freedom of speech essay tagalog

The Society of Honor by Joe America

Comment Guidelines
Policy and Terms
The Villanueva Interviews
Going Home: Salazar and Garcia

Kalayaan sa Pananalita (Freedom of Speech) o Krimen?

Posted by Juana Pilipinas on August 15, 2018 · 46 Comments

By Juana Pilipinas

(From The Author: The featured quote is a free graphics taken from the Internet. Some may question the spelling of the word “licence” in it. It is accurate in the British English convention but should be spelled “license” in American English convention.)

Palagi po nating naririnig ngayon ang salitang freedom of speech . Pwede daw pong murahin at insultuhin ni PDuterte ang kahit na sino man dahil iyon ang kanyang karapatan. Protektado daw po siya ng kalayaan sa pananalita o freedom of speech . Ganun din daw po kay Mocha Uson. Pwede daw po niyang murahin, laitin, at yurakan ang dangal ng mga oposisionista, katulad ni Senador Trillanes at ang Pangalawang Pangulong Leni Robredo dahil dito.

Tama po ba na gawing sandalan ang karapatang kalayaan sa pananalita ng mga nagtatangol sa Pangulo at kay Mocha?

Si Drew Olivar po at ang balahurang video niya patungkol kay VP Robredo, freedom of speech pa rin?

Marami pa pong ibang tao lalo na sa social media at mga comments section ng mga blogs at online na peryodiko na nagsasabing mayroon silang freedom of speech kapag may pumupuna sa kanilang mga maaanghang o balahurang pahayag. Tama po ba sila?

Suriin po natin.

Ano ang Artikulo III, Seksyon 4 ng Konstitusyon?

Ang Artikulo III ng Konstitusyon ay ang katipunan ng mga karapatang pangtao ng bawat mamamayan ng Pilipinas na itinalaga sa Konstitusyon. Ito po ang nilalahad ng Seksyon 4:

“ Hindi dapat magpatibay ng batas na nagbabawas sa kalayaan sa pananalita, pagpapahayag, o ng pamamahayagan, o sa karapatan ng mga taong-bayan na mapayapang magkatipon at magpetisyon sa pamahalaan upang ilahad ang kanilang mga karaingan .”

Ang atin pong tutuonan ng pansin ay ang kalayaan sa pananalita. Bawal po ang anumang batas na magbabawas o magpapahinto sa kalayaan ng tao na sabihin ang kanilang opinyon sa anumang isyu o bagay. Ang kalayaan sa pananalita ay proteksyon ng mga mamayan laban sa gobyerno na maaring magsagawa ng batas na maglilimita nito.

Ang bawat mamamayan ay may karapatang magpahayag ng kanilang damdamin at opinyon ngunit ito po ay hindi lubos. Meron pong limitasyon ang ating kalayaan sa pananalita.

Mga Limitasyon ng Kalayaan sa Pananalita

Moderasyon at pang-unawa po sa kapwa ang dapat pairalin bago natin sambitin, isulat, isiwalat, i- tweet , i- meme , i- blog , i- YouTube , i- Facebook ( o anumang plataporma) ang ating mga saloobing damdamin. Mayroon pong katumbas na responsibilidad ang kalayaan. Krimen po ang pananalitang umabuso sa karapatan ng ibang tao at yung nakakaepekto sa kanilang kaligtasan.

Ito po ang listahan ng mga halimbawa ng pananalita o aksyon na hindi protektado ng kalayaan sa pananalita :

Pagsisinungaling para siraan ang puri ng kapwa tao.
Pananalita o aksyon na malaswa o mahalay.
Pananakot o pagbabanta sa kapwa tao.
Pananalita na naglalagay sa panganib ang kapwa tao.
Pananalita na lumalabag sa karapatan ng kapwa tao.
Bayolenteng banta sa kapwa tao.
Pagsisiwalat ng mag sikreto ng pamahalaan o ng militar.
Panawagan na ibagsak ang pamahalaan.
Pananalita na nag-uudyok sa kapwa na gumawa ng mga akto o hakbang na labag sa batas.

Sa artikulong ito, ang mga pananalita o aksyon na tinaguriang krimen sa dangal o puri ng kapwa tao ang ating pagtutuonan ng pansin. Sa listahan sa itaas, ito po ang numero 1. Ang tawag po sa krimeng ito ay slander o libel, o krimeng nakakasira sa puri o dangal ng kapwa tao. Ang mga pananalita o aksyon sa numero 2-9 ay mga krimen din ngunit ang mga ito ay kakaibang uri.

