328 U.S.

331June 3, 1946
Pennekamp v. Florida
Facts:
Petitioners, the publisher and associate editor of a newspaper, were
responsible for the publication of two editorials and a cartoon criticizing certain
actions previously taken by a Florida trial court of general jurisdiction in certain nonjury proceedings as being too favorable to criminals and gambling establishments.
Petitioners were cited for contempt, the citation charging, inter alia, that the
publications reflected upon and impugned the integrity of the court, tended to
distrust for the court, willfully withheld and suppressed the truth, and tended to
obstruct the fair and impartial administration of justice in pending cases.
Issue:
Whether the publications obstruct the fair and impartial administration of
justice.
Held:
No. The danger to fair judicial administration has not the clearness and
immediacy necessary to close door of permissible public comment. The petitioners'
right of free expression in the press should not be abridged. Since the publications
concerned the attitude of the judges toward those charged with crime, not
comments on evidence or rulings during a jury trial, their effect on juries that might
eventually try the alleged offenders is too remote to be considered a clear and
present danger to justice.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila

G.R. No. 46551

December 12, 1939
People vs. Alarcon
Laurel, J.:
Facts:
As an aftermath of a decision rendered convicting Alarcon, a denunciatory
letter, signed by one Luis Taruc, was addressed t His Excellency, the President of the
Philippines. A copy of said letter found its way to Mangahas who, as columnist of a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, quoted the letter in an article
published by him in the issue of that paper.
Issue:
Wheteher the trial court properly cited Mangahas for contempt in as much as
the robbery-in- band case is still pending.
Held:
No. Newspaper publication tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass, or
influence the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding
constitute criminal contempt which is summarily punishable by the courts. What
sought to be shielded against the influence of newspaper comments is the allimportant duty of the court to administer justice in the decision of a pending case.
There is no pending case to speak of when and once the court has come upon a
decision and has lost control either to reconsider or amend it. That is the present
case, the letter complained of was published after the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga had decided the criminal case, and after that decision had been
appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila

G.R. No. 80806

October 5, 1989
Pita vs. Court of Appeals
Sarmiento, J.:
Facts:
Pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Manila City Mayor,
Bagatsing and other officers seized and confiscated from dealers, distributors,
newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks, magazines, publications
and other reading materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and
later burned later burned the seized materials. Among the publications seized, later
burned, was Pinoy Playboy magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Pita.
Issue:
Whether the defendants and/or agents can without a court order confiscate
or seize plaintiff's magazine before any judicial finding is made on whether said
magazine is obscene.
Held:
No. To search and seize materials that are believed to be obscene, the
authorities must comply with the following procedures: 1) the authorities must
apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge, if in their opinion, an
obscenity rap is in order; 2) they must convince the court that the materials sought
to be seized are obscene, and pose a clear and present danger of an evil
substantive enough to warrant State interference and action; 3) the judge must
determine whether the same are indeed obscene; 4) if, in the opinion of the court,
probable cause exists, it may issue the search warrant prayed for; 5) the proper suit
is then brought in the court; and 6) any conviction is subject to appeal. Hence, the
authorities violated the constitutional right of the plaintiff.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila

G.R. No. L-1800

January 27, 1948
Primicias vs. Fugoso
Feria, J. :
Facts:
Primicias instituted an action of mandamus against Manila City Mayor Fugoso
to compel the latter to issue a permit for the holding of a public meeting at the
Plaza Miranda. The petitioner requested for a permit to hold a peaceful public
meeting.
Issue:
Whether the Mayor has the right to refuse to issue permit; hence, violating
freedom of assembly.
Held:
The answer is negative. The freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble
and petition the Government for redress of grievances, are fundamental rights of
the people recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution. However, these rights
can be regulated under the States police power. To justify suppression of free

speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free
speech is practiced, that danger apprehended is imminent and is a serious one. The
permit to be issued is for the use of public places and not for the assembly itself.
Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila
444 U.S. 896(1979)
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia

