BY JON ZENRICH GABATAN & SHAINA FAYE PEÑAS
THE UNQUESTIONABLE boundary between freedom of expression and the legal ramifications of libel remains a fundamental concern: How can we protect individuals’ rights to free speech while preventing the potential harm caused by defamatory statements?
First, it is essential to acknowledge that no right is absolute, and freedom of expression is no exception. This right is universally recognized in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms that every individual has the right to freely express opinions, disseminate information across all media, and do so without regard to boundaries.
Similarly, Article 3, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution guarantees individuals the right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances peacefully. With such freedoms enshrined in law, the question arises: how far can these rights extend? While these provisions grant us the right to speak, when must we refrain from speaking?
The necessity for restraint emerges when the exercise of this right becomes harmful. This brings us to the issue of libel: false and defamatory statements that damage an individual’s reputation, leading to ridicule, hatred, or contempt. Libel represents a critical limitation on the scope of freedom of expression.
As outlined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, it serves to protect individuals from malicious speech that intentionally tarnishes their reputation in the community. This provision, however, should not be misconstrued as an excuse for abusing the right to free speech. Every right has its limits, and libel laws delineate the boundaries of permissible expression.
While it is true that rights are not without restriction, striking an appropriate balance is crucial, especially as citizens today are increasingly ardent about issues that matter to them. Thus, there is a pressing need for more stringent libel and defamation laws—ones that are clearly defined to distinguish between defamatory statements and those that constitute mere opinions or satire, which remain protected under the umbrella of free speech.
While the Constitution does not explicitly provide exceptions to freedom of expression, it is vital to distinguish between a properly exercised right and one that has been abused. Laws are undoubtedly essential, but it is equally crucial for citizens to understand that free speech should not be used as a defense to undermine or defame others. Though libel and freedom of speech lie at opposing ends of the spectrum, neither can be deemed superior to the other.
Therefore, establishing a middle ground where individuals are free to express themselves without holding others to harm or ridicule is a necessary step toward fostering a harmonious society in which speech is unfettered by arbitrary constraints. Achieving this balance is vital for the well-being of all citizens. Ultimately, this reflects the notion that in this rapidly changing world, nothing seems to be absolute, even with these inherent freedoms.
_________________________________________________________________
Jon Zenrich Gabatan and Shaina Faye Peñas are 3rd year political science students at the University of Cebu-Main. The article is part of their school requirement.
