Ayer Productions vs.

Judge Capulong
G.R. No. 82380
April 29, 1988

Facts: Petitioner McElroy an Australian filmmaker, and his movie production company, Ayer
Productions, envisioned, sometime in 1987, for commercial viewing and for Philippine and
international release, the historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. The proposed
motion picture entitled "The Four Day Revolution" was endorsed by the MTRCB as and other
government agencies consulted. Ramos also signified his approval of the intended film
production. It is designed to be viewed in a six-hour mini-series television play, presented in a
"docu-drama" style, creating four fictional characters interwoven with real events, and utilizing
actual documentary footage as background. David Williamson is Australia's leading playwright
and Professor McCoy (University of New South Wales) is an American historian have
developed a script.

Enrile declared that he will not approve the use, appropriation, reproduction and/or exhibition
of his name, or picture, or that of any member of his family in any cinema or television
production, film or other medium for advertising or commercial exploitation. petitioners
acceded to this demand and the name of Enrile was deleted from the movie script, and
petitioners proceeded to film the projected motion picture. However, a complaint was filed by
Enrile invoking his right to privacy. RTC ordered for the desistance of the movie production
and making of any reference to plaintiff or his family and from creating any fictitious character
in lieu of plaintiff which nevertheless is based on, or bears substantial or marked resemblance
to Enrile. Hence the appeal.

Issue: WON freedom of expression was violated.

Held: Yes. Freedom of speech and of expression includes the freedom to film and produce
motion pictures and exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to diffuse them through
television. Furthermore the circumstance that the production of motion picture films is a
commercial activity expected to yield monetary profit, is not a disqualification for availing of
freedom of speech and of expression. The projected motion picture was as yet uncompleted
and hence not exhibited to any audience. Neither private respondent nor the respondent trial
Judge knew what the completed film would precisely look like. There was, in other words, no
"clear and present danger" of any violation of any right to privacy. Subject matter is one of
public interest and concern. The subject thus relates to a highly critical stage in the history of
the country.

At all relevant times, during which the momentous events, clearly of public concern, that
petitioners propose to film were taking place, Enrile was a "public figure:" Such public figures
were held to have lost, to some extent at least, their right to privacy. The line of equilibrium in
the specific context of the instant case between the constitutional freedom of speech and of
expression and the right of privacy, may be marked out in terms of a requirement that the
proposed motion picture must be fairly truthful and historical in its presentation of events.
Miller vs. California
413 U.S. 15 (1973)

Facts: Mr. Miller sent five unsolicited advertising brochures through the mail addressed to a
restaurant. When opened the manager and his mother complained to the police. The
brochures advertised four adult book titles and an adult movie. Some descriptive language,
pictures and drawings of men and women engaged sexually were displayed.

Issue. Whether state statutes may regulate obscene material without limits.

Held: Yes, but limited to where the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in
sex; portrays sexual conduct specifically defined by state law in a patently offensive way; and
taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. States
have an legit interest in prohibiting the dissemination or exhibition of obscene material when
the mode used has a significant danger of offending unwilling recipients or theres a risk of
exposure to juveniles.
Miriam College Foundation vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 127930
December 15, 2000

Facts: A school paper (Chi-Rho) and magazine (Ang Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi-Rho)
contents of the September-October 1994 issue that was published in Miriam College was said
to be obscene, vulgar, indecent, gross, sexually explicit, injurious to young readers,
and devoid of all moral values. Following the publication of the paper and the magazine, the
members of the editorial board, and Relly Carpio, author of Libog, all students of Miriam
College, received a letter signed by Dr. Aleli Sevilla, Chair of the Miriam College Discipline
Committee. The students that are involved are required to submit a written statement in the
answer of the charge/s but none of the students submitted their answer instead they asked
Dr. Sevilla to transfer the case to the Regional Office of DECS, which have the jurisdiction over
the matter. However, Dr. Sevilla again requested them to submit their answers but in
response, the students have their lawyer that submitted a letter to the Discipline Committee
stating that the students' position that the committee has no jurisdiction over the case.
Despite, the committee proceeds with the investigation. After which, the committee imposed
the sanctions to the students. Some of the students will be expelled, dismissed,and others will
be suspended and will not be allowed to attend their graduation. The students filed a petition
for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction/restraining order before the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City about the decision made by the committee. The TRO was denied.
The students filed a Supplemental Petition and Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC granted
a writ of preliminary injunction. Both parties moved for reconsideration. On the issue that
DECS has the jurisdiction over this matter, but RTC dismissed the case. An appeal on CA was
made, the CA issued a TRO to Miriam College with regards to the sanction given to the
students.

