top of page
Right to Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press
The 1987 Philippine Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, expression, and the press under Section 4, Article III, which states:
​
"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."
Limitation of the Right
While this right is fundamental, it is not absolute.
Restrictions may be imposed under certain circumstances, such as in cases of libel, obscenity, national security, public safety, or to prevent the incitement of lawless violence.
Any limitation must meet the standard of clear and present danger, meaning that the speech must pose a significant and immediate threat to public order or the state's interest.
Chavez v. Gonzales
G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008
Facts:
A radio station aired the wiretapped conversations of certain political personalities, allegedly involving corruption. The Secretary of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) warned the media against airing the tapes, stating that doing so might violate the Anti-Wiretapping Law and national security concerns.
Issue:
The issue was whether the government’s warning constituted an infringement on the freedom of speech and expression.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the warning issued by the government was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The Court explained that any limitation on free expression must pass the clear and present danger test, which requires that the speech in question must present an imminent threat to public safety or order. In this case, the mere airing of the tapes did not meet this standard, and the government failed to justify its restriction.
Significance:
This case reinforces the idea that freedom of speech and expression in the Philippines is protected against prior restraint, except in situations where there is a real and immediate threat to public interest. It also highlights the Court's commitment to upholding this right, particularly when state actors try to suppress speech in the absence of clear legal grounds.
In summary:
The right to freedom of speech, expression, and press is a cornerstone of democratic governance in the Philippines. While not absolute, restrictions on this right are tightly controlled and must be justified by a clear and present danger to national interests or public safety. Chavez v. Gonzales serves as an important precedent affirming the protection of free speech against unjustified government interference.
Facts:
The case arose from a series of statements made by then-President Rodrigo Duterte that were interpreted as a threat against the press. Specifically, President Duterte publicly called out specific media organizations, including Rappler and the Philippine Daily Inquirer, labeling them as “fakes” and “biased.” He further indicated that he would consider the media as enemies of the state.
In response to these remarks, various journalists and civil society groups, including petitioner Jose Luis Martin “Chito” Cuaresma David, filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning the President's statements. They argued that these remarks constituted an infringement on the freedom of speech and of the press, as they created a chilling effect on journalistic practices and the media’s ability to operate independently without fear of reprisal.
Issues:
-
Whether President Duterte's statements constituted a violation of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press.
-
​Whether the statements could be construed as a form of prior restraint on media organizations.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, underscoring the paramount importance of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in a democratic society.
The Court emphasized several critical points:
Freedom of the Press and Speech as Fundamental Rights: The Court reaffirmed that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. These rights are essential to democracy, as they promote transparency, accountability, and informed public discourse.
Chilling Effect: The Court highlighted that the President's statements had the potential to create a chilling effect on the media. A chilling effect occurs when individuals or organizations refrain from exercising their rights due to fear of retaliation or harm. The Court emphasized that such an effect undermines the essential functions of a free press, which is to investigate, inform, and critique the government.
Prior Restraint: The Supreme Court elaborated on the concept of prior restraint, which refers to governmental actions that prevent speech or expression before it occurs. The Court noted that while the President's remarks were not direct prohibitions on the press, they nonetheless threatened to suppress dissenting voices and criticism, which is contrary to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.
Accountability of Public Officials: The ruling reminded public officials, especially those in positions of power, that they are accountable for their statements and actions. Public figures must recognize that their words carry weight and can significantly impact democratic institutions, particularly the press.
Importance of a Free Press: The Court reaffirmed that a robust and independent media is essential for a functioning democracy. The freedom to criticize the government, to report on matters of public interest, and to hold power accountable is fundamental to ensuring that citizens remain informed and engaged.
Key Takeaways:
Reinforcement of Constitutional Protections: The ruling served as a strong reinforcement of the constitutional protections afforded to the press and to speech, especially in the context of government criticism.
Impact on Media Operations: The Court recognized the adverse effects that threats and intimidation can have on media operations. A free and independent press is essential for public discourse and accountability.
Public Interest Over Government Discontent: The case highlighted that the public's right to know and the press's role in providing information are more significant than any government official's desire for favorable coverage.
