CASE 1

-Erik Brunetti, an artist launching his clothing line, had filed a trademark application with the USPTO/
Patent and Trademark office for the term “FUCT”.

-The USPTO denied his application under Lanham Act (US Trademark Law) which prohibits registration of
trademark that consist of immoral or scandalous matter.

-They are saying that the mark of brunetti is equivalent to the past participle of a well known word of
profanity (bad word) which is FUCK.

-However, brunetti said that his mark is pronounced as four letters, one after to other which is F-U-C-T.

PTO CANNOT REGISTER A MARK THAT:

1.Resemblance to another mark as it create likelihood confusion (FUCT/FUCK)

2.Merely descriptive (describes a quality/characteristics of mark’s goods/services.

3.Contains flag/insignia of any nation/state.

4.Disparages (to offend) person, living/dead.

5.Lanham Act- immoral or scandalous matter

-To determine if the mark of brunette fits in the category, PTO ask the general public if they would find
the mark shocking or vulgar.

-The attorney that examines the both PTO (trademark trial and appeal board) concluded that brunette
failed in that test, the attorney determined that FUCT was a total vulgar, therefore it is unregistrable.

-The board also stated that the mark is “Highly offensive” and “Vulgar” and has negative sexual
connotation.

-The board also considered the evidence of how brunette used his mark. They found out that in his
website, near the mark, there is nihilism (Rejection of all religious and moral Principles. Life is
meaningless) and anti-social behavior.

-WITH THAT CONTEXT, BOARD CONCLUDED THAT IF THE MARK HAS SEXUAL TERM, MISOGYNY,
NIHILISM OR VIOLENCE, THE BOARD WILL FIND IT EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE.
All the Justices agreed on two proposition:

First, if a trademark registration bar is viewpoint-based, it is unconstitutional.

Second, the disparagement bar was viewpoint-based.

"Government has no power to restrict expression because of its message"

Viewpoint discrimination occurs when a governmental regulation restricts expression based not only on
its content, but specifically on the underlying views in the message.

DISPARAGEMENT BAR

-Allowed a trademark owner to register a mark if it was positive about a person, but not if it was
derogatory (disrespectful)

FIRST AMMENDMENT:

-No law shall be passed under speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.

-“above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression
because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content."

-anyone is legally allowed to express his or her opinion even if it is contrary to the beliefs of
neighbouring citizen or the nation itself.

LANHAM ACT:

-Provides that no trademark may be denied registration on the basis of its nature unless it is immoral,
false, or scandalous.
CASE 2

-February 21, 2013, the petitioners posted 2 tarpaulins within a private compound housing which is the
Sebastian cathedral of Bacolod which was posted on the front walls of cathedral na nakikita ng
maraming tao.

-First tarpaulin contains the message of “IBASURA RH LAW” referring to the reproductive health law of
2021. The second is the subject of the present case.

-Written in the heading of the tarpaulin is “Conscience vote” which means members of the parties will
allowed to vote freely based on their moral, own views, or social significance. Conscience vote or free
vote.

-There are 2 teams written, the team buhay with a check mark who are anti RH and the team patay who
are pro RH with an X mark. They are classified based on their vote on the adaption of Reproductive
health law.

-The tarpaulin was neither sponsored nor paid by any candidate.

-‘yong tarpaulin ay naglalaman ng mga pangalan ng mga kandidato para sa 2013, pero hindi ng mga
politikong tumulong sa pagpasa ng RH law ngunit hindi kandidato para sa halalang iyon.

- One day after, Respondent election officer of Bacolod city atty. Mavil notice to remove campaign
materials within 3 days for being oversized. Comelec provide size requirement of 2 feet by 3 feet
whereas the tarpaulin posted in the cathedral was 6 feet by 10 feet.

-Petitioner (bishop) replied requesting to give them definite ruling by comelec regarding the tarpaulin
and second, habang wala pang sinasabi ang comelec, pinapayagan manatili ang tarpaulin.

