This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Besides, the overbreadth challenge places on petitioners the heavy burden of proving that under no set of circumstances will Section 4(a)(3) be valid.[11] Petitioner has failed to discharge this burden. | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| A newspaper should not be held to account to a point of suppression for honest mistakes, or imperfection in the choice of words.[25] While, indeed, the allegation of inappropriate sexual advances in an appeal of a contempt ruling does not turn such case into one for sexual harassment, we agree with petitioners' proposition that the subject news article's author, not having any legal training, cannot be expected,to make the fine distinction between a sexual harassment suit and a suit where there was an allegation of sexual harassment. In fact, three other newspapers reporting the same incident committed the same mistake: the Manila Times article was headlined "Judge in sex case now in physical injury rap";[26] the Philippine Star article described Judge Cruz as "(a) Makati judge who was previously charged with sexual harassment by a lady prosecutor";[27] and the Manila Standard Article referred to him as "(a) Makati judge who was reportedly charged with sexual harassment by a lady fiscal."[28] | |||||
|
2005-12-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Although it has been stressed that a newspaper "should not be held to account to a point of suppression for honest mistakes, or imperfection in the choice of words,"[32] even the most liberal view of free speech has never countenanced the publication of falsehoods, especially the persistent and unmitigated dissemination of patent lies.[33] "There is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society's interest in 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' debate."[34] The use of the known lie as a tool is at once at odds with the premises of democratic government and with the orderly manner in which economic, social, or political change is to be effected. Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality..." The knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection" (citations omitted).[35] | |||||
|
2003-07-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Verily, it does not appear that Pimentel caused the publication in the Philippine Star of the fact of filing of the petition for certiorari by the Committee and the reproduction of excerpts thereof. He had no right to choose which news articles will see print in the newspaper. Rather, it is the publisher thereof which decides which news events will be reported in the broadsheet. In doing so, it is allowed "the widest latitude of choice as to what items should see the light of day so long as they are relevant to a matter of public interest," pursuant to its right of press freedom.[12] | |||||