LIVE PANEL DISCUSSION (Group 5)

MODULE 16

Christian: Good evening attorney, and good evening classmates. Tonight, I and a few of our
classmates whom I would refer to as topic experts will be presenting the salient points and
features of the topic of Module 16 which is on freedom of expression. We hope that our brief
panel discussion will be able to be of help to all of you.

Christian: Now, let us begin with the live panel discussion! Allow me to give a brief introduction
on the topic for tonight which is Freedom of Expression.

Christian: Freedom of Expression is enshrined in our Constitution as Art. III. Sec (4) which
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. Likewise, Art. III, Sec. 18 (1) provides that no person shall be detained solely by
reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

Christian: So, what is the purpose of our right to freedom of expression? Let us relate this to
the principle that “sovereignty resides in the people” which we regularly manifest through our
right to suffrage and more frequently, by our assertion of our freedom of expression.

This sovereignty would be negated if we were denied the opportunity to participate in the
shaping of public affairs through the arbitrary imposition of our freedom to express
ourselves.

Christian: Allow me to discuss an important case. In Chaves v. Gonzales, better known as the
Hello Garci scandal, former DOJ Secretary Gonzales warned reporters who were in possession
of the taped conversation shall be liable for violation of the anti-wiretapping act. Petitioner
Chaves prayed for the nullification of the acts of Gonzales and the NTC as they were outright
violations of the rights to Freedom of Speech, Expression and of the Press.

Here, the Supreme Court ruled that the acts were indeed violations of said rights. The scope of
freedom of expression is so broad that it extends protection to nearly all forms of
communication. It protects speech, print and assembly regarding secular as well as political
causes, and is not confined to any particular field of human interest.

Christian: As we can see, the scope of freedom of expression is very broad. It not only covers
the utterances we make but it includes the freedom of: (1) Speech; (2) Of the Press; (3) To
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances; (4) To form lawful associations;
(5) Freedom of Religion; and (6) To access information on matters of public concern.

Christian: That was a brief introduction of the topic. Now, let’s proceed to the specific parts of
our discussion. Allow me to call the next expert. Mr. Dotimas here will explain to us _______.
Kuya Dots: Thank you Christian. For my part, I will present Freedom from Prior Restraint,
Censorship, Obscenity, and the Right to Privacy. So to understand better what right is
protected under this, we have various cases here.

In the doctrinal case of Disini vs. Secretary of Justice, the Court stated that spam
messages and unsolicited advertisements cannot be restrained because they are
legitimate forms of expression which shall form part of the freedom of speech.

The restriction imposed to election candidates on how he would express his propaganda
would greatly hamper the ability of such candidates to express himself or be
considered as a form of suppression of his political speech. This is discussed in
GMA vs. COMELEC, whereby the Court ruled that an “aggregate-based” airtime limit is
arbitrary as it unduly restricts and constrains the ability of candidates and political parties
to reach out and communicate with the people.

On the same view, as discussed in I-UTAK vs. COMELEC, the right to participate in
electoral processes is a basic and fundamental right in any democracy. These include
not only the right to vote, but also the right to urge others to vote for a particular
candidate. The right to express one’s preference for a candidate is likewise part of
the fundamental right to free speech.

Meanwhile, the right to privacy of a person may likewise be a subject to the topic of
freedom of expression. In Ayer Productions vs. Judge Capulong which is a case
involving Senator Enrile, the Court further ruled that the projected motion picture “The
Four Day Revolution” does not constitute an unlawful intrusion upon private
respondent’s right of privacy. Respondent Enrile is a public figure who has achieved
some degree of reputation by appearing before the public. The right of privacy of a
public figure is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary citizen.

It is, however, to be noted that the freedom of speech may not be used to intentionally
deviate from liabilities and punishment. In “IN RE: Jurado”, the Court emphasized its
ruling in the case of Zaldivar v. Gonzalez where they underscored the importance both of
the constitutional guarantee of free speech and the fundamental and equally important
public interests which need to be balanced. Such public interest is in the maintenance of
the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice.

Lastly, In Miriam College vs. Court of Appeals, the right to free speech must always be
applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Thus, while the
Court upheld the right of the students to free expression, it did not rule out disciplinary
action by the school for "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any
reason disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of
others.
Kuya Dots: That would be all for my part. Back to you, Christian.

Christian: Thank you, Mr. Dotimas. Moving on, we have Mr. Albolote to discuss to us the topic
of . Mr. Albolote, if you may, please.

Krystan: Thank you, Christian. Allow me to explain __________. *Paste yung ipepresent sa
LPD. 2.5 minutes each para pasok lahat sa time*

Krystan: That completes my discussion. Let us now move on, Christian.

Christian: Thank you, Mr. Albolote for masterfully explaining that particular topic. Now, let us
proceed onto the next topic. I would like to ask another expert, Mr. Turingan, to enlighten us on
the topic of _________.

Silvino: Okay, so moving on. Our discussion will revolve on the topic of _________. *Paste
yung ipepresent sa LPD. 2.5 minutes each para pasok lahat sa time*

Silvino: And that would be all, I hope that answers any questions related to that topic.

