Freedom of Speech 1

This is my 250th post!

With the enactment of RA 10175, I believe it is time we ought to look back at what the 1987 Constitution says about freedom of speech (Art. 3, Sec.4.)

"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." -Art. 3, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution.

Freedom of speech covers every form of expression, regardless of whether it is oral, written or recorded. It includes movies, media (like the internet) and symbolic speech. "Symbolic speech" includes displaying symbols of protest. Primary protection goes to speech on (a.) political, (b.) social or (c.) religious ideas. Commercial speech enjoys protection if (a.) it isn't misleading and (b.) doesn't propose illegal transactions.

The elements of freedom of expression are the following:

1.) Freedom from previous restraint/censorship

2.) Freedom from subsequent (read: later) punishment

Prior restraint means official government restrictions on the press and other forms of expression before there is actual publication or dissemination. It will not apply in the following cases:

1.) If the nation is at war

2.) Obscene publications

3.) To protect the security of community life from incitements to acts of violence or overthrow of orderly government by force

For government regulations/laws on freedom of speech to be justified, the following must be present:

1.) It is within the government's constitutional power

2.) It advances an important or substantial government interest

3.) That interest is not related to the suppression of freedom of expression

4.) The incidental restriction is not greater than what is needed to advance the interest in question

Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion. The fair comment doctrine tells us that statements of opinion -not of fact- are not actionable (read: aren't punishable) even if the words are neither mild nor temperate! A person's true and honest opinion is important. 

The SC in the case of Borjal vs. CA (301 SCRA 1) explains that even though every discreditable imputation made in public is considered false, when made against a public person in his public capacity it isn't necessarily actionable unless it's a false allegation of fact or a comment based on false supposition.

With regard to public personalities (politicians, actors, etc.) opinions can be aired regarding their public actuations. With regard to opinions on their private lives, such opinions won't enjoy protection if the opinions not germane to the public personae of these public figures.