Pagkakaiba ng Slander sa Libel

Ang slander at libel ay parehong krimen na ang sanhi ay ang mga salitang hindi makatotohanan na sumisira o yumuyurak sa dangal o puri ng kapwa tao. Ang kaibahan ay ang slander ay tulad ng tsismis o intriga na kumakalat sa pamamagitan ng pananalita at ang libel ay pamamahagi ng paninira sa pamamagitan ng pagsusulat at paglalathala. Sa kasalukuyan na mundo na gumagamit ang mga tao ng computerized devices, mayroon naring bagong krimen na tinatawag na cyberlibel .

Batas sa Krimeng Slander o Libel sa Pilipinas

Ang taong nangli- libel o nangi- slander ay lulamabag sa Titulo 13, Tsapter 1 ng Revised Penal Code of the Philippines .

Title 13, Crimes Against Honor, Chapter One, Libel . http://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2.htm

Meron narin pong Cyberlibel Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) na ipinahiwatig na konstitusyunal ng Korte Suprema nuong Pebrero 11, 2018 para sa mga naglalathala ng kabalahuraan gamit ang mga computerized devices . Binigyang liwanag ng Korte Suprema na sa mga aktong kriminal na cyber related, ang kasalanan ay sa taong nag-udyok, nagpasimuno o pinagmulan ng orihinal na dokumentong libelous . Ang mga taong nagkalat nito sa pamamagitan ng pagla- like , pagri- retweet , o ibang pamamaraan ay hindi papatawan ng parusa.

Cyberlibel Prevention Act of 2012 (RA10175) https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2012/ra_10175_2012.html

Sana po ay basahin at unawain ang mga probisyon ng dalawang batas na nabangit sa itaas at gawing gabay ang mga ito bago magsalita, magsulat o maglathala ng anumang makakaepekto sa ating kapwa tao. Ang kalayaan sa pananalita ay pwedeng abusuhin. Pag inabuso po natin ang ating kapwa sa pamamagitan nito, ito ay matatawag na krimen o paglabag sa batas. Lahat po ng krimen ay may kalakip na parusa.

Kayo na po ang humusga

Sino po ang tama? Yung nagsasabing protektado ng freedom of speech ang lahat ng pananalita ng Pangulo at ni Mocha Uson o yung mga tumutuligsa sa kanila at nagsasabing lumalabag sila sa batas kapag sila ay nangaabuso ng kapwa tao sa kanilang pananalita?

Si Olivar, pwede ba niyang igiit ang kanyang freedom of speech sa ginawa niyang video?

Ang mga netizens na wagas kung mambalahura ng mga opisyales sa gobyerno o sa kapwa netizens , dapat ba silang magmunimuni o sige lang dahil sa freedom of speech ?

YOU BE THE JUDGE.

Unless we have the 3 precons in the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report. The 3 precons were kids with special neural sensory powers all wired up into a special machine that allows them to forecast crimes before they were committed. Their notification allows Tom Cruise and his team to apprehend the criminals before the crime was committed.

Love that movie. I am a sci-fi fan.

We need some of those kids and machines in PH. No more Tokhang guessing games. All criminals are proven guilty by clairvoyance.

******* 1. Thank you for delineating the limits of freedom of speech.

2. There are two aspects to be considered in the case of Drew Olivar.

2.1. VP Robredo is a public person. 2.2. Olivar used the Facebook platform.

3. As to the first aspect, the Philippine doctrine on defamation is broad when it comes to public figures. Public figures are naturally subject to public scrutiny and, therefore, the bar for defamation is higher. I gather that:

3.1. The defamation must be proven to be false. 3.2. The defamer must be proven to have shown “actual malice” or reckless disregard for that falsity.

4. The defamation of VP Robredo by Olivar does not bear repeating. I think 3.2 is easy to prove; 3.1 is not. The onus of proof is not on Olivar to prove that his claim is true. The onus is on VP Robredo to prove Olivar’s claim is false.

4.1. This doctrine overturns the standard rule that the onus of proof belongs to he who makes the claim.

4.2. But how do you prove a negative?

4.3. I believe it is for this reason that VP Robredo has not formally filed a case.

5. The other aspect is that the publisher of a defamation post is liable. This makes FB liable… but only if it was notified of the offending post and did nothing about it within a reasonable amount of time.

5.1. The penalty for online label is higher. Previously, bail was pegged at a minimum of P2,000; now it is set to at least P50,000 to P100,000. Maximum jail time has been increased from 4 years and 2 months to 12 years.

5.2. Penalties only apply to the original poster. They do not apply to users who simply react to the post, like sharing, re-blogging, or registering their “Like.” I note that I have seen Olivar’s re-posted several times.

6. Another interesting question: Is Olivar’s post slander or libel? He is speaking (audio) but the post is on a multimedia (text, video, images, and print) platform. *****

4.2 – By presenting witnesses and producing affidavits (MRP). I am pretty sure that the VP did not travel alone and she can produce someone who can validate her personal statement.

