1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly test be the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the view that there is such an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter. Thereafter, his decision, whether favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. Thus if so minded, they can have recourse to the proper judicial authority. Free speech and peaceable assembly, along with the other intellectual freedoms, are highly ranked in our scheme of constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly stressed that on the judiciary, - even more so than on the other departments - rests the grave and delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such preferred rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so felicitiously (sic) termed by Justice Holmes "as the sovereign prerogative of judgment." Nonetheless, the presumption must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such rights, enjoying as they db precedence and primacy.[69] This standard was applied in the recent case of Chavez: [T]he clear and present danger rule . . . rests on the premise that speech may be restrained because there is substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil the 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."[70] (Citations omitted) In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Commission on Elections,[71] this Court explained that to justify a restriction on expression, a substantial interest must be clearly shown: A government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the government, if it furthers an important or substantial interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. Hence, even though the government's purposes are legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties, when the end can be more narrowly achieved.[72] (Citations omitted) In cases involving expression that strengthens suffrage, all the more should freedom of expression be protected and upheld.[73] It is the government's interest that the sanctity and integrity of the electoral process are preserved and the right to vote is protected by providing safe and accessible areas for voting and campaigning. However, to uphold a restriction, the governmental interest must outweigh the people's freedom of expression.[74] In this case, the regulations are forms of prior restraint on political speech because https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 33/60