PEOPLE V. FELEO, G.R. No. 36429. November 3, 1932

SEDITIOUS SPEECH
PEOPLE V. FELEO, G.R. No. 36429.  November 3, 1932.
Feleo spoke before an assembly of 100 people, where he encouraged the people to use their  guns against the American government. For this, he was convicted of the crime of sedition or inciting to sedition.
Upon analysis these two questions really resolved themselves into one, which is whether the language used was seditious; for it is well established doctrine that the constitutional guaranty of the freedom of speech or of the press. The second question is whether the words used by the appellant are in fact of a seditious character. Upon analysis these two questions really resolve themselves into one, which is whether the language used was seditious; for it is well established doctrine that the constitutional guaranty of the freedom of speech and of the press does not give a person an unqualified right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever he may choose. That a state in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse the freedom conferred by the constitutional provision, and whose language tends to disturb the public peace, is not open to question. (Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U.S., 666.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835, G.R. No. 27833, April 18, 1969

Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835, G.R. No. 27833, April 18, 1969 Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 4880 prohibiting the too early nomination of candidates and limiting the period of electoral campaign. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST & DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST At the very least, free speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment. There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings   unless there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. This Court spoke, in Cabansag v. Fernandez ; of two tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for permissible restriction. Thus: "These are the 'clear and present danger' rule and the 'dangero...
Read more

CABANSAG v. FERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 8974, October 18, 1957.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND LIBEL AND CONTEMPT LAWS CABANSAG v. FERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 8974, October 18, 1957. Cabansag filed a suit to eject Fernandez from a certain parcel of land. The trial of the case however, was unduly prolonged, prompting Cabansag to write a letter to the Presidential Complainants and Action Commission (PCAC). For this, he and his lawyers were held in contempt of court. We are therefore confronted with a clash of two fundamental rights which lie at the bottom of our democratic institutions — the independence of the judiciary and the right to petition the government for redress of grievance. How to balance and reconcile the exercise of these rights is the problem posed in the case before us. ". . . A free press is not to be preferred to an independent judiciary, nor an independent judiciary to a free press. Neither has primacy over the other; both are indispensable to a free society. The freedom of the press in itself presupposes an independent judiciary t...
Read more

People v. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14 December 27, 1972

SEDITIOUS SPEECH People v. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14 December 27, 1972 [T]he [Anti-Subversion] Act is aimed against conspiracies to overthrow the Government by force, violence or other illegal means. Whatever interest in freedom of speech and freedom of association is infringed by the prohibition against knowing membership in the Communist Party of the Philippines, is so indirect and so insubstantial as to be clearly and heavily outweighed by the overriding considerations of national security and the preservation of democratic institutions in his country. The membership clause of the U.S. Federal Smith Actis similar in many respects to the membership provision ofthe Anti-Subversion Act. The former provides: Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize anysociety, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, orencourage the overthrow or destruction of any such governmentby force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliatedwith, any such society,...
Read more