6. It falls within the ambit of cyberlibel. The RPC was updated with an RA which grouped all offensive digital/computerized speech/act into cyberlibel.

******* A negative cannot be proved.

Lawyer: Were you with the claimant every day? Witness: Yes.

Lawyer: Were you with the claimant most of the day? Witness: Yes.

Lawyer: Were you with the claimant 24/7? Witness: No.

Lawyer: Then you cannot say that nothing happened, can you? Witness: No. *****

Kung si Georgina ang kasama, 24/7 yan. Kuripot daw is Ma’am Leni so double bed accommodation siguro yon. But that is a mere opinion on my part. It could happen.

Remember the Chiong sisters case? Paco de Llaranaga was believed to have been in Cebu even if friends – an entire class – testified he was in Manila. As friends they are not considered neutral witnesses according to the judge.

I think until the basics of justice, truth and fairness are grasped by Philippine society and culture – my opinion is they are NOT – the same dreadful game will keep repeating itself.

So what will be admissible in court as far as evidence or truth in the case of Olivar V. Robredo in your opinion?

I find it ridiculous in the first place that someone has to prove something alleged isn’t true. Normally that is not the way it works in court, but outside it seems anyone can accuse you of anything, wildly. No wonder people don’t get “innocent until proven guilty” as a concept.

If you ask what evidence will be deemed permissible, I fear that will depend on the judge. Some judges, like the one presiding over De Lima’s case, make a case where there is none. But I guess some have to fight with windmills so that others may have it better later on..

Well said, Irineo.

May limitasyon ang freedom of speech, sigurado yan.

Slarder or libel, pero yung burden of proof ay nasa taong na agrabyado. Kaya, nakadepende na yan kay VP Robredo kung e rereklamo nya si Olivar at kung papano nya mapatunayan na hindi totoo ang sinasabi ni Olivar.

Tanong din ni Edgar yan. Ang sagot ko ay by the VP presenting witnesses and affidavits from those who were with her during the trip. “clear and convincing evidence” at damages ang kailangan for public figures. I am sure the video inflicted some pain and suffering to the VP. I’d say as a layman that she got a case.

German law distinguishes between Defamation and Intentional Defamation. Philippine Law seems to only cover what is defined as Intentional Defamation in Germany: “Whosoever intentionally and knowingly asserts or disseminates an untrue fact related to another person” while defamation in Germany is “Whosoever asserts or disseminates a fact related to another person which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him, shall, unless this fact can be proven to be true”.There is also a higher sentence for both if “if the act was committed publicly, in a meeting or through dissemination of written materials” – clever definition as jurisprudence simply had to define what is published on the Internet as public or equivalent to written materials, while simply talking around town has a smaller sentence, and you would have to have witnesses to prove it was said.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1701

A lot of sections in Chapter 14 of the German Criminal Code are repealed, as they probably are 19th century stuff. “Insult” still remains, Section 186, although it will usually be cops and clerks in government who file cases. Private altercations may often fall under Section 199 Mutual Insults.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch#§_103:_Insulting_of_organs_and_representatives_of_foreign_states_(repealed)

Since January 1, 2018, I am free to insult Duterte. This is because President Erdogan filed a case against a German satirist, causing the German Parliament to repeal the old law prohibiting insults to foreign heads of state. I still am not allowed to do this, but why should I:

Whosoever removes, destroys, damages, renders unrecognisable or insults by mischief a flag of a foreign state, which is displayed according to legal provisions or recognised custom, or a state symbol of such a state which has been publicly installed by a recognised mission of such state, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine. – meaning I can indeed display a tattered Filipino flag in a blog article which is something I did once, but I may not go onto Embassy or Residence grounds and burn the flag of another country, or piss on it (“insult by mischief”). Special rules against insulting Ambassadors are gone also, only ordinary rules apply like to everyone else.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1482

There are rules similar to what was thrown at Carlos Celdran here in Germany. Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) defames the religion or ideology of others in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine. or Whosoever 1. intentionally and inappropriately disturbs a religious service or an act of religious worship of a church or other religious association within Germany or 2. commits defamatory mischief at a place dedicated to the religious worship of such a religious association shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

Even if I think waving a placard in church would not interest anyone over here, it could only lead to sentencing if done during Holy Mass, disturbing the service. What Pussy Riot did in an Orthodox Church, even if outside of worship, could be considered “defamatory mischief”. Besides, minor offences by first timers in Germany usually do not lead to prison. Sentences two years and under are suspended, meaning all you have to do is report to a parole officer. The reason is not to destroy biographies – or expose normal people to the prison crowd.

This part is also interesting:

————

Section 188 Defamation of persons in the political arena

(1) If an offence of defamation (section 186) is committed publicly, in a meeting or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) against a person involved in the popular political life based on the position of that person in public life, and if the offence may make his public activities substantially more difficult the penalty shall be imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) An intentional defamation (section 187) under the same conditions shall entail imprisonment from six months to five years.

