Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
*Prior restraint
TESTS
1.) Dangerous Tendency Test- State has a right to prevent an evil and if the expression has a
dangerous tendency to bring that evil, mere tendency is required for the regulation to be valid;
dangerous to the very existence of the state
Inciting to Sedition- The state does not have to wait for harm to happen; can immediately punish
mere inciting
Causal relation
Present: not only a tendency but it is going to happen if regulation is not done
If you shout “fire” in an open field, there is no danger; no one will hear you
If you shout “fire”in a packed cinema, there is danger; can bring about commotion, injury, and
probably death (state can provide a subsequent punishment)
3.) Balancing Interests Test- (cited in Gonzales v. COMELEC) 2 rights of the Constitution clashes
Hierarchy of rights
Right to life
Not all the time that those occupying a higher tier will be preferred; the court is called upon to
determine what is more important
IMBONG v. OCHOA: right to life of the unborn v. right of state to regulate; reproductive health
*There were provisions in the RH Law that conscientious objectors were exempted
Tulfo wrote a commentary because he did not like the decision of the SC: Article titled as:
“Sangkatutak na Bobo”
Direct Contempt- affects proceedings of the court (e.g.: your phone rang during a
hearing)
Indirect Contempt
1.) There can be court criticisms but it must be gauged in respectful language
2.) Directed on the merits, not directed at the members of the court
3.) Must not downgrade the members of the court but only limited to the discussion