Freedom of Expression

1.

The five different rights included in Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
are the following:

 Freedom of Speech
 Freedom of Expression
 Freedom of the Press
 Right of Peaceful Assembly
 Right to Petition.

2.
CRITICISM OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

Yes, a private individual can criticize the President or any public official for his
performance in leading our country through this pandemic.

In United States v. Bustos, the US Supreme Court stressed the importance of

complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public officials.The ability to criticize
government officials has been said to be the central meaning of the press clause of
the Constitution. One important reason of freedom of speech in republican and
democratic State by voicing their criticisms of official misconduct in government
that public officers be reminded of constitutional responsibility.

Therefore, a private individual can criticize the President or any public

official for his performance in leading our country through this pandemic since that
this is an issue of public health. Criticisms must be born of common good, does not
authorized defamation and as long as their comments are in good faith and with
justifiable ends. Lastly, even the private life, of a public servant are legitimate
subjects of public comment because it is the right of the people to scrutinize and
commend or condemn the conduct of their chosen public officials.

2.1

Yes, Atty. Diokno can validly interpose as his defense his

Freedom of expression.

Aside from equal protection of laws and due process, his Freedom of
Expression is a good defense for the alleged violation of Article 154 of the
RPC. In U.S V Perfecto, the court upheld that the interest of civilized society
and the maintenance of good government demand a full and free discussion
of all affairs of public interest. The depleting government fund to fight the
pandemic is a common concern among citizens , and a public interest. Atty.
 Diokno, criticizing the wisdom of the President to acquire an airplane
worth Php 2 billion amidst the pandemic that causes the depleting
government fund demands a full discussion of public affairs. Also, our
Constitution has provided that “no law shall passed abridging the freedom
of speech, of expression or of the press, except for an abuse of that freedom.
Therefore, he can validly interpose as his defense his Freedom of
expression because criticizing the wisdom of the President regarding on
the said matter, that the administration of government is not conducting
the best interest of all concerned is not only an exercise of his right but also
his duty to present the cause of his grievance to the public as a citizen of a
republican and democratic state.

2.2

No, Section 6, of The Bayanihan to Heal as One Act is not a

curtailment of the Freedom of Expression, especially the Constitutional
Provision which states that “NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED…”.

In Gonzales v Comelec , the above stated Constitutional provision,

entails that at the very least , free speech and free press may be identified
with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public
interest without censorship or punishment. Sec. 6, of The Bayanihan to
Heal as One Act states that “the said law criminally penalizes the spreading
of false news with respect to the pandemic .” The law is clear that it will
penalize the “spreading of false news” as to regards with pandemic, neither
the Constitutional provision do not authorize such, that the Freedom of
expression delimits unjustifiable ,inaccurate or erroneous views.

Therefore, Section 6, of The Bayanihan to Heal as One Act is not a

curtailment of the Freedom of Expression, especially the Constitutional
Provision which states that “NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED….”

2.3
Yes, a private individual can criticize and malign to the point of
slander another private individual freely. However, an individual cannot hide
under the mantle of the Constitutional right to free expression.

Man’s mind was free, his fate determined b his own powers of reason , and
his prospects of creating a rational and enlightened civilization virtually
unlimited. An enjoyment of one’s right, has a corresponding obligation to
respect the right of the others. Criticism invites a dispute, an individual has
the right to criticize others, with all his will until he runs afoul of the
penalties of libel or slander or into some infractions of our statutory, if he has
abuse his freedom of expression. Consequently, a private individual cannot a
hide under the mantle of the Constitutional right to free expression because
private individuals does not raise any constitutional issue under the freedom
 of speech clause. However, such person maybe held civilly and criminally
liable.
3.
Importance of Freedom of Expression

Freedom of Expression is a fundamental human rights. It is important to a

democratic society. What makes a human worthwhile is through his expression
because through expressing yourself, you are involved. It enables the free exchange
of ideas, opinions and information and thus allows members of society to form their
own opinions on issues of public importance.
 5.

Freedom from Censorship or Prior Restraint

It refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of

expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. Freedom from prior
restraint is largely freedom from government censorship of publications, whatever
the form of censorship and regardless of whether it is wielded by the executive ,
legislative , or judicial branch of the government.

Freedom from Subsequent Punishment

This is a limitation on the power of the State to impose a punishment after

publication or dissemination. Criticism on the government, no matter how severe , is
within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect be seditious.

6.
Content-Based Restraint

It refers to restrictions “based on the subject matter of the utterance or

speech .” Aimed to restraint at the message or idea of the expression , distort public
debate have improper motivation and are usually imposed because of fear of how
people will react to a particular speech.