————-

Consider that many simple people (much like Leni Robredo) enter politics in Germany. Teachers who run for municipal council and take leave during their term. Notary publics who leave their office to their partners because they were elected for Mayor (the Bonn Mayor in the 1980s was a Notary Public with a functioning office). Owners of family businesses who let their family run the business while they are in the State Parliament – happens often in rural Germany. Imagine if these people were subject to the same harrassment by insults as what was the norm during the Weimar Republic, when especially Nazis insulted everybody. Insults could mean danger, as people who believed these insults sometimes acted on them.

******* This definition of defamation would apply to Olivar.

“…unless this fact can be proven to be true.”

The onus of proof would be on him. *****

The anus of proof? Hehe. Funny though how many Filipinos believe that tsismis is true. Some older ones will even say “where there is smoke, there is fire” as if that proved anything. Tsismis is often vicious, of course usually against people one doesn’t like.

Trolls only had to weaponize that aspect of Philippine society, spreading rumors like “Mar Roxas stole the Yolanda funds”. I have seen people nodding in absurd agreement about the strangest allegations in Filipino migrant communities, based on quarrels between groups.

In pre-enlightened societies, you had that often: “Christians sacrifice children” in Rome. Being able to look beyond emotions and check facts/logic is an acquired, modern skill.

The danger in this situation is that people could say “Leila de Lima did it also, didn’t she”?

That kind of “argument” almost qualifies as proof for many a Filipino from ordinary origins. Hate discussing in Filipino because the language does lack rigor, illogic passes easily.

True, vicious rumors and hearsay are often believed by a lot of Filipinos. Why are they hesitant to ask for evidence/proof from the bearer? Is it part of the feigned or false modesty?

I also agree that the it is oftentimes hard to express logical and abstract concepts in Filipino. Pero swak na swak sa pamimilosopo. Taglish and Konyo is easier but it is often ridiculed as the language of the oligarch.

Do you also find it as a subjective or a non-substantive language or is it just my lack of in-depth knowledge of it?

Three things:

1) your writing in Filipino has greatly improved, I think it is a result of practice. There were earlier articles that sounded a bit wooden, like school Tagalog. What you write now is more of a contemporary Filipino which reflects what is used in social media, more vivid/fluid.

2) It is not non-substantive, but it takes a lot of practice to express things substantively in Filipino. Ang peg ko diyan iyong mga isinusulat nila Trillanes at Gary Alejano. Filipino is after all a language of verbs, English and especially German are languages of nouns.

3) At times I just don’t feel like writing in the language. In fact at times I feel tired of all matters regarding Philippines and Filipinos. I feel a great distance to the mentality. Combined with a great sadness about why things have to be that way. What can I do?

Well, a bit of a break is what I’m taking, that’s what I’m doing now. All of us do at times. Hoping that the horror of a Marcos running the country with the Peso at 80:1$ doesn’t come.

******* 3. I once asked the question here, “Do you feel that your thinking is light-years away from contemporary Filipinos?”

@ Josephivo replied that he didn’t, that we expend the same effort as a poor man thinking how to provide for the family.

I wasn’t thinking quantitatively, of course, but qualitatively.

If I were to pinpoint the quality, I would say it’s not only the unChristian violence of Duterte’s side but also the idolatry of the opposite sides. There is groupthink on all sides.

I am speaking not only of the idolatry of saints but also the idolatry of all false gods — of celebrities; of isms; of fame; of houses, cars, and gadgets; of sex partners; of money; of piety; and of power.

Everything is reduced to relative status.

Anyone who does not possess any of these in “sufficient” quantity is looked down upon. “Sufficient” being in the eyes of the beholder.

If you do possess any of these in “sufficient” quantity, you are looked up upon and privileged. The constraints of morality do not apply to you.

One may have status, but one can easily lose it because of groupthink. It’s almost impossible to put Sereno and Alvarez in the same sentence, never mind the same category, but they both lost “it.”

On the other hand, there’s Pacquiao who can lord it over all because he has an immense quantity of several false gods.

Our morality is idiosyncratic at worst and sectarian at best. *****

Duterte is talking about resigning (again) but he wants someone like Bongbong or Chiz to replace him. The Marcos horror you are dreading might just be around the corner.

http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/08/15/Duterte-better-successor-Escudero-Marcos.html

I think he is hinting that he will over power or influence the PET and Escudero is just a red herring.

Just a trivial info, Neph – what does PET stand for? I can’t seem to find it.

sonny, PET is the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, de facto the Supreme Court.

With Sereno out, it might be easier for things to be cooked as Duterte wants.

Anyone who does not possess any of these in “sufficient” quantity is looked down upon.

yes, that is so very true. Contempt is one very pervasive aspect of Philippine society.

