Borjal v.

CA

To be sure, the enumeration under Art. 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged
communications since fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged.
The rule on privileged communications had its genesis not in the nation’s penal code but in
the Bill of Rights of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press. As
early as 1918, in United States v. Cañete, this Court ruled that publications which are
privileged for reasons of public policy are protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom
of speech. This constitutional right cannot be abolished by the mere failure of the legislature
to give it express recognition in the statute punishing libels.
Same; Same; Privileged Communications; Words and Phrases; Absolutely privileged
communications are those which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith
while qualifiedly privileged communications containing defamatory imputations are not
actionable unless found to have been made without good intention or justifiable motive.—A
privileged communication may be either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly privileged.
Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable even if the author
has acted in bad faith. An example is found in Sec. 11, Art. VI, of the 1987 Constitution
which exempts a member of Congress from liability for any speech or debate in the Congress
or in any Committee thereof. Upon the other hand, qualifiedly privileged communications
containing defamatory imputations are not actionable unless found to have been made without
good intention or justifiable motive. To this genre belong “private communications” and “fair
and true report without any comments or remarks.”
Same; Same; Privileged Communications; Words and Phrases; Absolutely privileged
communications are those which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith
while qualifiedly privileged communications containing defamatory imputations are not
actionable unless found to have been made without good intention or justifiable motive.—A
privileged communication may be either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly privileged.
Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable even if the author
has acted in bad faith. An example is found in Sec. 11, Art. VI, of the 1987 Constitution
which exempts a member of Congress from liability for any speech or debate in the Congress
or in any Committee thereof. Upon the other hand, qualifiedly privileged communications
containing defamatory imputations are not actionable unless found to have been made without
good intention or justifiable motive. To this genre belong “private communications” and “fair
and true report without any comments or remarks.”

Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak

Censorship or previous restraint certainly is not all there is to free speech or free press. If it
were so, then such basic rights are emasculated. It is, however, except in exceptional
circumstances a sine qua non for the meaningful exercise of such right. This is not to deny
that equally basic is the other important aspect of freedom from liability. Nonetheless, for the
purposes of this litigation, the emphasis should rightly be on freedom from censorship. It is,
beyond question, a well-settled principle in our jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, this Court, in the light of the principles of law enunciated in the opinion,
dismisses this petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a
ruling that there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as
“For Adults Only.”