-2 days after, nagpadala po ng letter ang comelec law department na inuutos na agarang
pagpapatanggal ng tarpaulin, kung hindi, mapipilitan ang comelec na magsampa ng paglabag sa halalan
laban sa mga petitionar.

-Petitioner reacted on the letter na gusto niyang idaan sa certiorari, first, ang petisyon ay ibigay sa
tamang panahon, second, Maglabas ng temporary restraining order na pumigigil sa mga respondent na
magpatuloy sa pagpapatupad ng kanilang utos para sa pagpapatanggal ng tarpaulin. Third, pagkatapos
ng pagunawa at pagdinig, may isang desisyong ibibigay na nagdedeklara sa mga kinwekwestiyon n autos
ng mga respondents bilang labag sa konstitusyon at walang bisa.

-On March 5, the court issued a TRO and set oral arguments.

-
SECTION 9 OF FAIR ELECTION ACT

-Political parties and party-list can erect posters for their candidates in not more than 10 public places.

-Candidates can post election propaganda provided that the size of the poster shall not exceed 12 by 16
feet.

-Independent candidates with no political parties can erect posters in not more than 10 public places
and the size of the poster shall not exceed in 4 by 6.

-candidates may post any lawful propaganda material in private places with the consent of the owner.

(THE ABOVE PROVISIONS REGULATING THE POSTING CAMPAIGN MATERIALS ONLY APPLY TO
CANDIDATES AND POLITICAL PARTIES, AND PETITIONERS ARE NEITHER OF THE 2)

PAGE 22&23*

PAGE 27* (SIZE DOES MATTER)

Page 28* (CRITICIZE THE GOV’T) (MARKET PLACE IDEA)

PAGE 30* (ELECTION PROPAGANDA)

PAGE 48* (NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW)

WHEREFORE:

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH LAW

-Universal access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sexual education, and maternal care
in the Philippines.

COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 9615 (FAIR ELECTION ACT)

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

-Temporary Restraining Orders: A temporary restraining order (TRO) is an order by the court
immediately prohibiting a threatened action. A TRO is only issued when there is a threat of irreparable
harm that will occur if the court doesn't immediately issue the order.
ADJUDICATORY OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER.

CHILLING EFFECT

-These are the countries who have freedom of speech and refers to a company or individual to silence a
critic by filing lawsuits threatening legal action or otherwise trying to intimidate critic by legal means.
Even we are protected with freedom of speech, the critic may be silence by the prospect of a costly legal
or a well funded opponent.

- Ito ang mga bansang may kalayaan sa pagsasalita at tumutukoy sa isang kumpanya o indibidwal na
patahimikin ang isang kritiko sa pamamagitan ng pagsasampa ng mga demanda na nagbabanta sa legal
na aksyon o kung hindi man ay sinusubukang takutin ang kritiko sa pamamagitan ng legal na paraan.
Kahit na tayo ay protektado ng kalayaan sa pagsasalita, ang kritiko ay maaaring maging katahimikan sa
pamamagitan ng pag-asam ng isang mahal na legal o isang mahusay na pinondohan na kalaban.

-Chilling effect is a threat to FOS

CASE 3

-It was a year after the 2004 national and local election.

-Sinabi ni secretary bunye sa mga reporters na pinaplan ng mga oposisyon na guluhin ang
administrasyon sa pamamagitan ng paglalabas ng audiotape ng pag-uusap sa telepono sa pagitan ni
dating pangulong Gloria at iyon mataas ma opisyal sa comelec.

-In Malacanang press briefing, secretary bunye produced 2 version of the tape, yung una po is the full
or complete version, while the other one naman po is the spliced or doctored (inibang version) na
sinasabi po na the president instructed the comelec official to manipulate the election result para nga
po maupo si Gloria.

-Inamin po ni secretary bunye na bosis daw poi yon ni Gloria pero binawi niya rin po kalaunan.

-On june 7, 2005, sumunod po na naglabas ng authentic tape recording si atty. Alan Paguia, pero ang
nag-uusap po sa tape ay si first gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, commissioner garcillano, at ang
yumaong senador barbers.

