This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-04-14 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Further, in Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC,[19] the Court, notwithstanding the grant of supervisory and regulatory powers to the COMELEC under Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution, declared unconstitutional a regulation prohibiting the release of election surveys prior to the election since it "actually suppresses a whole class of expression, while allowing the expression of opinion concerning the same subject matter by newspaper columnists, radio and [television (TV)] commentators, armchair theorists, and other opinion makers."[20] | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner would next have the Court adopt a hands-off approach to the conflict between him and the Iglesia Ni Cristo. In support of his urging, he cites Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals.[7] | |||||
|
2008-02-15 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Thus, all speech are not treated the same. Some types of speech may be subjected to some regulation by the State under its pervasive police power, in order that it may not be injurious to the equal right of others or those of the community or society.[43] The difference in treatment is expected because the relevant interests of one type of speech, e.g., political speech, may vary from those of another, e.g., obscene speech. Distinctions have therefore been made in the treatment, analysis, and evaluation of the permissible scope of restrictions on various categories of speech.[44] We have ruled, for example, that in our jurisdiction slander or libel, lewd and obscene speech, as well as "fighting words" are not entitled to constitutional protection and may be penalized.[45] | |||||