Frustrated over the current state of affairs in the country, a Butuan City salesman turned to Facebook to express his sentiments, calling the President crazy and an assh*le in Bisaya. Then came the arrest.
On May 13, 2020, police officers went to Reynaldo Orcullos home and arrested him without any arrest warrant. Orcullo was charged with cyberlibel under the Cybercrime Law.
For citizens who still aspire for a democratic Philippines governed by the rule of law, the recent spate of warrantless arrests of people expressing dissenting views online should be disconcerting. Under our constitutional order, no citizen should be prevented, or worse, arrested for merely expressing personal sentiments on government matters and public officials. A citizens commentary on public affairs is constitutionally protected even if the language used is discourteous. (READ: [PODCAST] Law of Duterte Land: Pandemic and the great wall of free speech)
Libel in a nutshell
The Revised Penal Code defines libel as the act of publicly and maliciously making an imputation that tends to dishonor or discredit of a person. If you make a public accusation that puts a person in a bad light, its presumed that the accusation was made maliciously, even if the accusation is true, and you may be held liable for libel unless youre able to prove that the accusation was made in good faith.
Libel vis--vis political expressions
However, if an opinion is made on the qualities or performance of a public official in relation to official duties, the expression is examined beyond the confines of our libel laws. In other words, expressions of a political character are treated differently under our law.
The Constitution declares that the Philippines is a democratic state where sovereignty resides in the people. Hence, the people enjoy the fundamental freedoms of speech, of expression, and of the press, as well as the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The freedom of speech belongs as well, if not more, to those who question, who do not conform, who differ. It is freedom for the thought that we hate, no less than for the thought that agrees with us.
The Constitution also holds that public office is a public trust; public officers are accountable to the people at all times. As a consequence of these constitutional guarantees, political speech, which includes commentaries on public matters and public officials, is afforded special protection. In the hierarchy of protected expressions, political expression occupies the highest rank. The wide latitude people enjoy in expressing themselves ensures that the debate of public issues will be dynamic and robust. It also ensures that the people will be able to hold power to account.
Political speech is a direct exercise of the peoples sovereignty. Considering the special constitutional protection afforded to political speech, the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that a defamatory opinion against a public figure is not libelous unless there is actual malice. A remark directed against a public figure in relation to public matters is a privileged expression.
This principle was enunciated early on in our judicial history, as seen in the landmark case of US v Bustos, where the Supreme Court explained that public officers may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation because a public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Public policy and the welfare of society have demanded protection for public opinion.
A citizen who publicly accused a barangay chairman of land grabbing and illegal gambling was found innocent because even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice. A tabloid article that scathingly accused a DTI official of misdeeds was deemed privileged because [t]he conduct, moral fitness, and ability of a public official to discharge his duties are undoubtedly matters of public interest[.]
Of course, just like any other right, the right to make defamatory expressions towards public officials isnt absolute. As previously mentioned, such expressions are not privileged if made with actual malice. Unlike in regular libel cases, when a political comment is made, there is no presumption of malice; malice must actually be proven.
Actual malice exists when a statement purporting to be a fact is made with the authors full knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of the statements truthfulness. Mere inaccuracy or even falsity in a statement does not constitute actual malice. There must be an ulterior, deliberate motive to damage a persons reputation.
In the cases that adjudge defamatory expressions on public officials as libelous, the expressions involved are mostly malice-laden journalistic works that are made out to be factual reports even if the author knew of the reports falsity or was so reckless in determining the reports accuracy. For example, the Supreme Court believed that there was malicious intent on the part of an author to malign the character of a certain Customs official accused of corruption because the author himself admitted that he had no real knowledge of the accusations and that no in-depth research was conducted beforehand.
However, when a citizen expresses a purely personal opinion calling a certain public official crazy as a political commentary on current events, there is absolutely no malice there because the utterance is not meant to be a matter-of-fact statement. If the comment is a mere opinion inferred by the person from factual events, it is immaterial that the opinion is mistaken. No matter how wrong or idiotic a persons opinion is, the comment remains to be just that simply an opinion. There can be no libel unless the author was deliberately lying or was so reckless to think that he/she was telling the truth. (READ: Police file complaint vs Makati resident for resisting arrest, cursing cops)
In criticizing a public official by calling him/her buang, there can be no libel because, in the first place, the person does not intend to assert a factual truth; it is merely a personal feeling or sentiment. Freedom of speech protects impolite speech as well.
It is also wrong to argue that calling a high public official buang is unprotected speech because of the irreverent use of language. Free speech protects not only polite speech, but even expression in its most unsophisticated form. Insulting words are not libelous per se, and abusive words, however ill-natured, are not libelous in the absence of malice. The privileged nature of political speech is not defeated by the mere fact that the communication is made in intemperate terms.
Therefore, the citizens political commentary may be vulgar, unpleasant, satirical, humorous, respectful, or even bland all the same, the political expression is protected by the right to free speech.
Is this part of our new normal?