Content Neutral Restraint

This kind of restraint includes controls merely on the incidents of speech

such as time , place , or manner of the speech or expression in public places without
any restraint on the context of expression.

6.1 Content –Based and Content – Neutral Regulations

Content –Based Regulations Content Neutral Regulations

Object of Restraint
Restraint aimed at the message or Restraint aims to regulate the time, place
idea of the expression , distort public or manner of the expression in public
debate have improper motivation and places without any restraint on the
are usually imposed because of fear of content of the expression.
how people will react to a particular
speech.
 Test for Validity
Strict Scrutiny: Speech content may be Intermediate approach or the O’Brien
regulated only to further a compelling Test:
public interest in a way that does not A government regulation is justified if:
impair speech more than is absolutely 1. It is within the constitutional
necessary to further that interest. power of the government;
2. It furthers an important or
Clear and Present Danger Test: substantial government interest
3. The government interest is
Congress may prevent speech only when unrelated to the suppression of
the words used are used in such free expression;
circumstances and are of such a nature 4. The incident restriction on alleged
as to create a clear and present danger freedom of speech andexpression
that they will bring about substantive is no greater than is essential to
evils. the furtherance of that interest
expression is no greater than is
essential to the furtherance of
that interest.
Application
A rule such as that involved in Sanidad v Regulations of time place and manner of
COMELEC prohibiting columnists, holding Public Assemblies under BP Blg.
commentators, and announcers from 880, the Public Assembly Act of 1985.
campaigning either for or against an
issue in a plebiscite must have a
compelling reason to support it, or it will
not pass muster under strict scrutiny.
Both are content regulations which restrict the freedom of speech and expression,
which are prior retraint

6.2

a. Facial Challenge

A facial Challenge is an exception to the rule that only persons who

are directly affected by a statute have legal standing to assail the same. This
is only applicable to statutes involving free speech, impeached on the
grounds of overbreadth or vagueness. This principle is a challenge against
the constitutionalityof a statute that can be filed even where the petitioner
claims no actual violation of his own rights under the assailed statute but
relies instead on the potential violation of his or other persons. The
established rule is that a party can question the validity of a statute only if, as
applied to him, it is unconstitutional. The exception is the so-called “facial
challenge.” But the only time a facial challenge is allowed is when it operates
in the area of freedom of expression.
 b. Overbreadth Doctrine

The ovberbreadth doctrine is a ground to declare a statute void

when “it offends the constitutional principle that a governmental
purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to
state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms”.

c. Void-for –Vagueness Doctrine

A statute is vague if it lacks comprehensible standards that men of

common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as
to its application. It violates due process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targeted by it fair notice of the conduct avoid.

7.

8.
The Clear and Present Danger Rule

This rule states that the evil consequence of the comment or utterance
must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high
before the utterance can be punished . It has now been applied to
determine the validity of restrictions on freedom of speech , as well as on
religious freedom.

The Danger Tendency Rule

The rule states that “if the words uttered create a dangerous
tendency which the state has a right to prevent , then such words are
punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of
force , violence , or unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that
such acts be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in
general terms. Nor is it necessary that the language used be
reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force , violence or
unlawfulness.
 The Balancing of Interest Rule

It is a principle which requires a Court to consider the

circumstances in each particular case, and thereafter; it shall settle the
issue of which right demands greater protection. It is used as a
standard when courts need to balance conflicting social values and
individual interests and requires a conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given
situation.

9.

Yes. The extent of the criticism of official conduct is not always in the
sphere of public officials but also to public figures and private individuals.

According to Rosebloom v Metromedia , a private individual may still

be the subject of public comment even if he is not public official or atleast a public
figure, as long as he is involved in a public issue and if it is a matter of subject of
general or public interest. Since that, the public is interested in public event ; the
public focus is on the conduct of the participant , content , effect and significant
conduct.

Therefore, the criticism of official conduct is extent to public figures and

private indiviuals if it involved public issue and public interest.

9.1
No. Senator Koko Pimentel, cannot file a case of cyber-libel

In the case of Senator Koko Pimentel, as a public official he is always a subject

for criticism of his official conduct and personal life. What happened in the hospital
is a fact and cannot be denied. The critics of the netizens are grievances to the public
that the Senator, couldn’t be avoided because the COVID-19 is a public issue and a
public interest. It is everyone’s right and that is exercise of freedom of expression
which satisfies public grieve. That a public official should not be thin skinned about
public criticisms.