Article III, Section 4

Continuation

D.IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION TEST

Imminent Lawless Action Test.

US SC held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech

unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless
action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” (Brandenburg vs.
Ohio, 395 US 444, 1969).

“Advocacy of illegal action becomes punishable only if such

advocacy is directed to inciting or producing lawless action and is likely
to incite or promote action. Except in unusual instances, Brandenburg
protects the advocacy of lawlessness as long as such speech is not
translated into action.” (MVRS Publications, Inc. vs. Islamic Da’wah
Council of the Philippines, GR 135306, 28 Jan 2003).
Three elements of Imminent Lawless Action Test:

a. Intent to speak
b. Imminence of lawlessness
c. Likelihood of lawlessness

CRITICISM OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

*****U.S. v. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29
Lagunzad v. Sotto Vda. De Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476
Ayer Production Pty Ltd. V. Judge Capulong, 160 SCRA 861
COMMENTS ON PENDING LITIGATION

People v Alarcon, 69 Phil 625

*****People v. Godoy, 243 SCRA 64 (1995).
In re Sotto, 46 O.G. 2570
In re Laureta, G.R. No. 68635, March 12, 1987
****In re Tulfo, A.M. No. 90-4-1545-0, April 17, 1990.
In re Jurado, 243 SCRA 299
*****Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 316
In Re: Published Alleged Threats against Members of the Court in
the plunder case Hurled by Atty. Leonard De Vera, 434 Phil. 503

ART AND OBSCENITY

U.S. v. Kottinger, 45 Phil. 352

***People v. Go Pin, 97 Phil. 418
People v. Padan, 101 Phil. 749
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51
Miller v. California, 37 L. ed. 2nd 419
Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362

ASSEMBLY AND PETITION

Reyes v. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553.

****Dela Cruz v. Ela, 99 Phil. 346
Tanada v. Bagatsing, G.R.No. 68273, August 18, 1984

Public Assembly Act (B. P. 880)

****Bayan Muna v. Executive Secretary Ermita, 488 SCRA 226.

TESTS (Purpose Test v. Auspices Test)

****De Jonge v. Oregon, 229 U.S. 353

Evangelista v. Earnshaw, 57 Phil. 255

U.S. v. Apurado, 7 Phil. 422

****Malabanan v. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359
Villar v. TIP, 135 SCRA 706
Aquino v. Bagatsing, G.R. no. 68318, August 18, 1984
PBM Employees Association v. PBM, 51 SCRAS 189
Toyota Motor Phils Corp. Workers Association v. NLRC, 537 SCRA
171

Article III, Section 8

ASSOCIATION

****SSS Employees Association v. Court of Appeals, 175 SCRA 686

People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54
Liberty Flour Mills Employees Association v. Liberty Flour Mills,
Inc., 180 SCRA 668
****Occena v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404
In re Edillon, 84 SCRA 554
ARTICLE III, Section 7

ACCESS TO INFORMATION (Article III, Section 7)

****The Province of North Cotobato v. The Government of the

Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591,
October 14, 2008.
Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment hrough Alternative
Legal Services, Inc. v. PSALM corp., G.R. No. 192088, October 9,
2012.
Bantay Republic v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177271, May 4, 2007.
****Legaspi v. CSC, 234 Phil. 521.
Subido v. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383.
Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14.
Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744.
AKBAYAN v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008.
In Re: Request of PCIJ for 2008 v SALNS of Court of Appeals
Justices, A.M. No. 09-8-07-CA, June 13, 2012.