Christian: Wonderful, Mr. Turingan. Now, we are down to our last two speakers. For the next
subject matter, let us welcome Ms. Tayaban to guide us on the topic of Government Speech,
Parliamentary Immunity and Libel as well as the tests: balancing of interest, Dangerous
Tendency Test, Clear and Present Danger Test..

Kervy: Our next subject matter is on _________. Allow me to explain briefly what this is all
about. *Paste yung ipepresent sa LPD. 2.5 minutes each para pasok lahat sa time*

● Parliamentary immunity is absolute immunity from civil or criminal action for words
spoken in legislative proceedings by any member thereof, but such immunity does not
exempt him from disciplinary action by the legislature itself for disorderly behavior or for
being an unbecoming member, as to which only the legislature can be the judge. See
Ostnena vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil. 863.

● Libel: A public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or

imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory
of one who is dead [Art. 353, Revised Penal Code], Oral defamation is called slander
[Art. 358, Revised Penal Code].

Tests:
Balancing of Interest Test
● The appropriate test in setting a limitation to free speech, suspension of a television
program is a measure way too harsh that it would be inappropriate as the most
reasonable means for averting a perceived harm to society. The restriction on freedom
need not be greater than is necessary to further the governmental interest.
 ● test requires that a determination must first be made whether the necessary
safeguarding of the public interest involved may be achieved by some other measure
less restrictive of the protected freedom

Dangerous Tendency Test

● This test has been adopted in cases where extreme difficulty is confronted in
determining where the freedom of expression ends and the right of courts to protect their
independence begins. There must be a remedy to borderline cases and the basic
principle of this rule lies in that the freedom of speech and of the press, as well as the
right to petition for redress of grievance, while guaranteed by the constitution, are not
absolute. They are subject to restrictions and limitations, one of them being the
protection of the courts against contempt (Gilbert vs. Minnesota, 254 U. S. 325.)

● 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 in general terms. Nor is it necessary that the language used be reasonably
calculated to incite persons to acts of force, violence or unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the
natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the substantive
evil the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks
to prevent. (Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U.S. 652.).

Clear and Present Danger Test

● 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. The danger
to be guarded against is the "substantive evil" sought to be prevented. And this evil is
primarily the "disorderly and unfair administration of justice." This test establishes a
definite rule in constitutional law. It provides the criterion as to what words maybe
published. Under this rule, the advocacy of ideas cannot constitutionally be abridged
unless there is a clear and present danger that such advocacy will harm the
administration of justice.

Kervy: That’s all. I now pass the stage once again to our moderator, Mr. Christian. Thank you
for the opportunity.

Christian: And now, we saved the best for last. The focus of her discussion is on ________.
Let’s give it up for Ms. Buduhan.

Evelyn: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. For our final topic, we focus on the last two tests involving
freedom of expression as well as two cases where the Supreme Court discussed freedom of
expression.

The next test is Grave-but-Improbable Danger Test

-also known as Gravity of evil test.

-The gravity of the evil test is a refinement of the clear and present danger test for
determining when the right of free speech may be subject to criminal prosecution.
 -directs courts to ask “whether the gravity of the ‘evil,’ discounted by its improbability,
justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.”
-this test is based on principles of mathematics applied to social science. Basically, the
test states that the freedom of speech may be disregarded the higher the probability of
evil happening when freedom of speech is protected.

The last test is Direct Incitement Test

- the government can only restrict speech when it's likely to result in imminent lawless action,
such as inciting mob violence.

The last two cases to be discussed are Salonga vs. Pano and Malabanan vs Ramento.

Salonga vs. Pano

Facts: The case roots backs to the rash of bombings which occurred in the Metro Manila area in
the months of August, September and October of 1980. Victor Burns Lovely, Jr, the primary
suspect, implicated petitioner ex- senator Salonga as one of those responsible. The root of the
implication stems from pictures with the accused taken at a birthday party and accordingly some
private political statements made by the petitioner which implies rebellion and support of
Movement for free Philippines, an anti-government group.

Ruling:
Lovely had testified that during the party which was alleged to have been attended by a number
of members of the MFP, no political action was taken but only political discussion. Furthermore,
the alleged opinion of the petitioner about the likelihood of a violent struggle here in the
Philippines if reforms are not instituted, assuming that he really stated the same, is nothing but a
legitimate exercise of freedom of thought and expression. No man deserves punishment for his
thoughts.

Malabanan vs Ramento

Facts: Students uttered strong and derogatory language in protest against their school outside
of their permitted area of assembly. They were charged with holding illegal assembly and put
under one year preventive suspension.

Ruling: There is violation of the freedom of speech. The invocation of the right to freedom of
peaceable assembly carries with it the implication that the right to free speech has likewise been
disregarded. Both are embraced in the concept of freedom of expression which is Identified with
the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully, any matter of public interest without censorship or
punishment and which “is not to be limited, much less denied, except on a showing … of a clear
and present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent.” The rights to
peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed to students of educational institutions.
Evelyn: And that wraps up our topic on Freedom of Expression. Mr. Moderator, do you have
any parting words for our audience?

Christian: I have nothing else to say, Ms. Buduhan. But I believe it is the turn of our audience to
speak up on what they have learned and understood from our discussion. Thank you, everyone
for listening and have a pleasant evening!