BY GIULIANI ALFONSO A. ABADILLA
FREEDOM of speech, or freedom of expression, applies to ideas of all kinds, including those that may be deeply offensive. While the law protects free speech, there are instances where it can legitimately be restricted, particularly when it violates the rights of others, promotes hatred, or incites discrimination or violence.
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article III, Section 4, provides: “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.” This constitutional provision emphasizes the protection of fundamental rights related to free speech, expression, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government peacefully. In essence, it means that no legislation should be enacted to curtail these essential democratic freedoms. However, despite being a fundamental right, freedom of expression is not absolute. For instance, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) was enacted in the Philippines to address crimes committed through online platforms. Under this law, individuals can face legal consequences for posting comments online that are deemed “libelous.”
In fact, the Supreme Court explained in Chavez vs. Gonzales that freedom of expression is not an absolute right, nor is it “an unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom.” As such, certain types of speech—such as slander, libel, obscenity, fighting words, hate speech, and incitement to lawless action—are subject to regulation, which is justified under the police power of the State.
Moreover, in a democratic society, freedom of speech plays a vital role in fostering open dialogue, challenging government actions, and promoting social progress. History has shown that many reforms, such as movements for civil rights, gender equality, and political transparency, were driven by the brave exercise of free expression. However, when this freedom is misused to spread disinformation or incite hostility, it not only undermines the integrity of public discourse but also endangers the very democracy it seeks to protect. Thus, the delicate balance between protecting freedom of speech and ensuring public welfare must continuously be evaluated and upheld.
In conclusion, freedom of speech and expression must be given the utmost importance, as it is foundational to safeguarding all other rights and fostering democratic progress. Its responsible exercise enables citizens to challenge injustice, promote reform, and contribute to societal growth. However, with this right comes the duty to wield it ethically and respectfully, recognizing the harm that can arise from its abuse. While it empowers individuals to voice their beliefs, it must not be used as a shield for hatred, misinformation, or violence. Upholding this balance is essential to ensure that freedom of speech remains a force for good in a just and democratic society.
____________________________________________________________________________
Giuliani Alfonso A. Abadilla is a 3rd year AB political science student at the University of Cebu Main Campus. The article is part of an academic requirement for their constitutional law subject.
Post Views: 197
COMMENTARY | The limits and responsibilities of freedom of speech
BY GIULIANI ALFONSO A. ABADILLA
FREEDOM of speech, or freedom of expression, applies to ideas of all kinds, including those that may be deeply offensive. While the law protects free speech, there are instances where it can legitimately be restricted, particularly when it violates the rights of others, promotes hatred, or incites discrimination or violence.
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article III, Section 4, provides: “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.” This constitutional provision emphasizes the protection of fundamental rights related to free speech, expression, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government peacefully. In essence, it means that no legislation should be enacted to curtail these essential democratic freedoms. However, despite being a fundamental right, freedom of expression is not absolute. For instance, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) was enacted in the Philippines to address crimes committed through online platforms. Under this law, individuals can face legal consequences for posting comments online that are deemed “libelous.”
In fact, the Supreme Court explained in Chavez vs. Gonzales that freedom of expression is not an absolute right, nor is it “an unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom.” As such, certain types of speech—such as slander, libel, obscenity, fighting words, hate speech, and incitement to lawless action—are subject to regulation, which is justified under the police power of the State.
Moreover, in a democratic society, freedom of speech plays a vital role in fostering open dialogue, challenging government actions, and promoting social progress. History has shown that many reforms, such as movements for civil rights, gender equality, and political transparency, were driven by the brave exercise of free expression. However, when this freedom is misused to spread disinformation or incite hostility, it not only undermines the integrity of public discourse but also endangers the very democracy it seeks to protect. Thus, the delicate balance between protecting freedom of speech and ensuring public welfare must continuously be evaluated and upheld.
In conclusion, freedom of speech and expression must be given the utmost importance, as it is foundational to safeguarding all other rights and fostering democratic progress. Its responsible exercise enables citizens to challenge injustice, promote reform, and contribute to societal growth. However, with this right comes the duty to wield it ethically and respectfully, recognizing the harm that can arise from its abuse. While it empowers individuals to voice their beliefs, it must not be used as a shield for hatred, misinformation, or violence. Upholding this balance is essential to ensure that freedom of speech remains a force for good in a just and democratic society.
____________________________________________________________________________
Giuliani Alfonso A. Abadilla is a 3rd year AB political science student at the University of Cebu Main Campus. The article is part of an academic requirement for their constitutional law subject.
Author
View all postsPublished in COLUMN and OPINION