SECTION 4: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

United States vs. Bustos

[G.R. No. L-12592, 8 March 1918]
Qualified privilege which may be lost by proof of malice. "A communication made bona
fide upon any subject matter in which the party communicating has an interest or in reference to
which he has a duty, is privileged, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty,
although it contain criminatory matter which without this privilege would be slanderous and
actionable.”
Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in
their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the
mistake of the individual. Personal injury is not necessary. The privilege is not defeated by the
mere fact that the communication is made in intemperate terms. Finally, if a party applies to the
wrong person through some natural and honest mistake as to the respective functions of various
officials, such an unintentional error would not take the case out of the privilege.

Guingguing vs. Court of Appeals

[G.R. No. 128959, 30 September 2005]
It is clear that there was nothing untruthful about what was published in the Sunday Post.
The criminal cases listed have indeed been filed. By this reason, the publication of the subject
advertisement by petitioner and Lim cannot be deemed by this court to have been done with
actual malice. Aside from the fact that the information contained in said publication was true, the
intention to let the public know the character of their radio commentator can at best be subsumed
under the mantle of having been done with good motives and for justifiable ends. The
advertisement in question falls squarely within the bounds of constitutionally protected
expression under Sec. 4, Art. 3 and thus the acquittal of the petitioner is mandated.

Soriano v. Laguardia
G.R. No. 164785, April 29, 2009
Even if Soriano’s remarks are not obscene but merely indecent speech, he still cannot
avail himself of the constitutional protection of free speech because the said statements were in a
medium easily accessible to children. It is the duty of the government to protect and promote the
welfare of the youth. The court ruled that the government’s interest to protect and promote the
interests and welfare of the children defeats Soriano’s prayer to continue as a program host of
“Ang Dating Daan” during his suspension.
The freedom of speech or expression is one of the fundamental and most vital rights
granted to citizens of the state since without it, a free, stable, effective, and democratic state
would be difficult to attain. Against the freedom of speech is the right of the youth to their moral,
spiritual, intellectual, and social being which the state is constitutionally tasked to promote.