1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly campaign or propaganda for or against a party or candidate; (b) Holding political conventions, caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a any candidate or party; (c) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries or holding interviews for or against the election of any party or candidate for public office; (d) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials; (e) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against any candidate or party; (f) Giving, soliciting, or receiving contributions for election campaign purposes, either directly or indirectly. Provided, That simple expressions or opinion and thoughts concerning the election shall not be considered as part of an election campaign: Provided, further, That nothing herein stated shall be understood to prevent any person from expressing his views on current political problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of the candidates for public office whom he supports. In In Re: Gonzales, this Court determined that Section 50-B of Republic Act No. 4880 is a content-based regulation because it is a limitation that cuts deep into the substance of the speech and expression. Proceeding to apply the clear and present danger test, the majority reasoned that the limits on freedom of speech is justified by the serious substantive evil that affects the electoral process. It held that the evils that the law sought to prevent are "not merely in danger of happening, but actually in existence, and likely to continue unless curbed or remedied."[115] It ruled: For under circumstances that manifest abuses of the gravest character, remedies much more drastic than what ordinarily would suffice would indeed be called for. The justification alleged by the proponents of the measures weighs heavily with the members of the Court, though in varying degrees, in the appraisal of the aforesaid restrictions to which such precious freedoms are subjected. They are not unaware of the clear and present danger that calls for measures that may bear heavily on the exercise of the cherished rights of expression, of assembly, and of association. This is not to say that once such a situation is found to exist, there is no limit to the allowable limitations on such constitutional rights. The clear and present danger doctrine rightly viewed requires that not only should there be an occasion for the imposition of such restrictions but also that they be limited in scope.[116] This case, however, bears a different factual milieu. It would be a judicial error to carelessly apply the ruling in In Re: Gonzales here. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 42/60