This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, what was assailed was not a law but COMELEC En Banc Resolution No. 98-1419 where the COMELEC resolved to approve the issuance of a restraining order to stop ABS-CBN from conducting exit surveys.[139] The right to freedom of expression was similarly upheld in this case and, consequently, the assailed resolution was nullified and set aside.[140] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2006-10-09 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| [9] ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Commission on Elections, 380 Phil. 780, January 28, 2000; Gonzales v. Chavez, 205 SCRA 816, February 4, 1992. | |||||