Issue: WON Miriam College has jurisdiction over the complaints against the students.

Held: Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act should be read in a manner as not to infringe
upon the school's right to discipline its students. At the same time, however, we should not
construe said provision as to unduly restrict the right of the students to free speech.
Consistent with jurisprudence, we read Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act to mean that
the school cannot suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles he or she has
written, except when such articles materially disrupt classwork or involve substantial disorder
or invasion of the rights of others. The power of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its
power to suspend or expel. It is a necessary corollary to the enforcement of rules and
regulations and the maintenance of a safe and orderly educational environment conducive to
learning. That power, like the power to suspend or expel, is an inherent part of the academic
freedom of institutions of higher learning guaranteed by the Constitution. SC rule that Miriam
College has the authority to hear and decide the cases filed against students.
Chavez vs. PEA and Amari
G.R. No. 133250
July 9. 2002

Facts: From the time of Marcos until Estrada, portions of Manila Bay were being reclaimed. A law
was passed creating the Public Estate Authority which was granted with the power to transfer
reclaimed lands. In this case, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with AMARI, a private
corporation. Under the Joint Venture Agreement between AMARI and PEA, several hectares of
reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands and several portions of submerged areas of
Manila Bay were going to be transferred to AMARI .

Issue: WON the stipulations in the Amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands, reclaimed or
to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution.

Ruling: Under the Public Land Act (CA 141, as amended), reclaimed lands are classified as
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain Section 3 of the Constitution: Alienable
lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or
associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease The 157.84
hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates of title
in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may lease these lands to
private corporations but may not sell or transfer ownership of these lands to private corporations.
PEA may only sell these lands to Philippine
citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution and existing laws. Clearly,
the Amended JVA violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Under
Article 1409 of the Civil Code, contracts whose object or purpose is contrary to law, or whose
object is outside the commerce of men, are inexistent and void from the beginning. The Court
must perform its duty to defend and uphold the Constitution, and therefore declares the Amended
JVA null and void ab initio.
Request for Live Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Case
against former Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez vs.
Joseph Ejercito Estrada
A.M. No. 00-1-4-03-SC
June 29, 2001

Facts: Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez filed a motion requesting for permission to
televise and broadcast live the trial of former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan.
He argues that there is really no conflict between the right of the people to public information
and the freedom of the press, on the one hand, and, on the other, the right of the accused to
a fair trial; that if there is a clash between these rights, it must be resolved in favor of the right
of the people and the press because the people, as the repository of sovereignty, are entitled
to information; and that live media coverage is a safeguard against attempts by any party to
use the courts as instruments for the pursuit of selfish interests.

On the other hand, former President Joseph E. Estrada reiterates his objection to the live TV
and radio coverage of his trial on the ground that its allowance will violate the sub judice rule
and that, based on his experience with the impeachment trial, live media coverage will only
pave the way for so-called "expert commentary" which can trigger massive demonstrations
aimed at pressuring the Sandiganbayan to render a decision one way or the other. Mr. Estrada
contends that the right of the people to information may be served through other means less
distracting, degrading, and prejudicial than live TV and radio coverage.

Issue: WON there should be an audio-visual recording of the trial of former President Estrada
before the Sandiganbayan.

Ruling: Court believes that there should be an audio-visual recording of the proceedings. The
recordings will not be for live or real time broadcast but for documentary purposes. Only later
will they be available for public showing, after the Sandiganbayan shall have promulgated its
decision in every case to which the recording pertains. The master film shall be deposited in
the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for historical
preservation and exhibition pursuant to law. Under the following conditions: (a) the trial shall
be recorded in its entirety, excepting such portions thereof as the Sandiganbayan may
determine should not be held public under Rule 119, 21 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; (b)
cameras shall be installed inconspicuously inside the courtroom and the movement of TV
crews shall be regulated consistent with the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings; (c) the
audio-visual recordings shall be made for documentary purposes only and shall be made
without comment except such annotations of scenes depicted therein as may be necessary to
explain them; (d) the live broadcast of the recordings before the Sandiganbayan shall have
rendered its decision in all the cases against the former President shall be prohibited under
pain of contempt of court and other sanctions in case of violations of the prohibition; (e) to
ensure that the conditions are observed, the audio-visual recording of the proceedings shall
be made under the supervision and control of the Sandiganbayan or its Division concerned
and shall be made pursuant to rules promulgated by it; and (f) simultaneously with the release
of the audio-visual recordings for public broadcast, the original thereof shall be deposited in
the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for preservation and
exhibition in accordance with law.