Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    Sanidad Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Colleen Fretzie Laguardia Navarro
    The COMELEC promulgated Resolution 2167 to govern a plebiscite, prohibiting mass media from campaigning for or against issues during the campaign period. The petitioner challenged this as a violation of freedom of expression. The COMELEC argued spaces they provide allow expression. The Supreme Court ruled the prohibition was an unconstitutional restriction, as plebiscite issues are matters of public concern. Limiting discussion to COMELEC times and spaces does not guarantee information dissemination. Restrictions must further an important government interest unrelated to expression, and restrict expression no more than necessary. The resolution did not pass the tests of overbreadth and vagueness required for restrictions of free speech.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sanidad Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Colleen Fretzie Laguardia Navarro
    141 views1 page
    The COMELEC promulgated Resolution 2167 to govern a plebiscite, prohibiting mass media from campaigning for or against issues during the campaign period. The petitioner challenged this as a violation of freedom of expression. The COMELEC argued spaces they provide allow expression. The Supreme Court ruled the prohibition was an unconstitutional restriction, as plebiscite issues are matters of public concern. Limiting discussion to COMELEC times and spaces does not guarantee information dissemination. Restrictions must further an important government interest unrelated to expression, and restrict expression no more than necessary. The resolution did not pass the tests of overbreadth and vagueness required for restrictions of free speech.

    Original Description:

    constitutional law case

    Original Title

    Sanidad vs Comelec

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The COMELEC promulgated Resolution 2167 to govern a plebiscite, prohibiting mass media from campaigning for or against issues during the campaign period. The petitioner challenged this as a violation of freedom of expression. The COMELEC argued spaces they provide allow expression. The Supreme Court ruled the prohibition was an unconstitutional restriction, as plebiscite issues are matters of public concern. Limiting discussion to COMELEC times and spaces does not guarantee information dissemination. Restrictions must further an important government interest unrelated to expression, and restrict expression no more than necessary. The resolution did not pass the tests of overbreadth and vagueness required for restrictions of free speech.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    141 views1 page

    Sanidad Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Colleen Fretzie Laguardia Navarro
    The COMELEC promulgated Resolution 2167 to govern a plebiscite, prohibiting mass media from campaigning for or against issues during the campaign period. The petitioner challenged this as a violation of freedom of expression. The COMELEC argued spaces they provide allow expression. The Supreme Court ruled the prohibition was an unconstitutional restriction, as plebiscite issues are matters of public concern. Limiting discussion to COMELEC times and spaces does not guarantee information dissemination. Restrictions must further an important government interest unrelated to expression, and restrict expression no more than necessary. The resolution did not pass the tests of overbreadth and vagueness required for restrictions of free speech.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sanidad vs Comelec Group 2 Navarro

    Facts: COMELEC promulgated a resolution no. 2167 to govern the conduct of plebiscite on organic act. Petitioner assails the validity of the said resolution, particularly sec. 19 which prohibits the mass media, columnist, commentator, announcer or personality to use their column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues during plebiscite campaign period and on the day before and on the plebiscite day. Petitioner alleged that it violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and of the press. COMELEC argued that said section does not absolutely bar petitioner because he may do so through the COMELEC time and space. Issues: What did COMELEC prohibit? Was it an unconstitutional restraint on freedom of expression? Why? Did the law pass the test of Overbreadth and Vagueness? Was it an appropriate test for restrictions of free speech? Held: -Sec. 19 of Resolution no 2167, which prohibits the mass media, columnist, commentator, announcer or personality to use their column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues during plebiscite campaign period and on the day before and on the plebiscite day. - this form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason. Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information to the public concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or television times. -No, because governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. -No, the test appropriate is what was stated in US vs. OBrien on speech that is content-neutral. A government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government, if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incident restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. There must be a compelling reason to support it, or it will not pass muster under strict scrutiny. In addition, they will be tested for possible overbreadth and vagueness.

    You might also like