The increasingly trite phrase new normal refers to the lifestyle change brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic the strict observance of social distancing and hygienic practices, working from home, etc. But with the recent crackdown on online dissent, in addition to other reported violations of human rights, we are now confronted with this unsettling question will the violation of constitutional freedoms be our new normal as well? (READ: [ANALYSIS] Duterte crushes free expression amid pandemic)
In these perilous times, aside from looking out for each others health and well-being, our vigilance should extend to ensuring that our fellow citizens constitutional rights are respected. The liberties of one are the liberties of all; and the liberties of one are not safe unless the liberties of all are protected.
What we need now is mass testing and contact tracing, not the tracing of online critics. Rappler.com
Leonardo M. Camacho is a lawyer in the public sector and teaches law at a university in Manila. The author's views are solely his own.
See the original post here:
[ANALYSIS] The right to call the government crazy - Rappler
- Social media censorship is a potent threat to freedom of speech - Washington Times - July 25th, 2021
- Letter: Who is the fascist here? | Letters | theworldlink.com - Coos Bay World - July 25th, 2021
- Why The Threat To Free Speech Suddenly Looks Much Bigger - The Free Press - July 25th, 2021
- Tales from the Coffeeshop: Threat of UN words and free speech - Cyprus Mail - July 25th, 2021
- Two dozen cars lead parade in Creswell to protest fines related to Fourth of July parade - The Register-Guard - July 25th, 2021
- Conservative leaders say Biden admin is ripping the U.S. Constitution to shreds in scathing open letter - Fox News - July 25th, 2021
- Freedom of speech according to the gospel of Koch - University World News - July 21st, 2021
- U.K. Free-Speech Bill a Sound Solution to Censorship - National Review - July 21st, 2021
- She Hates Biden. Some of Her Neighbors Hate the Way She Shows It. - The New York Times - July 21st, 2021
- Academic freedom must include the right to criticise employers - Times Higher Education (THE) - July 21st, 2021
- Proposed Polish Bill Further Restricts Media Freedoms in a Climate of Civil Rights Activism - The Organization for World Peace - July 21st, 2021
- Professors enjoy academic freedom, but it doesnt allow them to teach or say whatever they want in class - San Francisco Chronicle - July 21st, 2021
- Candace Owens backs the Freedom Phone thats designed to promote free speech in fight against Big Tech... - The US Sun - July 16th, 2021
- SCOTUS Gets It Right In 'Mahanoy' With Measured Response To Student Speech - Government, Public Sector - United States - Mondaq News Alerts - July 16th, 2021
- Is Gender Wokeism the New Religion of the West? - Heritage.org - July 16th, 2021
- Ghost of Section 66A - The Indian Express - July 16th, 2021
- Trump's Big Tech lawsuit: Freedom of speech vs. the First Amendment | TheHill - The Hill - July 10th, 2021
- Letters: is it free speech or hate speech? - The Guardian - July 10th, 2021
- The rise of a generation of censors: Law schools the latest battlement over free speech | TheHill - The Hill - July 10th, 2021
- OCMD Police Say Profanity-Laced Biden Flags On The Boardwalk Are Considered Freedom Of Speech - CBS Baltimore - July 10th, 2021
- North Carolina Public Universities Arent Preparing Students Well on Free Speech - National Review - July 10th, 2021
- Gwen Berry, 'The Star Spangled Banner' and free speech in the world of sports | Opinion - NorthJersey.com - July 10th, 2021
- North Carolina Finds That Banning Indoctrination Is Hard - The Atlantic - July 10th, 2021
- Section 230 Continues To Not Mean Whatever You Want It To - Above the Law - July 10th, 2021
- Does Trump have a legitimate First Amendment case? - The Fulcrum - July 10th, 2021
- Conservatives Are the Ones Attacking Free Speech at Universities - Jacobin magazine - June 28th, 2021
- Commentary: How 'freedom of speech' is weaponized to fight anti-racism - Johnson City Press (subscription) - June 23rd, 2021
- Selective Free Speech: Academics Discussing Race Face the Real Cancel Culture Byline Times - Byline Times - June 23rd, 2021
- Celebrating the most American of freedoms | Ken Paulson - Wisconsin Newspaper Association - June 23rd, 2021
- Higher ed access, speech on campus bill moves on for House review - Ohio Capital Journal - June 23rd, 2021
- LGBTQ+ Need Not Apply - The Regulatory Review - June 23rd, 2021
- Ending hate speech starts with all of us - SC Times - June 13th, 2021
- If Critical Race Theory Is Banned, Are Teachers Protected by the First Amendment? - Education Week - June 13th, 2021
- Free speech and the culture wars The Justice Gap - thejusticegap.com - June 13th, 2021
- Free speech matters for all at UCL, and so does disruptive thinking - Jewish News - June 13th, 2021
- Twitter needs India and Nigeria to grow. It's running into trouble in both - KCTV Kansas City - June 13th, 2021