-June 8, DOJ secretary raul Gonzales which is the respondent warned the reporters na maarimg
managot sa ilalim ng anti-wiretapping act ang may mga kopya ng cd pati mga nagbo-broadcast or
naglalathala ng laman ng tape. Kasama po sa mga taong ito ay sina secretary bunye at atty. Paguia na
sinasabi ni Gonzales na patuloy daw pong nagkakasala at mapapailalim sa pag aresto kapag ginawa
daw po sa harapan nila.

-June 9, in another press briefing, iniutos po ni secretary Gonzales sa NBI na habulin yung mga
organisasyong napag alamang nagging sanhi po ng spread, playing, and printing ng nilalaman ng tape
na kinasasangkutan ng presidente tungkol sa halalan noong 2004. Uumpisahan ni Gonzales sa
INQ7.net na isang joint venture ng Philipppine daily inquirer at GMA7 television network.

-NTC gives warning to the owners/opertors of radio and television to observe anti-wiretapping law.
Under this, companies shall not use their stations for the broadcasting and telecasting of false info or
wilful misinterpretation.
CASE 2

-February 21, 2013, the petitioners posted 2 tarpaulins within a private compound housing which is the
Sebastian cathedral of Bacolod which was posted on the front walls of cathedral na nakikita ng
maraming tao.

-First tarpaulin contains the message of “IBASURA RH LAW” referring to the reproductive health law of
2021. The second is the subject of the present case.

-Written in the heading of the tarpaulin is “Conscience vote” which means members of the parties will
allowed to vote freely based on their moral, own views, or social significance. Conscience vote or free
vote.

-There are 2 teams written, the team buhay with a check mark who are anti RH and the team patay who
are pro RH with an X mark. They are classified based on their vote on the adaption of Reproductive
health law.

-The tarpaulin was neither sponsored nor paid by any candidate.

-‘yong tarpaulin ay naglalaman ng mga pangalan ng mga kandidato para sa 2013, pero hindi ng mga
politikong tumulong sa pagpasa ng RH law ngunit hindi kandidato para sa halalang iyon.

- One day after, Respondent election officer of Bacolod city atty. Mavil notice to remove campaign
materials within 3 days for being oversized. Comelec provide size requirement of 2 feet by 3 feet
whereas the tarpaulin posted in the cathedral was 6 feet by 10 feet.

-Petitioner (bishop) replied requesting to give them definite ruling by comelec regarding the tarpaulin
and second, habang wala pang sinasabi ang comelec, pinapayagan manatili ang tarpaulin.

-2 days after, nagpadala po ng letter ang comelec law department na inuutos na agarang
pagpapatanggal ng tarpaulin, kung hindi, mapipilitan ang comelec na magsampa ng paglabag sa halalan
laban sa mga petitionar.

-Petitioner reacted on the letter na gusto niyang idaan sa certiorari, first, ang petisyon ay ibigay sa
tamang panahon, second, Maglabas ng temporary restraining order na pumigigil sa mga respondent na
magpatuloy sa pagpapatupad ng kanilang utos para sa pagpapatanggal ng tarpaulin. Third, pagkatapos
ng pagunawa at pagdinig, may isang desisyong ibibigay na nagdedeklara sa mga kinwekwestiyon n autos
ng mga respondents bilang labag sa konstitusyon at walang bisa.

-On March 5, the court issued a TRO and set oral arguments.

SECTION 9 OF FAIR ELECTION ACT

-Political parties and party-list can erect posters for their candidates in not more than 10 public places.
-Candidates can post election propaganda provided that the size of the poster shall not exceed 12 by 16
feet.

-Independent candidates with no political parties can erect posters in not more than 10 public places
and the size of the poster shall not exceed in 4 by 6.

-candidates may post any lawful propaganda material in private places with the consent of the owner.