Facts:
Members of the media sought access to a courtroom during a murder trial. An
individual named Stevenson was indicted for murdering a hotel manager. Wheeler
and McCarthy, reporters for Richmond Newspapers, Inc., were in attendance during
the fourth trial. The accused moved for the trial to be closed to the public.
Issue:
Whether a criminal trial itself may be closed to the public upon the
unopposed request of a defendant, without any demonstration that closure is
required to protect the defendants superior right to fair trial, or that some other
considerations requires closure.
Held:
No. Absent an overriding interest articulated in findings, the trial of a criminal
case must be open to the public. Early history of open trials in part reflects
widespread acknowledgement, long before there were behavioural scientist, that
public trials had significant community therapeutic value. To work effectively, it is
important that societys criminal process satisfies the appearance of justice, and
that the appearance of justice can best be provided by allowing people to observe
it.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila

G.R. No. 90878

January 29, 1990
Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections
Medialdea, J.:
Facts:
Republict Act No. 6766, entitled An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the
Cordillera Automous Region, was enacted into law. Pursuant to said law, the City of
Baguio and the Cordilleras shall take part in a plebiscite for the ratification of said
Act. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper columnist, assailed the constitutionality
of Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution 2167, which provides that the plebiscite
campaign period, on the day before and on plebiscite day, no mass media
columnist, commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or
television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues.
Issue:
Whether the Commission on Election, through Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution
2167, restricts Sanidads freedom of expression for no justifiable reason.

Held:
Yes. Section 19 of said resolution has no statutory basis. The Commission was
not been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media
practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods.
Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. The peoples right to
be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be
better served by access to an unabridged discussion of the issues.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila
323 U.S. 516January 8, 1945
Thomas
v. Collins

Facts:
Thomas was the president of the International Union U.A.W. and a vice
president of the C.I.O. He was arrested for not complying with Section 5 and 12 of
the statute of Texas regulating labor unions and their activities require that anyone
who wants to solicit members for memberships in specified labor unions must first
obtain an organizers card.
Issue:
Whether the Texas law requiring labor organizers to secure permission to
solicit members violated the free Speech Clause.
Held:
Yes. The law was unconstitutional as it interfered with the freedom of speech
and of assembly which possesses a sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious
intrusions. Lawful public assemblies, involving no element of grave and immediate
danger to an interest the state is entitled to protect, are not instrument of harm
which require previous identification of the speakers. A requirement that one must
register before he undertakes to make a public speech to enlist support for a lawful
movement is quite incompatible with the requirements of the First Amendment.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila

310 U.S. 88 April 22, 1940

Thornhill v. Alabama

Facts:
The statute of Alabama makes it unlawful for any person, without a just cause
or legal cause or excuse, to go near or loiter about any place of business for the
purpose of influencing other person not to buy, deal or be employed at such place
of business; or to picket a place of lawful business for the purpose of impending,
interfering with, or injuring such business. The petitioner was convicted of loitering
and picketing as charged in a complaint.
Issue:
Whether the statute was violative of freedom of speech and of the press.
Held:

Yes. Freedom of speech and of the press, secured by the First Amendment
against abridgement by the United States, is secured to all persons by the
Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by the States. The existence of penal
statute which does not aim specifically at evils within the allowable area of state
control, but sweeps within its ambit other activities that constitute exercise of
freedom of speech or of the press, results in a continuous and pervasive restraint of
all freedom of discussion that might reasonably be regarded as within its purview.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila

358 U.S. 39 November 14, 1966

Adderley v. Florida
Facts:
Petitioners, apparently all students of Florida A.&M. University in Tallahasee,
had gone from the school to the jail about a mile away, to demonstrate at the jail
their protests of arrests of other protesting students the day before, and perhaps to
protest more generally against state and local policies and practices of radical
segregation, including segregation of the jail.
Issue:
Whether the First Amendment guaranteed a constitutional right to use the
area surrounding a jail for purposes of freedom of expression.
Held:
No. The State does have the power to control its own property for lawful, nondiscriminatory purpose. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental
in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to
express may address a group at any public and at any time. A group of
demonstrators could not insist upon the right to cordon off a street, or entrance to a
public or private building, and allow no one to pass who did not agree to listen to
their exhortations.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila

G.R. No. 115455

October 30, 1995
Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance
Mendoza, J.:
Facts:
These are consolidated petitions for the declaration of unconstitutionality of
Republic Act No. 7716, the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. It includes the
contention by the Philippine Press Institute, Inc. that by removing the exemption of
the press from the VAT while maintaining those granted to others, the law
discriminates against the press. It averred that even non-discriminatory taxation of
constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional.
Issue:
Whether Republic Act No. 7716 is unconstitutional.
Held:

No. The VAT is not a license tax. It is not a tax on the exercise of a privilege,
much less a constitutional right. It is imposed on the sale, barter, lease or exchange
of goods or properties or the sale or exchange of services and the lease of
properties purely for revenue purposes. To subject the press to its payment is not to
burden the exercise of its right any more that to make the press pay income tax or
subject it to general regulation is not to violate its freedom under the Constitution.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila

G.R. No. L-12592 March 8, 1918

United States vs. Bustos
Malcolm, J.:
Facts:
Numerous citizens of the Province of Pampanga assembled, prepared, and
signed a petition charging Roman Punsalan, justice of peace of Macabebe and
Masantol, Pampanga, with malfeasance in office and asking for his removal. This
petition and five individual affidavits were submitted to the Executive Secretary. The
petition was signed by thirty-four citizens apparently of considerable standing,
including councillors and property owners, and contained the statements set out in
the information as libellous.
Issue:
Whether the defendants are guilty of a libel of Roman Punsalan, justice of the
peace of Pampanga.
Held:
No. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or
of the rights of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for
redress of grievances. Public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and
democracy. The defendants are entitled to the protection of the rules concerning
qualified privilege, growing out of constitutional guarantees in our bill of rights.
Instead of punishing citizens for an honest endeavour to improve the public service,
we should rather recommend them for their good citizenship.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila

G.R. No. L-69198 April 17, 1985

Villar vs. Technological Institute of the Philippines
Fernando, J.:
Facts:
Villa, et al. Invoked their rights to freedom of expression against Technological
Institute of the Philippines for their refusal to admit the petitioners at the school.
However, when reference was made to the records of the petitioners, it was found
out that they had failed in one or more subjects.
Issue:

Whether the exercise of the freedom of assembly on the part of certain

students of the respondent school could be a basis for them being barred from
enrolment.
Held:
No. The invocation of the right to freedom of peaceable assembly carries with
it the implication that the right to free speech has likewise been disregarded. Both
rights are embraced in the concept of freedom of expression, which is identified
with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully, and matter of public interest
without censorship or punishment and which is not limited, much less denied,
except on a showing of a clear and present danger of substantive evil that the State
has the right to prevent.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila

274 U.S. 357May 16, 1927

Whitney v. California
Sanford, J.:
Facts:
Anita Whitney was convicted under the California Syndicalism Act, which
prohibited any person to knowingly become a member of any organization that
advocates the commission of unlawful acts as means of accomplishing a change in
industrial ownership or effecting a political change. She was a member of Oakland
branch of the Socialist Party, which later formed the Communist Labor Party that
adopted a Left Wing Manifesto.
Issue:
Whether the defendants knowingly becoming a member of an organization
that advocated criminal syndicalism involved sufficient danger to the public peace
that the State could constitutionally penalize.
Held:
Yes. A State may constitutionally penalize its citizens from violating the said
Act. Although the right to free speech is fundamental, it is not absolute. The right is
subject to restrictions as are required to protect the public from clear and imminent
danger.
Digested by: Jocelyn T. Umila