There are also elements of very materialistic attitude in Munich, but not that CONTEMPT.

There is tolerance (sometimes even admiration) for stuff like Franz Beckenbauer saying “God rejoices over every child” after he got his secretary pregnant during a Bayern München Christmas party. But not this “you know who I am” at almost every street corner.

One may have status, but one can easily lose it because of groupthink.

Akin to the age of witch hunts over here in Europe.

Much thanks, Irineo.

I can emphatize with your #3. It is with a sense of resignation that I feel my interest of many things Filipino is slipping away by physical default. The undesirability of our present state of affairs in the islands are weighing heavily on this alienation.

You may have noticed that the speeches of President Duterte were laden with cussing, insults, altercations, sex jokes, profanity, and language that cast aspersions on the Office of the President. He has done these under the cover of “Freedom of Speech”. The kanto lingo simply termed it as “Spits Freedom”. A collection of his speeches then, my kanto friend suggested title is “The Spittles of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte”.

You are funny. I like “Spits Freedom” or “Freedom of Spits” by PRD.

Yes. He seems to get a kick out of not only bringing shame to the highest office of the country but also recklessly disrespecting the Constitution.

JP, my friends of younger times from the Cordilleras said it first – freedom of spit w/ good serving of ‘nga-nga’ 🙂 More respectable than PrD, though.

That is even funnier, Kuya Sonny. Ipa-trending yan sa tweeter. 🙂

Notes from the Editor

I would like to thank Giancarlo Angulo for taking over administration of the blog to keep it available as a historical resource and to publish articles and moderate if I am not available. This is a huge relief for me. JA

This is predominantly a discussion blog. The articles focus on a topic and commenters chip in to build insights. The genius moments are invariably found in the discussion section. And occasionally flames and nonsense are found there, haha. Join us if you please. Become a regular and enjoy a refreshing breadth and depth of thought about the Philippines.

The Society of Honor is published via Word Press hosting in the United States. The blog is not accredited by any government or non-government entity, is not a member of any association or group, and is generally not an originator of news. The blog is not an advocacy of any particular cause.

Please read the ‘Policy and Terms’ tab for further information.

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

[EDITORIAL] Bakuna ang press freedom sa panahon ng pandemic

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Nakakulong ka dahil sa pandemic. Tapos bigla mong mababalitaan mula sa isang kilalang website na wala ka na palang aasahang suweldo kahit regular kang empleyado. “Mandatory no work, no pay ” na raw ngayon. Paano kakain ang pamilya mo?

Nabasa mo rin sa internet na panlaban daw sa virus ang maasim . Sa dinami-dami ng calamansi juice na ininom mo, mahapdi na ang sikmura mo at ‘di malayong nagka-ulcer ka na.

Dagdag pa diyan ang panginginig ng tuhod mo sa takot nang mapanood mo ang video ng mga katawang itinatambak sa mass graves sa Italy . Ibig sabihin, hindi malayong mangyari ‘yan sa Pilipinas!

Pero ilang search lang sa internet at makakahinga ka nang maluwag dahil “disinformation” pala ang mga ito. Lahat ng ‘yan ay HINDI TOTOO. May mga troll post pa ngang namemeke ng logo ng mga mapagkakatiwalaang website tulad ng unang ehemplo.

Ito ang konkretong halimbawa ng serbisyo publiko ng lehitimong pamamahayag.

“Freedom of speech” at “press freedom” – ang kalayaan mong magpahayag ng opinyon at kalayaan ng mga mamamahayag na magbalita – ay garantisado ng ating Konstitusyon. Ang problema, sinabi mismo ni Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte na toilet paper ang Saligang Batas. May halaga ba ‘yan sa panahon ng pandemic?

Higit kailanman, kailangan natin ang mga batayang kalayaan upang maigpawan ang krisis at hindi tayo masiraan ng ulo. At hindi ‘yan cliche. Sa harap ng disinformation na pinakulo ng maiitim na budhi at bayarang mersenaryo sa internet, ang mga kalayaang ‘yan ang magbubukas ng mata natin sa katotohan.

Bakit? Lagpas sa pagkilatis ng totoo at peke, higit kailanman, kailangang singilin ang mga nasa kapangyarihan.

Sa panahon kasi ng krisis nagkakalabasan ng baho. Nabubuking ang puro dada at walang gawa. Napaghahalata ang inutil at tumitingkad ang mahuhusay. Kaya’t kritikal ang mga kritiko.

Ito rin ang dahilan kung bakit sa maraming sulok ng mundo, ginagamit na excuse ang krisis pangkalusugan upang busalan ang mga kritiko.

