EXPLANATORY SYNTHESIS PAPER: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES- ARTICLE III Bill of Rights

Section 3: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

The freedom of the press is a constitutionally-guaranteed right and is enshrined in Section

4 Article III which explicitly provides that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances.” This constitutional right is essentially a carry-
over of similar provisions in earlier constitutions as the Constitutional Commission of 1987
deemed it necessary to preserve extant Philippine and American jurisprudence on this bill of
right. A significant change though is the expansion of this right to include the phrase “of
expression”. According to Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr., Freedom of the press is guaranteed
by a government of free public press for its citizens and their association, extended to members
of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extended to news
gathering and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution. Freedom of
press implies that all people should have the right to express themselves in writing or in any
other way of expression of personal opinion or creativity. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights indicates: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart
information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”. Thus, the right to freely
express one’s thoughts is not without basis.

According to Kris Sarah M. Jeruta, the freedoms of expression and speech rank high in
the scheme of constitutional values, as stated by the Court in Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, Jan. 21, 2015. However, in Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No.
168338, Feb. 15, 2008, the Supreme Court explained that freedom of expression is not an
absolute nor an unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and
prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom. As such, certain types of speech such

This study source was downloaded by 100000851265976 from CourseHero.com on 09-27-2022 21:01:26 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/84899023/EXPLANATORY-SYNTHESIS-PAPERdocx/
 as slander or libel, lewd or obscene speech, and “fighting words” are subject to regulation, which
is justified under the police power of the State.

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a matter of public concern. Information about the
disease and its effect on society have been made conveniently available over the internet. Who
would have thought a simple touch of the screen would be a gateway to an abundance of
information? Now more than ever, the reliance of the people on the internet for information has
increased.

While an abundance of information is encouraged under the concept of the marketplace

of ideas, the exercise of the right to free speech and expression must be exercised responsibly,
more especially in the time of a public health emergency. Unverified information about the
pandemic can bring about dangers that may prove to be injurious more than it is helpful.

Justified by the police power of the State, the government has laid down policies to curb
the proliferation of “fake news.”

Under Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended Republic Act No.
10951, any person who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication
shall publish or cause to be published as news any false news which may endanger the public
order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the state shall be imposed with the penalty of
arresto mayor and a fine ranging from P40,000 to P200,000.

Circulating fake news through the internet is dealt with more heavily. Under Republic
Act No. 10175 or the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,” a penalty one degree higher than
that provided by the RPC shall be imposed whenever the crimes defined and penalized by the
RPC are committed by, through, and with the use of information and communications
technologies.

For the purpose of promoting and protecting the collective interests of all Filipinos in the
time of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress passed the Republic Act No. 11469 or the
“Bayanihan to Heal as One Act,” which punishes individuals or groups creating, perpetrating, or
spreading false information regarding the COVID-19 crisis on social media and other platforms,
such information having no valid or beneficial effect on the population, and are clearly geared to
promote chaos, panic anarchy, fear, or confusion.

This study source was downloaded by 100000851265976 from CourseHero.com on 09-27-2022 21:01:26 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/84899023/EXPLANATORY-SYNTHESIS-PAPERdocx/
 These laws tending to regulate freedom of speech and of expression are now being put to
the test. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) became the subject of headlines when news
circulated regarding an individual against whom a subpoena was issued for alleged violation of
Article 154 of the RPC in connection with a publicly posted article on alleged misuse of
government funds.

NBI’s power to investigate and to issue subpoena is not without basis. Under Republic
Act No. 10867 or the “National Bureau of Investigation Reorganization and Modernization Act,”
the President or the Secretary of Justice is authorized to direct the NBI to undertake the
investigation of any crime when public interest so requires. The NBI has, beyond question, the
power to investigate the circulation of fake news, more so when it concerns COVID-19 and its
incidents, which could possibly be a matter of life or death.

However, neither the RPC nor the Bayanihan Law provides a definition of what
constitutes “fake news.” This determination is thus left to the authorities, without a set of clear
guidelines. In Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, Feb. 18, 2014, the Supreme Court
enlightens on the effect imposed by vague or overbroad laws on free speech: “a person who does
not know whether his speech constitutes a crime under an overbroad or vague law may simply
restrain himself from speaking in order to avoid being charged of a crime. The overbroad or
vague law thus chills him into silence.”

The freedom of expression and of speech must be treated with the highest regard.
This preference is justified by the fact that the preservation of all other rights depends upon
its free exercise. However, this should not be taken as a license to its arbitrary practice,
because the possession of rights carries with it an obligation to its responsible exercise. As
with all other rights, one must properly exercise the right to free speech and expression so as
not to cause injury to others having equal rights.

This study source was downloaded by 100000851265976 from CourseHero.com on 09-27-2022 21:01:26 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/84899023/EXPLANATORY-SYNTHESIS-PAPERdocx/