You.Got.Life@Tinago Falls

You.Got.Life (so take a break... and its so hot)

Tinago Falls (Iligan)




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

Iglesia ni Kristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996

Iglesia ni Kristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996 Iglesia Ni Cristo (“INC”) maintains a TV program which is regularly shown in Channels 2 and 13. The Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television (“Board”) classified several episodes of the show as “X” or not for public viewing on the ground that they offend and constitute an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law. In its Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, INC posits that religious programs (like theirs) do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Board. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Freedom of religion has been accorded a preferred status by the framers of our fundamental laws, past and present.   We have affirmed this preferred status well aware that it is “designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the...
Read more