Sa Hungary, binigyan ng “unli” na kapangyarihan si Premier Viktor Orban na magpatupad ng mga decree na ‘di kailangang sang-ayunan ng mga Members of Parliament (MP). Sa Jordan , binigyan ng isang “defense law” ng kapangyarihan ang Prime Minister na habulin ang mga umano’y “nagpapalaganap ng panic.” Ganoon din sa Thailand kung saan bawal ang media magbalita ng “pekeng balita” na “mananakot sa taumbayan.” Sa Chile , militar na ang nakatambay sa mga public squares na dating balwarte ng mga nagpoprotesta.

Ang problema, ang mga nasa kapangyarihan ang nagbibigay depenisyon sa taguring “maling balita.” Kapag hindi natipuhan ang sinabi mo, babansagan ka lang na “fake news,” puwede ka nang hulihin.

Ayon kay Fionnuala Ni Aolain, ang United Nations Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, maari tayong magkaroon ng “ parallel epidemic ” ng mapanupil na mga polisiya na sasabay sa pandemic.

Kahit bago pa ang epidemic, hindi na maganda ang record ng Pilipinas sa press freedom. Isa tayo sa mga kulelat sa World Press Freedom Index – pang-134.

Kaya’t di na nakakagulat na ipinatawag ng National Bureau of Investigation ang higit sa sandosenang taong nag-post ng mga kuro-kuro na hindi ikinatuwa ng mga nasa-poder. Ayon kay Chel Diokno na abugado ng isa sa mga nag-post, nagpahayag lamang ang kanyang kliyente ng “concern” sa nagaganap sa bayan. Bakit balat-sibuyas ang gobyerno sa mga post na nag-uungkat ng paggamit ng pondo ng pamahalaan? ( PANOORIN: Chel Diokno on the Rule of Law in a pandemic )

Sabi ng Department of Justice, nililimitahan ang free speech ng “ greater interest of the public .” At lahat naman daw ng hakbang nila ay alinsunod sa batas. Tanong kay Mr Menardo Guevarra, iiral ba ang “restraint” sa mga pulis, militar, at mga piskal kung mismong ang Pangulo ang nagsabing “ shoot them dead ?”

Nakadidismaya rin na ang isang campus journalist ng University of the East ay napilitang humingi ng tawad matapos batikusin si Duterte sa social media. Mismong mga dating titser niya ang nagpasimuno ng pagsasampa ng reklamo sa kanya sa barangay. Hindi na namin tatalakayin ang pagtataksil sa propesyon ng mga gurong nam-bully na supporter pala ni Digong. Ang nakaaalarma ay umabot pa ito sa barangay at ginamit na panakot ang cyber libel sa pobreng estudyanteng naging kritikal sa gobyerno.

May karapatan tayong lahat sa tumpak na balita. At lalong may karapatan tayong maglabas ng saloobin sa mga polisiyang nagbabago, at maaring sumira, ng buhay natin.

Sa panahong hindi abot-kamay ang hanap-buhay, laganap ang sakit na nakamamatay – buhay o kamatayan natin ang husay o kapalpakan ng gobyerno. Ang tanging panangga natin ay ang ating boses.

Sa totoo lang, bakuna ang malayang pamamahayag sa mga kasinungalingan at kapalpakan sa panahoon ng pandemic. Higit kailanman, dapat natin itong itaguyod at ipagtanggol. #DefendPressFreedom #CourageON – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

The Filipino Anti-False Content Bill: Fake News and Free Expression

by Joseph Johnson | Oct 25, 2019

About Joseph Johnson

Joe Johnson, “The Filipino Anti-False Content Bill: Fake News and Free Expression”, (OxHRH Blog, October 2019), <https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-filipino-anti-false-content-bill-fake-news-and-free-expression/>, [Date of access].

On 1 July 2019 , the ‘ Anti-False Content Bill ’ was introduced in the Senate of the Philippines, seeking to ‘protect the public from the deleterious effects of false and deceiving content online’ and following in the footsteps of the Malaysian Parliament . Whilst the aim is prima facie defensible, the ‘Punishable Acts’ established by the Bill make dangerous inroads on freedom of expression. They are likely unconstitutional and contrary to Article 19 ICCPR .

The new ‘Punishable Acts’ are committed by publishing information that the publisher knows or reasonably believes to be false or misleading to the public, providing a service to facilitate that activity, financing that activity, or failing to comply with a Section 5 Order. Section 5 empowers the Department of Justice Office of Cybercrime (“DJOC”) to determine whether a Punishable Act has been committed, and to make orders for modification or removal of the published information. Committing any of the Punishable Acts attracts a sanction of imprisonment, a fine ranging from Php 300,000 to Php 2,000,000, or both.

