Freedom of Expression (Speech, Press, Assembly & Petition)
Malabanan v. Ramento 129 SCRA 359
Facts:
Petitioners, all officers of the Supreme Student Council of the Gregorio Araneta University
Foundation, sought and were granted a permit to hold a meeting to protest the merger of the Institute of
Animal Science with the Institute of Agriculture. They expressed in a vehement language their opposition
to the merger and as a result, classes and office work were disturbed. They were later suspended for one
(1) academic year in holding an illegal assembly.
Issue:
W/N the suspension of the students for one academic year was violative of the constitutional
rights of freedom, peaceable assembly and free speech.
Ruling:
Yes. Respect for the constitutional rights of peaceable assembly and free speech calls for the
setting aside of the order of suspension. Suspending them for one year is out of proportion considering
that the vigorous presentation of views was expected. The excitement of the occasion, the propensity of
speakers to exaggerate and the exuberance of the youth should be taken into consideration.
They enjoy like the rest of the citizens the freedom to express their views and communicate their
thoughts to those disposed to listen in gatherings. While the authority of educational institutions over the
conduct of students must be recognized, it cannot go so far as to be violative of constitutional safeguards.
Martin v. City of Struthers, Ohio, 319 U. S. 141
Facts:
Martin was a Jehovah’s witness in Struthers, Ohio. She canvassed neighborhoods knocking on
doors and ringing doorbells to distribute leaflets promoting a meeting. She was convicted and fined $10
for violating a city ordinance that prohibited a person who was distributing leaflets and other flyers from
knocking on doors and ringing doorbells. She appealed her conviction in the Circuit Court of Mahoning
County, alleging that the city ordinance violated her First Amendment free speech and free press rights.
Issue:
W/N the city ordinance prohibiting the ringing of doorbells and knocking on doors by a person
distributing promotional materials violated the free speech and free press clauses of the First
Amendment.
Ruling:
Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio and held Struthers’ ordinance
unconstitutional. In the majority opinion written by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court acknowledged the
city’s interest in preventing crime and reducing nuisances. However, alternative solutions, such as
trespassing laws, were also available that could achieve the city’s purpose. Activities like Martin’s were so
clearly vital to the preservation of a free society that, putting aside reasonable police and health
regulations of time and manner of distribution, it must be fully preserved. The ordinance was overly
restrictive on door-to-door distributors, and therefore unconstitutional.
Mutuc v. Comelec, 36 SCRA 228
Facts:
Amelito Mutuc was a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention. His candidacy was
given due course by the COMELEC but he was prohibited from playing his campaign jingle on his mobile
units because that was an apparent violation of COMELEC’s ban “to purchase, request or distribute sample
ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as pens, lighters, fans, flashlights, athletic goods and
materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes, and the like, whether of domestic or foreign
origin. According to him, this violated his constitutional rights to freedom of speech.
Issue:
W/N the prohibition imposed by COMELEC was a violation of the right to freedom of speech of
Amelito Mutuc.
Ruling:
The SC ruled that there was an absence of statutory authority on the part of COMELEC to impose
such ban in the light of the doctrine of “ejusdem generis.” COMELEC failed to manifest fealty to a cardinal
principle of construction that a statute should be interpreted to assure its being consonance with, rather
than repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription. The Constitution prohibits abridgement
of free speech or a free press. According to the SC, this preferred freedom calls all the more for the utmost
respect when what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more meaningful the
equally vital right of suffrage.
