Freedom of Speech in the Philippines
Constitutional Standards in Regulating Free Speech
Aug 14, 2009 Renato Bautista, Jr.
The right to free speech under the Philippine Constitution is an almost verbatim rendering of the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. For this reason, Philippine case law on free speech is largely based on US jurisprudence, although the Philippine Supreme Court has diverged from US case law in certain cases.
Clear and Present Danger
In testing the validity of any governmental regulation of speech, courts employ a strict scrutiny standard and have invariably called it the "clear and present danger" rule. Under this rule, speech becomes unprotected if it presents a clear and present danger of a grave and imminent evil which the government has a right to prevent. The feared evil must have gravity and proximity, meaning there must be seriousness and immediacy about the danger sought to be prevented. Thus, the government has an overriding interest to prevent speech that will divulge the movement and positions of troops in times of war. Another common example is shouting fire in a crowded theater, which is likely to create panic and stampede.
Unprotected Speech
Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Not all speech is constitutionally protected. Speech that incites lawless conduct, so-called fighting words (words that provoke physical retaliation), libelous or defamatory speech, and obscenity can legitimately be prohibited or punished by the government.
Scope of Free Speech Clause
Freedom of speech under the Philippine Constitution includes freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Uttering protected speech makes the speaker not only immune from punishment for his words after they have been uttered, but also protects him against prior restraints or regulations that censor his words before they are uttered.
Content-based and Content-neutral Regulations
Regulations of speech may either be content-based (the subject of the speech or utterance is sought to be regulated) and content-neutral (it regulates only the conduct associated with speech, such as the time, place and manner). To pass constitutional muster, any content-based regulation must show that the government has a compelling or overriding interest in the subject of the regulation. A content-neutral restriction, on the other hand, need only show an important government interest, as long as it leaves open alternative channels of communication.
An example of a content-neutral regulation that has been repeatedly upheld as valid by the Supreme Court is the Public Assembly Act of 1985. This law requires permits for the conduct of rallies or assemblies in public places. In ruling on its validity, the Supreme Court found the permit requirement as applying only to the orderly conduct of rallies or assemblies, such as the equal allocation of time and space to all groups wishing to conduct public assemblies and the regulation of the flow of traffic. It also found the provision of the law requiring each city and municipality in the country to designate a freedom park as providing an alternative channel of communication.
Regulation of the Broadcast Media
Traditionally, regulation of speech in the broadcast media (radio or television) is much more stringent than in print. The government needs only to show substantial or important interest. This rule is justified by the scarcity of frequencies (physical limitation of the airwaves), pervasiveness of the broadcast media and its unique accessibility to children. But the Philippine Supreme Court in Chavez v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 168338 (February 15, 2008), departing from this traditional rule in American jurisprudence, emphatically ruled that any content-based restriction of speech, be it in print or broadcast media, shall be tested by the strict scrutiny standard.
References:
Cruz, Isagani A. Constitutional Law. Quezon City: Central Law Book Pub., 1985.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985).
Freedom of Speech
|
What do you think about this article?
More in Politics & Society
Latest Articles