These provisions are likely incompatible with the Constitution of the Philippines. Following Chavez v Gonzales , the right to freedom of expression under Article 3, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution is broad. It was recognised in Gertz v Welch (adopted in Borjal v Court of Appeals ) , that false statements of fact must fall within the scope of the right to avoid the chilling effect on true speech. This is particularly important in the present context given that the falsity of the impugned speech is determined by the DJOC. There is no guarantee that the broad offences will only target false content, and indeed, they could easily capture any speech, including political dissent, that the DJOC deems to be misleading. It is clear that the Bill attacks expression which falls within the scope of the constitutional right.

Moreover, any limitations on the Article 3, Section 4 right must be subject to the ‘strictest scrutiny’ such that they are only constitutional if the speech poses a ‘clear and present danger’ ( Chavez ) . The Explanatory Note to the Bill suggests that this danger was posed, for example, by a false publication which ‘raised doubts as to the integrity of the automated election system’. However, without an objective and transparent determination that the publication was indeed false, legitimate criticisms of the election system are just as likely to be censored as falsities. Further, with no guidance as to the circumstances in which speech will be prohibited, it is impossible to identify one single ‘clear and present danger’ justifying the blanket prohibition. It is therefore unlikely that the Bill constitutes a justifiable limitation on freedom of expression.

The Bill is also likely to be incompatible with Article 19 ICCPR. Again, the scope of the right is broad , meaning that the various forms of speech implicated by the Bill will attract protection. Article 19(3) requires that limitations on the right are ‘provided by law’, but, as indicated above, the Bill is not ‘formulated with sufficient precision’ ( GC34, paragraph 25 ) to meet this requirement. Similarly, the Bill is not necessary or proportionate to its aim. This apparently falls under Article 19(3)(b), that is ‘the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.’ However, ‘when a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualised fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken’ ( GC34, paragraph 25 ). Given the breadth of the Punishable Acts, no such precise specification is possible.

The Anti-False Content Bill is clearly incompatible with domestic and international human rights standards, restricting the right to freedom of expression without sufficient justification. In order to better comply with these standards, the Bill must, at least, be amended so as to: (i) impose civil, rather than criminal liability; (ii) provide for independent (i.e. judicial) assessment of whether a ‘Punishable Act’ has been committed; and (iii) more closely define the circumstances in which liability will be imposed. It is to be hoped that the Bill is amended, if not outright rejected, by the Senate.

Free Speech Crisis in University

Brazil’s ‘fake news’ bill threatens to harm internet freedom and individual rights

The Broad Regulation of Fake News Could Limit the Right to Freedom of Expression

Submit a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Submit Journal Contribution

Author information.

Full name *
Jurisdiction *
Upload author profile photo * Accepted file types: jpg, gif, png, jpeg, bmp, Max. file size: 1 MB.
Author bio *
I’m happy to display my social media links (only complete if you want them displayed)

Journal content

Journal article title *
Upload Journal article * Accepted file types: doc, docx, , Max. file size: 1 MB.
Articles can be uploaded in the following formats: doc, docx
Subscribe to the newsletter
Consent * I agree that the article submitted is my original and unpublished work *

Submit Blog Contribution

Author bio (50 words) *

Blog content

Blog title *
Upload blog article * Accepted file types: doc, docx, , Max. file size: 1 MB.
You can upload your blog in the following document formats: doc, docx.
Subscribe me to the newsletter
Consent * I agree that the blog post submitted is my original and unpublished work *
Post Custom Field

bahasa Indonesia

See all those languages up there? We translate Global Voices stories to make the world's citizen media available to everyone.

Middle East
Human Rights
Digital Activism
Lahat ng paksa »
Freedom of Speech

Nintendo, binalaan ang mga manlalaro ng Animal Crossing na tigilan ang pamumulitika nang hindi sila pagbawalang maglaro

Mga diary tungkol sa COVID-19 mula sa Wuhan: Nang maging mga ulat ng mamamayan ang mga diary

Mga diary tungkol sa COVID-19 mula sa Wuhan: ‘Hindi maipagdalamhati nang malaya ng mga tao ang kanilang mga kamag-anak. Napakalupit!’

Mga diary tungkol sa COVID-19 mula sa Wuhan: Napaliligiran ng mga pader na salamin

Mga kwento tungkol sa freedom of speech.

Mga diary tungkol sa COVID-19 mula sa Wuhan: Pagbibigay-pugay ng mga Tsinong netizen sa whistleblower na si Dr. Ai Fen

May mga tao pa ring walang takot na nagpapahayag ng kanilang saloobin, at pinahahalagahan namin ang mga taong ito at ginagawa namin ang makakaya upang ipakalat ang mga mensahe nila.

Mga diary tungkol sa COVID-19 mula sa Wuhan: ‘Ang pagkilos namin ay nagdala sa amin ng pag-asa’

Bagaman nasa ilalim ng lockdown, nagsisikap ang mga volunteer na tulungan ang ibang nangangailangan.

