Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

APOLONIO CABANSAG v. GEMINIANA MARIA FERNANDEZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 205956 2014-02-12	P & SUPT. HANSEL M. MARANTAN v. ATTY. JOSE MANUEL DIOKNO MENDOZA, J.
The power of contempt is inherent in all courts in order to allow them to conduct their business unhampered by publications and comments which tend to impair the impartiality of their decisions or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice. As important as the maintenance of freedom of speech, is the maintenance of the independence of the Judiciary. The "clear and present danger" rule may serve as an aid in determining the proper constitutional boundary between these two rights.[10]
	AM No. 10-10-4-SC 2011-03-08	UP LAW FACULTY'S STATEMENT ON PLAGIARISM ALLEGATIONS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
My attention was called to the Judgment and the issue of possible plagiarism by the Philippine chapter of the Southeast Asia Media Legal Defence Initiative (SEAMLDI),[19] an affiliate of the London-based Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI), where I sit as trustee.
	AM No. 10-10-4-SC 2011-03-08	UP LAW FACULTY'S STATEMENT ON PLAGIARISM ALLEGATIONS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Dr. Mark Ellis[20]
	GR No. 170516 2008-07-16	AKBAYAN v. AQUINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
over a constitutional right in order to preserve an ordered society, such as when there is a "clear and present danger" of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent as demonstrated in free speech cases,[272] or when there is a "compelling state interest" that must override the free exercise of religion.[273]
	GR No. 168338 2008-02-15	FRANCISCO CHAVEZ v. RAUL M. GONZALES PUNO, C.J.
Generally, restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by either or a combination of three tests, i.e., (a) the dangerous tendency doctrine which permits limitations on speech once a rational connection has been established between the speech restrained and the danger contemplated;[48] (b) the balancing of interests tests, used as a standard when courts need to balance conflicting social values and individual interests, and requires a conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation of type of situation;[49] and (c) the clear and present danger rule which rests on the premise that speech may be restrained because there is substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a right to prevent. This rule requires that the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive, "extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high."[50]
	GR No. 168338 2008-02-15	FRANCISCO CHAVEZ v. RAUL M. GONZALES PUNO, C.J.
Generally, restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by either or a combination of three tests, i.e., (a) the dangerous tendency doctrine which permits limitations on speech once a rational connection has been established between the speech restrained and the danger contemplated;[48] (b) the balancing of interests tests, used as a standard when courts need to balance conflicting social values and individual interests, and requires a conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation of type of situation;[49] and (c) the clear and present danger rule which rests on the premise that speech may be restrained because there is substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a right to prevent. This rule requires that the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive, "extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high."[50]