Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Defensor Santiago Vs COMELEC, G.R. NO. 127325

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Cubero
    This case involved a challenge to amendments made to the Philippine Election Code that prohibited campaigning or nominating candidates too early. The petitioners argued these amendments violated their constitutional rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and association. The Supreme Court held that while freedom of expression is important, it is not absolute and can be limited to prevent clear and present dangers of substantial evils. The danger must be both clear and imminent for a restriction on speech to be justified. The Court established this test as the criterion for determining when restrictions on speech are permissible under the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Defensor Santiago Vs COMELEC, G.R. NO. 127325

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Cubero
    12 views3 pages
    This case involved a challenge to amendments made to the Philippine Election Code that prohibited campaigning or nominating candidates too early. The petitioners argued these amendments violated their constitutional rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and association. The Supreme Court held that while freedom of expression is important, it is not absolute and can be limited to prevent clear and present dangers of substantial evils. The danger must be both clear and imminent for a restriction on speech to be justified. The Court established this test as the criterion for determining when restrictions on speech are permissible under the Constitution.

    Original Title

    Defensor Santiago Vs

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a challenge to amendments made to the Philippine Election Code that prohibited campaigning or nominating candidates too early. The petitioners argued these amendments violated their constitutional rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and association. The Supreme Court held that while freedom of expression is important, it is not absolute and can be limited to prevent clear and present dangers of substantial evils. The danger must be both clear and imminent for a restriction on speech to be justified. The Court established this test as the criterion for determining when restrictions on speech are permissible under the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views3 pages

    Defensor Santiago Vs COMELEC, G.R. NO. 127325

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Cubero
    This case involved a challenge to amendments made to the Philippine Election Code that prohibited campaigning or nominating candidates too early. The petitioners argued these amendments violated their constitutional rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and association. The Supreme Court held that while freedom of expression is important, it is not absolute and can be limited to prevent clear and present dangers of substantial evils. The danger must be both clear and imminent for a restriction on speech to be justified. The Court established this test as the criterion for determining when restrictions on speech are permissible under the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Defensor Santiago Vs

    COMELEC, G.R. NO. 127325


    Gonzales vs.

    COMMELEC

    Facts: the petitioners accused in their action entitled Declaratory Relief with Preliminary Injunction,

    filed on July 22, 1967, commenced trial in the Court of First Instance but were treated by this Court as

    one of prohibition in view of the seriousness and the urgency of the constitutional issue raised. The

    Petitioners challenged the validity of two new sections now included in the Revised Election Code.

    Under Republic Act No. 4880, which was approved and took effect on June 17, 1967, prohibiting the too

    early nomination of candidates and limiting the period of election campaign or partisan political activity.

    Petitioner Cabigao was an incumbent councilor in the 4th District of Manila and the Nacionalista Party

    official candidate for Vice-Mayor of Manila to which he was subsequently elected on November 11,

    1967; petitioner Gonzales, on the other hand, is a private individual, a registered voter in the City of

    Manila and a political leader of his co-petitioner. It is their claim that “the enforcement of said Republic

    Act No. 4880 in question [would] prejudice [their] basic rights…, such as their freedom of speech, their

    freedom of assembly and their right to form associations or societies for purpose not contrary to law,

    guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution, ”and that therefore said act is unconstitutional.

    Issue: Whether or not the Right of Expression of Speech is susceptible of any limitation

    Held: Yes, The Court spoke of two tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for permissible
    restriction. Freedom of expression is not an absolute.

    The danger must not only be clear but also present. The term clear seems to point to a causal
    connection with the danger of the substantially evil arising from the utterance questioned. Present
    refers to the time element. It used to be identified with imminent and immediate danger. This test then
    as a limitation on freedom of expression is justified by the danger or evil a substantive character that the
    state has a right to prevent, Unlike the dangerous tendency doctrine.

    The danger to be guarded against is the ‘substantive evil’ sought to be prevented.” It has the advantage
    of establishing according to the above decision “a definite rule in constitutional law. It provides the
    criterion as to what words established.”

    You might also like