vda" de Gon;ales +G% L-!20. Au&ust ,7

First Division, Melencio8;errera (J): $ concur, 1 concurs in result

1acts9 ometime in -ugust 17&1! Manuel agunzad! a news0a0erman! began the 0roduction of a mo*ieentitled DThe Moises 'adilla toryD under the name of his own business outfit! the DMM 'roductions.D 6t was

based mainly on the co0yrighted but un0ublished boo= of -tty. rnesto odriguez! ,r.! entitled DThe ong

+ar= Bight in BegrosD subtitled DThe Moises 'adilla tory!D the rights to which agunzad had 0urchased from

-tty. odriguez in the amount of '"!###.##. The boo= narrates the e*ents which culminated in the murder of

Moises 'adilla sometime between Bo*ember 11 and Bo*ember 15! 17$1. 'adilla was then a mayoralty

candidate of the Bacionalista 'arty (then the minority 0arty) for the Munici0ality of Magallon! Begros

:ccidental! during the Bo*ember 17$1 elections. Go*ernor afael acson! a member of the iberal 'arty

then in 0ower and his men were tried and con*icted for that murder in 'eo0le *s. acson! et al. 6n the boo=!

Moises 'adilla is 0ortrayed as Da martyr in contem0orary 0olitical history.D -lthough the em0hasis of the

mo*ie was on the 0ublic life of Moises 'adilla! there were 0ortions which dealt with his 0ri*ate and family life

including the 0ortrayal in some scenes! of his mother! Maria oto Vda. de Gonzales! and of one D-uringD as

his girl friend. The mo*ie was scheduled for a 0remiere showing on 1& :ctober 17&1! or at the *ery latest!before the Bo*ember 17&1 elections. :n 3 :ctober 17&1! agunzad recei*ed a tele0hone call from one Mrs.

Belly -mante! half% sister of Moises 'adilla! ob


42/49


icensing -greement is a form of restraint on the freedom of s0eech and of the 0ress.

Issue9 Chether the icensing -greement infringes on the constitutional right of freedom of s0eechand of the0ress! in that! as a citizen and as a news0a0erman! agunzad had the right to e40resshis thoughts in film on the 0ublic life of Moises 'adilla without 0rior restraint.

eld9 The right of freedom of e40ression occu0ies a 0referred 0osition in the Dhierarchy of ci*il liberties.D 6t is

not! howe*er! without limitations. -s held in Gonzales *s. /ommission on lections ("5 /- 83$! 8$8

17&7I)! DFrom the language of the s0ecific constitutional 0ro*ision! it would a00ear that the right is not

susce0tible of any limitation. Bo law may be 0assed abridging the freedom of s0eech and of the 0ress. The

realities of life in a com0le4 society 0reclude howe*er! a literal inter0retation. Freedom of e40ression is not an

absolute. 6t would be too much to insist that at all times and under all circumstances it should remain

unfettered and unrestrained. There are other societal *alues that 0ress for recognition. The 0re*ailing doctrine

is that the clear and 0resent danger rule is such a limitation. -nother criterion for 0ermissible limitation on

freedom of s0eech and of the 0ress! which includes such *ehicles of the mass media as radio! tele*ision and

the mo*ies! is the Dbalancing%of%interests test.D The 0rinci0le Dre?uires a court to ta=e conscious and detailed

consideration of the inter0lay of interests obser*able in a gi*en situation or ty0e of situation.D erein! the

interests obser*able are the right to 0ri*acy asserted by oto *da. de Gonzales and the right of freedom ofe40ression in*o=ed by agunzad. Ta=ing into account the inter0lay of those interests! the /:urt holds that

under the 0articular circumstances 0resented! and considering the obligations assumed in the icensing

-greement entered into by agunzad! the *alidity of such agreement will ha*e to be u0held 0articularly

because the limits of freedom of e40ression are reached when e40ression touches u0on matters of

essentially 0ri*ate concern. The court denied the 0etition for re*iew.

441 A:er #roduction #t:" Ltd" vs" Ca$ulon& +G% L-/2!/0. 2 A$ril ,//> also Mc8lro: vs"Ca$ulon& +G% L-/2!/

En Banc, Feliciano (J): 1% concur

1acts9 al Mclroy! an -ustralian film ma=er! and his mo*ie 0roduction com0any!-yer 'roductions 'ty. td.!

en*isioned! sometime in 1785! the filming for commercial *iewing and for 'hili00ine and international release!

the historic 0eaceful struggle of the Fili0inos at +- (0ifanio de los antos -*enue). Mcleroy discussed

this 0ro


43/49


to the 'etition for 'reliminary 6n


44/49


intrusion u0on the life of ,uan 'once nrile that would be entailed by the 0roduction and e4hibition of DThe