- Monday Morning Thoughts: Has the ACLU Lost Its Way in Protecting Speech They Hate? - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis - June 13th, 2021
- The free speech law will make university debate harder, not easier - The Guardian - May 24th, 2021
- 'Tool for censorship': Newly effective regulation could curb free speech in Indonesia - Jakarta Post - May 24th, 2021
- 'Attempt to 'murder' freedom of speech': Cong on Twitter India office searches - Hindustan Times - May 24th, 2021
- JIM SPENCE: Abertay University vagina row is no joke the free speech Stasi are threatening to silence us all - The Courier - May 24th, 2021
- What is the First Amendment? US right to free speech explained, after Prince Harry says its bonkers - iNews - May 20th, 2021
- The New Campus Free Speech Bill What Universities Need To Know And Need To Do - Consumer Protection - UK - Mondaq News Alerts - May 20th, 2021
- The Government is in a mess with its free speech bill it has already sabotaged its own legal definition - iNews - May 20th, 2021
- The new Campus Free Speech Bill - what universities need to know and need to do - Lexology - May 20th, 2021
- Cutting costs and cultivating free speech will put higher education on the right path | TheHill - The Hill - May 20th, 2021
- Academics And Officials Have Questioned The Evidence Behind Gavin Williamson's Excessive University Free Speech Bill - PoliticsHome - May 20th, 2021
- Letters to the Editor: May 20-26, 2021 - Blaine Northern Light - May 20th, 2021
- Federal lawsuit targets Georgia voting law, citing threat to voting, speech rights - Online Athens - May 20th, 2021
- Culture wars, identity politics and free speech: Rod Liddle and Peter Tatchell in conversation - Spectator.co.uk - May 20th, 2021
- Argumentative Essays on Importance of Freedom of Speech ... - May 9th, 2021
- Does Freedom of Speech Exist - Emerging Media - Loyola ... - May 9th, 2021
- Opinion: The past year has underscored the need for vigilance in defending the First Amendment - Poynter - May 9th, 2021
- Big Tech and freedom of speech | News, Sports, Jobs - The Sentinel - Lewistown Sentinel - April 23rd, 2021
- House Bill 22 Raises Concerns for Police Reform Efforts and Freedom of Speech - WKSU News - April 23rd, 2021
- The Supreme Court Justices Are Set to Hear Two Very Different Free Speech Cases What You Should Know - Law & Crime - April 23rd, 2021
- The Russell Group's statement of principles on universities protecting freedom of speech - FE News - April 23rd, 2021
- Should satire be protected as free speech? - Aliran - April 23rd, 2021
- James Acaster Never Wants to Make an Audience Member Cry Again - Vulture - April 23rd, 2021
- Wave of New 'Anti-Riot' Legislation Threatens Free Speech - The Daily Beast - April 19th, 2021
- A Festival takes on the complicated topic of Freedom of Speech in the U.S. and France - Frenchly - April 19th, 2021
- Historic Figures Who Recognized That Speech Is Freedom's First Line of Defense | Lawrence W. Reed - Foundation for Economic Education - April 19th, 2021
- My Turn: What does a paper owe its readers? - The Recorder - April 19th, 2021
- Analyzing the Recent Sixth Circuits Extension of Academic Freedom Protection to a College - Justia Verdict - April 19th, 2021
- Does Daniel Andrews have new bars on free speech coming? - The Spectator Australia - April 19th, 2021
- Lessons on Free Speech from the Soviet Union - kvor - March 31st, 2021
- When Neville Chamberlain tried to 'no-platform' the Yorkshire Post - The Conversation UK - March 31st, 2021
- The precedent of free speech on campus | The Record - The Record - March 21st, 2021
- Intermediary Liability and Why Free Speech in Software Matters - The Wire - March 21st, 2021
- A look back at a conversation with Carl Hiaasen on free speech - WMFE - March 21st, 2021
- Holmes' defense of Freedom of Speech | Columnists | willistonherald.com - Williston Daily Herald - March 18th, 2021
- My Turn: Our biggest threats to free speech - Concord Monitor - February 14th, 2021
- Q&A: Sociologist with Specialty in Right-Wing Movements on Free Speech and the First Amendment | Newsroom - UC Merced University News - February 14th, 2021
- Gavin Williamson set to appoint free speech champion with power to fine universities - iNews - February 14th, 2021
- Letters: The limits of free speech and the dangers of violence and insurrection - The Advocate - February 14th, 2021
- Free Speech Arguments Against Trump's Impeachment Dishonor The First Amendment - People For the American Way - February 6th, 2021
- The Wall Street Journal Misreads Section 230 and the First Amendment - Lawfare - February 6th, 2021
- After Thomas furore, Bar says to balance free speech and fair trial - Free Malaysia Today - February 6th, 2021
- Reggie Jackson blasts Curt Schilling over Hall controversy: Freedom of speech got you freed out of the Hall of Fame - The Boston Globe - February 2nd, 2021
- Opinion: What the Biden Administration Can Expect To Meet in Court - Prescott eNews - February 2nd, 2021