(THE ABOVE PROVISIONS REGULATING THE POSTING CAMPAIGN MATERIALS ONLY APPLY TO
CANDIDATES AND POLITICAL PARTIES, AND PETITIONERS ARE NEITHER OF THE 2)

PAGE 22&23*

PAGE 27* (SIZE DOES MATTER)

Page 28* (CRITICIZE THE GOV’T) (MARKET PLACE IDEA)

PAGE 30* (ELECTION PROPAGANDA)

PAGE 48* (NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW)

WHEREFORE:

ANG PANSAMANTALANG RESTRAINING ORDER NA DATING INILABAS AG GINAWANG PERMANENTE.

IDINEKLARANG LABAG SA KONSTITUSYON ANG AKTO NG COMELEC SA PAG IISYU NG INSAILED
NOTICE NA MAY PETSANG FEB 22, 2013 AT LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2013.

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH LAW

-Universal access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sexual education, and maternal care
in the Philippines.

COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 9615 (FAIR ELECTION ACT)

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

-Temporary Restraining Orders: A temporary restraining order (TRO) is an order by the court
immediately prohibiting a threatened action. A TRO is only issued when there is a threat of irreparable
harm that will occur if the court doesn't immediately issue the order.

- nagpadala po ng letter ang comelec law department na inuutos na agarang pagpapatanggal ng

tarpaulin, kung hindi, mapipilitan ang comelec na magsampa ng paglabag sa halalan laban sa mga
petitionar.
ADJUDICATORY OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER.

CHILLING EFFECT

-These are the countries who have freedom of speech and refers to a company or individual to silence a
critic by filing lawsuits threatening legal action or otherwise trying to intimidate critic by legal means.
Even we are protected with freedom of speech, the critic may be silence by the prospect of a costly legal
or a well funded opponent.

- Ito ang mga bansang may kalayaan sa pagsasalita at tumutukoy sa isang kumpanya o indibidwal na
patahimikin ang isang kritiko sa pamamagitan ng pagsasampa ng mga demanda na nagbabanta sa legal
na aksyon o kung hindi man ay sinusubukang takutin ang kritiko sa pamamagitan ng legal na paraan.
Kahit na tayo ay protektado ng kalayaan sa pagsasalita, ang kritiko ay maaaring maging katahimikan sa
pamamagitan ng pag-asam ng isang mahal na legal o isang mahusay na pinondohan na kalaban.

-Chilling effect is a threat to FOS (CENSORSHIP)

PRIOR RETRAINT

-Refers to the official government restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination.

-Paghihigpit ng pamahalaan sa pamamahayag bago an gang aktwal na paglalathala o pagpapakalat.

CONTENT NEUTRAL & CONTENT BASED

A content-based law or regulation discriminates against speech based on the substance of what it
communicates. In contrast, a content-neutral law applies to expression without regard to its
substance. 
-Ang isang batas o regulasyon na nakabatay sa nilalaman ay may diskriminasyon laban sa
pagsasalita batay sa nilalaman ng kung ano ang ipinapahayag nito. Sa kabaligtaran, ang isang
content-neutral na batas ay nalalapat sa pagpapahayag nang walang pagsasaalang-alang sa
nilalaman nito.

-Ang neutral na nilalaman ay tumutukoy sa mga batas na nalalapat sa lahat ng expression nang hindi
isinasaalang-alang ang nilalaman o mensahe ng expression. Ang mga naturang batas ay karaniwang
kinokontrol lamang ang oras, lugar, at paraan ng pananalita kumpara sa mga batas na nakabatay sa
nilalaman, na kumokontrol sa pagsasalita batay sa nilalaman.
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE

-under this test, freedom of speech is not an absolute right. A government can punish a person for
speech that presents a clear and present a danger leading to illegal act. Thus, the right can be curtailed
by the government when it can demonstrate a close connection between speech and illegal action.

