1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [29] Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, supra at 2229. [30] Chavez v. Gonzales, supra note 13 at 493. [31] Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Dy, supra note 18. [32] Id. [33] Chavez v. Gonzales, supra note 13 at 493-494. [34] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, 882 (2010). [35] Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009, 582 SCRA 254, 296. Citations omitted. [36] Rollo, p. 376. [37] G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969, 27 SCRA 835. [38] Id. at 864. [39] See Gonzales v. Comelec, supra. [40] Rollo , p. 373. [41] Quarterman v. Kefauver, 55 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1371 (1997). [42] Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-254 (1992). [43] Id. at 254. [44] Id. [45] See Burson v. Freeman, supra note 21 at 119-200, where the US Supreme Court said that to survive strict scrutiny, the State must do more than assert a compelling State interest, but must also demonstrate that its law is necessary to serve the asserted interest. It bears emphasis that the US Supreme Court did not categorically say that the State must adopt the least restrictive means. The measure of the restriction, however, whether it should be the least or whether it being less/necessary would suffice---is a discussion best left in another appropriate case. [46] SPARK v. Quezon City, supra note 8 at 419-420. Citation and emphasis omitted. [47] Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 15, 256 (1976). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 59/60