Four +ay e*olutionD would! therefore! be limited in character. The e4tent of that intrusion may be generally

described as such intrusion as is reasonably necessary to =ee0 that film a truthful historical account. nrile

does not claim that Mclroy! et. al. threatened to de0ict in DThe Four +ay e*olutionD any 0art of the 0ri*ate

life of nrile or that of any member of his family. The line of e?uilibrium in the s0ecific conte4t of the 0resent

case between the constitutional freedom of s0eech and of e40ression and the right of 0ri*acy! may be mar=edout in terms of a re?uirement that the 0ro0osed motion 0icture must be fairly truthful and historical in its

0resentation of e*ents. There must! in other words! be no =nowing or rec=less disregard of truth in de0icting

the 0artici0ation of 0ri*ate res0ondent in the +- e*olution. There must! further! be no 0resentation of the

0ri*ate life of the unwilling indi*idual (nrile) and certainly no re*elation of intimate or embarrassing 0ersonal

facts. The 0ro0osed motion 0icture should not enter into a Dmatters of essentially 0ri*ate concern.D To the

e4tent that DThe Four +ay e*olutionD limits itself in 0ortraying the 0artici0ation of nrile in the +-

e*olution to those e*ents which are directly and reasonably related to the 0ublic facts of the +-

e*olution! the intrusion into nrile;s 0ri*acy cannot be regarded as unreasonable and actionable. uch

0ortrayal may be carried out e*en without a license from nrile.

332 #eo$le vs" Dottin&er +G% 205. 2 ctober ,2!

'econd Division, Malcolm (J): 5 concur, 1 dissented in separate opinion to "#ic# 1 4oined

1acts9 :n "> Bo*ember 17""! detecti*e ,uan Tolentino raided the 0remises =nown as /amera u00ly/o. at11# scolta! Manila. e found and confiscated the 0ost% cards which subse?uently were used ase*idenced against ,. ,. Nottinger! the manager of the com0any. The information filed in court chargedhim with li*ing =e0t for sale in the store of the /amera u00ly /o.! obscene and indecent 0ictures! in*iolation of section 1" of -ct "55. To this information! Nottinger inter0osed a demurrer based u0on theground that the facts alleged therein did not constitute an offense and were not contrary to law@ but thetrial court o*erruled the demurrer. Following the 0resentation of e*idence by the Go*ernment and thedefense!


45/49


world. The 0ictures in ?uestion merely de0ict 0ersons as they actually li*e! without attem0ted 0resentation of

0ersons in unusual 0ostures or dress. The aggregate


46/49


/ourt con*ened 0ursuant to the -ct entered a 0reliminary in


47/49


addressed to a restaurant in Bew0ort 2each! /alifornia. The brochures ad*ertise four boo=s entitled

D6ntercourse!D DMan%Coman!D De4 :rgies 6llustrated!D and D-n 6llustrated istory of 'ornogra0hy!D and a film

entitled DMarital 6ntercourse.D Chile the brochures contain some descri0ti*e 0rinted material! 0rimarily they

consist of 0ictures and drawings *ery e40licitly de0icting men and women in grou0s of two or more engaging

in a *ariety of se4ual acti*ities! with genitals often 0rominently dis0layed. The en*elo0e was o0ened by the

manager of the restaurant and his mother. They had not re?uested the brochures@ they com0lained to the0olice. -fter a


48/49


1acts9 adio tation +L was closed on the ground that the radio station was used to incite 0eo0le tosedition. - 0etition was filed by astern 2roadcasting to com0el the Minister of Trans0ortation and/ommunications! /eferino . /arreon (/ommissioner! Bational Telecommunications /ommission)! et.al. to allow the reo0ening of adio tation +L which had been summarily closed on grounds ofnational security@ alleging denial of due 0rocess and *iolation of its right of freedom of s0eech. :n "$

March 178$! before the /ourt could 0romulgate a decision s?uarely 0assing u0on all the issues raised!astern 2roadcasting through its 0resident! Mr. ene G. s0ina suddenly filed a motion to withdraw ordismiss the 0etition. astern 2roadcasting alleged that (1) it has already sold its radio broadcastingstation in fa*or of Manuel 2. 'astrana as well as its rights and interest in the radio station +L in /ebuincluding its right to o0erate and its e?ui0ment@ (") the Bational Telecommunications /ommission hase40ressed its willingness to grant to the said new owner Manuel 2. 'astrana the re?uisite license andfranchise to o0erate the said radio station and to a00ro*e the sale of the radio transmitter of said station+L@ (3) in *iew of the foregoing! astern 2roadcasting has no longer any interest in said case! andthe new owner! Manuel 2. 'astrana is li=ewise not interested in 0ursuing the case any further.

Issue9 Chether radio broadcasting en


49/49


the cost of boo=s! news0a0ers! and magazines beyond their humble means. 2asic needs li=e food and

shelter 0erforce en

2005nr21 38 cons2poli freespeech

Documents