-sa ilalim ng pagsubok na ito, ang kalayaan sa pagsasalita ay hindi isang ganap na karapatan. Maaaring
parusahan ng pamahalaan ang isang tao para sa pagsasalita na nagpapakita ng malinaw at
nagpapakita ng panganib na humahantong sa ilegal na pagkilos. Kaya, ang karapatan ay maaaring
hadlangan ng pamahalaan kapag ito ay nagpapakita ng malapit na koneksyon sa pagitan ng
pagsasalita at ilegal na pagkilos.

- EXAMPLE: No one has a right to say something that would cause a clear (= obvious) and present (=
immediate) danger to other people. As an example, the freedom of speech protected by the First
Amendment does not allow a person to shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre.

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE RELATES TO PRIOR RETRAINT

-The test says that the printed or spoken word may not be the subject of previous restraint or
subsequent punishment unless its expression creates a clear and present danger of bringing about a
substantial evil.

- Sinasabi ng pagsusulit na ang nakalimbag o binigkas na salita ay maaaring hindi paksa ng nakaraang
pagpigil o kasunod na parusa maliban kung ang pagpapahayag nito ay lumilikha ng isang malinaw at
kasalukuyang panganib na magdulot ng malaking kasamaan.

STRICT SCRUTINY TEST

-Highest standard is known as the strict scrutiny test

-it is only applied when:

1. A fundamental right is being restricted (speech)

2. A classification is made based on race or national origin.

-Very hard for government to meet because they must prove that a law that classifies a group of
people is more than just a reasonable ethod to accomplish a legitimate role of government.

-must show a compelling reason.

Example: Law outlawing marriage between a whites and African americans.

-Ang pinakamataas na pamantayan ay kilala bilang ang mahigpit na pagsusuri sa pagsusuri

-ito ay inilalapat lamang kapag:

1. Ang isang pangunahing karapatan ay pinaghihigpitan (pagsasalita)

2. Ang isang klasipikasyon ay ginawa batay sa lahi o bansang pinagmulan.

-Napakahirap para sa pamahalaan na matugunan dahil dapat nilang patunayan na ang isang batas na
nag-uuri sa isang grupo ng mga tao ay higit pa sa isang makatwirang pamamaraan upang
maisakatuparan ang isang lehitimong tungkulin ng pamahalaan.

-dapat magpakita ng matibay na dahilan.

Halimbawa: Batas na nagbabawal sa pag-aasawa sa pagitan ng mga puti at African american.

CASE 7

-On October 15, 1991 at 10:45 PM, The ABS CBN aired the “Prosti-tuition”, an episode of television
“The inside story” which hosted by loren Legarda who is one of the respondent.

-Ito po ay naglalarawan ng mga babaeng estudyante na nag sa-sideline as prostitutes para po

mabayaran yung kanilang tuition or matrikula.

-Nakapanayam po nila yung mga prostitute na estudyante, mga bugaw, kostumer, tsaka miyembro po
ng faculty. Philippine women’s University po yung name ng paaralan kung saan may mg students na
involved tsaka yong façade ng school is kitang kita na nagsilbi po ng background ng episode na yon.

-Nagdulot po ng kaguluhan sa PWU yung pagpapalabas ng “Then inside story”, so si dr. de guzman na
chancellor at trustee ng PWU pati ang mg PTA ay nagsampa ng letter complaint sa petitioner na
MTRCB. Parehong nagreklamo na binastos ng episode yung pangalan ng PWU na ngresulta ng
panggigipit o harassment sa mga ilang estudyante.

-Nakalagay po sa letter na una, hindi daw po nagsubmit ang “THE INSIDE STORY” ng copy na par asana
sa review ng MTRCB. Pangalawa, inexhibit ng walang permiso o pahintulot kaya lumalabag sa MTRCB
Rules and regulation.