Call for Respectful Discourse: The ruling called for a culture of respect for dissenting views and responsible discourse, especially from those in authority. It emphasized the importance of protecting media entities against governmental overreach.
Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
Facts:
The case involved a tarpaulin posted by the Diocese of Bacolod identifying candidates in the 2013 elections as either "Team Patay" (anti-life) or "Team Buhay" (pro-life). The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ordered its removal, claiming it violated election rules.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Diocese, holding that the tarpaulin constituted political speech, which enjoys a high level of protection.
The COMELEC's order to remove the tarpaulin was an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of expression.
The Court emphasized that freedom of expression is not limited to print or spoken words and that peaceful public discourse must be protected.
Rappler v. Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 246126, June 27, 2023
Facts:
Rappler, an online news organization, challenged several actions taken by the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that affected its operations and survival as a media entity.
The SEC revoked Rappler's Certificate of Incorporation based on allegations of foreign ownership and violations of the Foreign Investments Act, claiming that Rappler had sold its shares to a foreign entity, thereby violating Philippine laws that restrict foreign ownership in mass media.
The revocation led to a cascade of regulatory actions that limited Rappler's ability to operate as a media outlet. In response, Rappler filed a petition with the Supreme Court to contest the legality of the SEC's actions, arguing that they constituted an infringement on the freedom of the press and the right to free speech.
Issues:
-
Whether the SEC's revocation of Rappler's Certificate of Incorporation constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the freedom of the press.
-
Whether the government’s regulatory actions against Rappler were based on proper legal grounds or constituted harassment aimed at silencing critical media.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rappler, emphasizing the paramount importance of press freedom as a cornerstone of democracy. The Court highlighted the following key points:
Protection of Press Freedom: The Supreme Court reiterated that press freedom is enshrined in the Constitution and is essential for fostering a healthy democracy. It protects not just favorable reporting but also critical and dissenting voices.
Prior Restraint: The Court found that the SEC's actions constituted a form of prior restraint, which is generally impermissible under constitutional law. Prior restraint refers to any government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place. The Court underscored that such restraints on press freedom must meet a stringent standard of justification.
Foreign Ownership Rule: The ruling examined the applicability of the Foreign Investments Act, clarifying that media entities must not solely be subject to ownership limitations without due process.
The Court emphasized that regulatory actions should not be based solely on technicalities but must also consider the broader implications on press freedom and public interest.
Government Accountability: The ruling stressed the government’s duty to protect and uphold the rights of media organizations. Actions perceived as targeted harassment against critical media entities would undermine public trust in government and violate constitutional protections.
Legal and Procedural Fairness: The Court highlighted the importance of due process in regulatory actions against media entities. It ruled that the SEC failed to provide sufficient grounds for its revocation of Rappler’s license, rendering the action unconstitutional.
Discussion:
The Rappler v. Executive Secretary case is a landmark ruling reaffirming the vital role of press freedom in a democratic society. It serves as a significant reminder of the balance between regulatory powers and the constitutional rights of individuals and entities involved in media.
The decision holds particular relevance in the context of increasing concerns over media freedom in the Philippines. With the rise of political rhetoric against media organizations, this ruling stands as a protective measure against potential abuses of power by government entities.
Key Takeaways:
Press Freedom is Fundamental: The Supreme Court reinforced that press freedom is not just a privilege but a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. This right is essential for fostering public discourse and accountability in governance.
Strict Scrutiny for Government Actions: The ruling established that any governmental action infringing upon press freedom will be subjected to strict scrutiny. It must demonstrate a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest without unnecessarily restricting freedom of expression.
Importance of Due Process: The ruling underscores that media organizations have a right to due process in administrative actions taken against them. The government must ensure fairness and transparency in its dealings with the press.
Protecting Dissenting Voices: The Court's emphasis on protecting critical media voices reinforces the principle that dissenting opinions are vital for a healthy democracy. Suppressing these voices threatens the foundations of democratic governance.
In conclusion, the Rappler v. Executive Secretary case represents a significant judicial affirmation of the freedoms of speech and the press in the Philippines, underscoring the necessity of these rights in maintaining a democratic society.
It sends a clear message that any action by the government that attempts to silence critical media will be closely scrutinized to ensure compliance with constitutional protections.
bottom of page