Mga diary tungkol sa COVID-19 mula sa Wuhan: Lalong paghihigpit

"Mula sa lockdown ng lungsod hanggang sa lockdown ng pamayanan, mas lalong naging limitado ang aming mga gawain, at unti-unti kaming tinatanggalan ng aming kapangyarihan."

Mga diary tungkol sa COVID-19 mula sa Wuhan: Nang naging mga bagay ang mga tao

"Tungkol ito sa pagkontrol. Kailangan nating alisin ang kapangyarihan nila... at gawing mga bagay ito."

Mga diary tungkol sa COVID-19 mula sa Wuhan: Paghahanap ng koneksyon sa ibang mga tao habang nag-iisa

Ilalathala ng Global Voices ang mga diary nina Ai at Guo mula Wuhan sa isang serye. Ang sumusunod na mga pahayag ay isinulat sa ikalawang linggo ng lockdown mula ika-29 ng Enero hanggang ika-4 ng Pebrero, 2020.

Mga diary tungkol sa COVID-19 mula sa Wuhan: ‘…hindi lamang naka-lockdown ang isang lungsod, kundi pati na rin ang aming mga boses’

Sa mga diary na ito mula Wuhan, ipinakikita ng buhay ng mga ordinaryong tao sa ilalim ng top-down na pagkontrol at pagsusubaybay kung paano inalis sa mga tao ang kanilang pansariling pagkakakilanlan.

Internet, ligtas ba para sa kababaihan sa Gitnang Silangan habang pinabibilis ng COVID-19 ang digital transformation?

Lalong tinatarget online ang mga babaeng aktibista at mamamahayag sa mga pagtatangkang manakot, magpakalat ng maling impormasyon, at siraan ang kanilang trabaho.

Online game, bagong tahanan ng mga nagpoprotesta sa Hong Kong sa panahon ng pandemya

Sabik na ang mga nagpoprotesta sa Hong Kong na magtipon muli sa mga lansangan. Pansamantala nilang ginagawa iyon sa pamamagitan ng kanilang mga gadget.

Bahrain: Apat na Katao, Arestado Dahil sa Paggamit ng Twitter

Sa bansang Bahrain, may apat na katao ang inaresto dahil sa maling paggamit ng social media, ayon sa Ministeryo ng Interyor. Ngunit hindi idinetalye sa opisyal na pahayag ng pulisya...

Bahrain: Website ng Pagpupulong ng UN, Hinarangan

Kilos-Protesta ng mga Anarkistang Griyego sa mga Litrato

Noong Setyembre 1, isinagawa sa gitnang Athens ang isang kilos-protesta. Daan-daang demonstrador, na karamihan ay kasapi ng kilusang anarkiya, ang nagtipon-tipon bilang pagkundena sa marahas na pag-atake laban sa mga dayuhan at mga imigrante.

Graffiti sa Panahon ng Krisis

Sa kasalukuyang krisis pang-ekonomiya, naging lunsaran ng mga hinaing ng lipunan ang samu't saring graffiti na makikita sa mga lungsod at bayan. Narito ang ilang halimbawa.

Deklarasyon ng Kalayaan ng Internet

Kamakailan nagsama-sama ang ilang pangkat at binuo ang Deklarasyon ng Kalayaan ng Internet. Sa kasalukuyan, higit sa 1300 mga organisasyon at kompanya ang lumagda sa nasabing kasunduan at patuloy na nadadagdagan ang bilang ng mga lumalahok.

Georgia: Mga Aktibistang LGBT, Binugbog ng Pangkat ng Orthodox

Noong ika-17 ng Mayo, bilang pagdiriwang sa Pandaigdigang Araw Laban sa Homophobia, nagmartsa ang kilusang LGBT sa lansangan ng Tbilisi, Georgia. Bigla naman humarang ang isang pangkat ng mga Kristiyanong Orthodox, at sumunod ang pisikal na salpukan. Ulat ni Mirian Jugheli.

Indonesia: Palabas ni Lady Gaga, Hindi Binigyan ng Permiso

Dahil sa mariing pagtutol ng mga konserbatibong pangkat at mga pulitiko, na tinawag si Lady Gaga bilang tagapaglingkod sa demonyo, ipinahayag ng pulisya sa bansang Indonesia na hindi nito bibigyan ng permit ang inaabangang konserto ni Lady Gaga sa Jakarta, na hindi ikinatuwa ng 50,000 tagahanga.

Magpatala Bilang Tagapagsalinwika
Makipag-ugnayan
Mga May-akda
Special Coverage

Mga nagpopondo

Global Voices is supported by the efforts of our volunteer contributors, foundations, donors and mission-related services. For more information please read our Fundraising Ethics Policy .

Special thanks to our many sponsors and funders .

Please support our important work:

-->