-Ayon po sa respondents, ang “THE INSIDE STORY” ay isang public affair program, news documentary,
at socio-political editorial na ang pagpapalabas nila ay protektado ng probisyon ng konstitusyon sa
kalayaan sa pamamahayag at pagpapahayag o freedom of expression and speech kaya ang petitioner
ay walang kapangyarihan o awtoridad na magpataw ng prior retraint sa respondents.
-WHEREFORE, Inuutusan na ang mga respondents ay magbayad ng 20 thousand pesos for non-
submission of the program, subject of this case for review and approval of the MTRCB. And all the
subsequent o lahat ng kasunod na programa ng the inside story at lahat ng iba pang programa san g
ABS CBN ay dapat isumite sa board of review and approval bago ipalabas, otherwise, the board will
act accordingly.

-respondents filed a special civil action for certiorari with the regional trial court.

-However, petitioner MTRCB through solicitor general contends inter alia (among other things)

- all television programs including public affairs programs, news documentaries, or socio-political
editorial are subject to power of review under MTRCB.

-Petitioner’s power to review television programs does not amount to prior restraint

CASE 8

-Bombo radio Philippines operates several radio station “AM & FM” throughout the Philippines,
Under this is the Newsounds Broadcasting network and consolidated broadcasting system (CBS).
Amon the station run by newsound is the Bombo Radyo DZNC Cauayan, which is an AM radio
broadcast station operating in Cauayan city, Isabela.

-On the other hand, cbs runs the TSAR FM DWIT Cauayan (Star FM) also operating in Cauayan city
airing on FM.

-Noon 1996, sinimulan ng newsound ang paglipat ng mga stasyon sa Minante 2, Cauayan city, Isabela.

-Ang property na nilipatan nila ay pagmamay-ari ng CBS Development corporation, isang affiliate sa
ilalim ng bombo radio network na may hawak na titulo sa mga property na ginagamit ng mga istasyon
ng bombo radio sa buong bansa.

-Noong june 28, 1996, inisyu ng municipal government ang permit na nagpapahintulot sa pagpapatayo
ng isang commercial building doon nga po sa ari-arian/property.

-july 5,1996 naman po, ang housing and land use regulatory board ay naglabas ng zoning decision (or
yung particular area lang po na gagamitin or makukuhan or sakop) na nagpapatunay sa property
bilang commercial. Same day, ng MUNICIPAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR ng
cauayan ay nagpatibay na ang itatayo ng cdc ay umaayon sa local zoning regulations at binanggit din
na “It is classified as commercial area”

-Dahil ditto, itinayo ang isang gusali sa property at mula noon, ang DZNC at STAR FM ay nagpapatakbo
bilang mga istasyon ng radio. Matagumpay rin nilang nakuha yung mga operating documents, kasama
na ditto yung Mayor’s permit mula 1997-2001 at nagbayad din ng buwis ang CDC pero nagbago lahat
ng yon noong 2002.

-noon January 15, nag apply ang mga petitioner para sa pag renew ng mayor’s permit, noong
sumunod na araw, binanggit ng CITY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE SA CAUAYAN CITY sa tunay na ari-arian ng
CDC na inihain para sa 2002, kinumpirma na batay sa umiiral na file, ang ari-arian ng CDC ay classified
as “COMMERCIAL”

-Noong January 28 naman, ni request ng mga petitioner ang city zoning administrator na si Bagnos
Maximo na mag issue ng zoning clearance para sa property.Hiniling ni Maximo na mag submit ang mg
petitioner ng “EITHER AN APPROVED LAND CONVERSION PAPERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM SHOWING THAT PROPERTY WAS CONVERTED FROM PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
TO COMMERCIAL LAND, OR ANG APPROVED RESOLUTION FROM THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OR
PANGLUNGSOD AUTHORIZING THE RE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL
LAND TO COMMERCIAL LAND. Pero ang mga petitioner ay hindi kailanman inatasan na mgasumite ng
mga sinabing papel ni maximo noon mula 1996-2001, Kaya ang OMPDC ay patuloy na nagpapatunay
or certified na ang ari-arian ay classified as commercial.

-Dahil hindi nila nakuha yung mga papel na iyon, tinanggi ni maximo na mag isyu ng zoning clearance
sa mga petitioner at hindi rin sila makakakuha ng mayor’s permit.