1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly inherent and invasive impact. Only when the challenged act has overcome the clear and present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the government having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality. Unless the government can overthrow this presumption, the content-based restraint will be struck down. With respect to content-based restrictions, the government must also show the type of harm the speech sought to be restrained would bring about especially the gravity and the imminence of the threatened harm - otherwise the prior restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech based on its content cannot be justified by hypothetical fears, "but only by showing a substantive and imminent evil that has taken the life of a reality already on ground." As formulated, "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." The regulation which restricts the speech content must also serve an important or substantial government interest, which is unrelated to the suppression of free expression. Also, the incidental restriction on speech must be no greater than what is essential to the furtherance of that interest. A restriction that is so broad that it encompasses more than what is required to satisfy the governmental interest will be invalidated. The regulation, therefore, must be reasonable and narrowly drawn to fit the regulatory purpose, with the least restrictive means undertaken. Thus, when the prior restraint partakes of a content-neutral regulation, it is subjected to an intermediate review. A content-based regulation, however, bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured against the clear and present danger rule. The latter will pass constitutional muster only if justified by a compelling reason, and the restrictions imposed are neither overbroad nor vague. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)[32] The paramount consideration in the analysis of the challenged provision, therefore, is the nature of the restraint on protected speech, whether it is content-based or otherwise, content-neutral. As explained in Chavez, a content-based regulation is evaluated using the clear and present danger rule, while courts will subject contentneutral restraints to intermediate scrutiny. Section 36.8 of R.A. No. 9189, as amended by R.A. No. 10590, is an impermissible content-neutral regulation for being overbroad, violating, thus, the free speech clause under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The questioned provision is clearly a restraint on one's exercise of right to campaign or disseminate campaign-related information. Prior restraint refers to official https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 10/60