Freedom of Speech in the Philippines Essay

Freedom of lecture is the concept of the organic serviceman proficient to voice mavins opinion everyplacetly without fear of banship or punishment. Speech is non limited to human beings enunciateing and is generally taken to include other stocks of materialization. The cover is preserved in the United res realityas Universal solvent of world Rights and is granted formal recognition by the decentlyeousnesss of most nations. N one and fork upd(a)theless the degree to which the justifiedly is upheld in pr exertionice varies greatly from one nation to another. In m either nations, departicularly those with relatively authoritarian forms of government, explicit government criminalizeship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to drop dead in other forms (see propaganda model) and there be unalike approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation rightfulnesss flush in countries seen as liberal democracies.Article tercet Section 4 o f the 1987 genius of the Philippines specifies that no law shall be passed abridging the immunity of speech or of conceptualization. rough laws inconsistent with a broad application of this legislation be in force, however.29For exampleCertain sections of the peg and Heraldic Code require particular ex narrowions and prevent other expressionsTitle thirteen of the Revised punishable Code of the Philippines criminalizes denigrate and slander by act or deed (slander by deed is outlined as both act which shall cast dishonor, sink or contempt upon another person.), providing penalties of fine or im prisonment. In 2012, acting on a flush by an imprisoned broadcaster who dramatised a com bearing account reporting that a particular politico was seen running naked in a hotel when caught in bed by the husband of the woman with whom he was said to gravel spent the night, the United Nations focal point on Human Rights ruled that the criminalization of denigrate violates libe rty of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and governmental Rights, commenting that Defamations laws should not stifle license of expression and that punishable defamation laws should include defense of trueness.*************************************************************************If we dont believe in broaddom of expression for multitude we despise, we dont believe in it at all. Noam ChomskyThe independence to express our thoughts is an pregnant part of our idiosyncratic identity. When we talk and write about our opinions we are alter ideas and participating in society. Freedom of expression is cover in article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights E rattling(prenominal)one has the correctly to license of opinion and expression this right includes immunity to hold opinions without balk and to seek, throw and append reading and ideas by dint of some(prenominal) media and regardless of f rontiers. Freedom of expression is widely ac copeledged as a staple fiber benignant right that should be available to all, acting a crucial part in a fair and open society.M either countries and organizations place limits on independence of expression. These limitations can be a delegacy of controlling the great unwashed. Restricting voting rights, censoring speech and art and outlawing specific religious and governmental groups are some of the tools governments catch used to control domain opposition. Even societies that consider themselves free and democratic inhibit opposing soak ups. Consider your local watchwordpaper although you competency expect objectivity, if you were to analyze the content, you might not fetch a variety of informed opinions and critiques. Editorial and advanceds writers whitethorn be influenced by their own political turn overs. In some places, reporters are trained to operate or omit discipline that could harm those in power.Should ther e be no limits on exemption of expression? If we are entitled to express ourselves freely we mustiness(prenominal) accept that others provide express ideas very different from our own. This might include ideas that offend and maybe even hurt us. Hate speech attacks people based upon such distinctions as race, religion and gender. Should we censor ideas that damage and lift cruelty? The content of a book, a song or a buck may cross societal lines ofmorality and decency. Should we censor art works that are violent, insulting or degrading? These are some of the complex questions you must think about. Feeling intimidated and forced to substantiate to traditional or mainstream beliefs is a violation of your in-person freedom. But sometimes authorities set rules and boundaries for true(p) reason. Understanding why the rules exist is to a greater extent than important than automati chew the faty obeying them.************************************************************************ *****Cybercrimes and Freedom of ExpressionDespite the view of the United Nations committee on Human Rights that Philippine criminal slander is contrary to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR) on freedom of expression, Congress and chair Benigno Aquino tierce still enacted the Cybercrime Prevention Law which, among other things, added electronic libel as a new criminal offense.Worse, this new law increased the penalty for cyber libel to prison mayor from the current prison punitory provided on a lower floor the Revised Penal Code.This sum that electronic libel is now punished with imprisonment from hexad years and one day to up to 12 years, while those convicted for ordinary libel chthonian the RPC are subject to imprisonment only from six months and one day to four years and two months. And because parole, a means by which a convict may be spared from actual imprisonment may be granted only to those sentenced to serve a prison term for no more than six months and one day, anyone convicted for cyber libel go out inevitably serve a prison term.Since the Philippines leads the rest of the world in wrong of Facebook and Twitter usage, this means that unlike ordinary libel complaints which are oftentimes brought against printed newspapers -given the element of publication, any substance abuser of these hint social media tools is now liable for prosecution. The occurrence that an allegedly libelous writing appeared on the profit is already sufficient to prove the element of publication.The new Cybercrime law is an outright defiance of the UN Human Rights Committee View in the case of Alexander genus Adonis vs. Republic of the Philippines.In that View, the UNHRC declared that Philippine libel law under the RPC contravenes freedom of expression on two counts one, it is a dis proportional means by which to achieve its avowed goal of protecting the loneliness of private persons and two, because there is an alternati ve in the form of civil libel, or the payment of damages.The UN HCR also took the view that our libel in the Philippines, because it does not recognize honor as a defense, is additionally defective on this ground.While the View of the UNHRC is this instance is non-binding, the Philippines nonetheless is under an obligation to heed it because of the maxim pacta sundt servanda, or that conformity obligations must be complied with in good faith. The UN Human Rights Committee Views, since the membership of the body consist of leading experts in homophile rights, are accepted as authoritative on the issue of areas compliance with their obligations under the ICCPR.Simply put, the view against our libel law is very strong evidence of breach of a state obligation under the ICCPR And instead of heeding the UNs call to review its existing libel law, Congress and President Aquino appeared to gravel slammed the body by enacting an even more draconian legislation against cyber libel.Our cons titutional commitment to freedom of expression has long been recognized. Justice Holmes, for instance, wrote When men have realized that time has upset many battle faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very showations of their own conduct that the last-ditch good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas that the best turn out of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . .The commitment exists because it is only through freedom of expression that we are able to choose the truth and able to fiscalize despotic regimes The freedom to speak ones mind is not only an aspect of individual libertyand thus a good unto itselfbut also is essential to the leafy vegetable quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly light to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.By criminalizing internet libel, gover nment grow the infringement of freedom of expression even to the nation that has enabled us to give life to the principle of a free market place of ideas- the internet. Prior to this law, it is humorous that the Philippines was even cited by the United Nations for not busybodied with the internet. The law is a testament to the reality that patronage the overwhelming mandate given to this administration, coupled with its curious public approval ratings, it continues to be insecure and futile to compete in the market place of ideas.We willing see the Aquino administration in court on this one. And we will prevail. For unlike other laws that enjoy the stipulation of regularity, this cybercrime law, insofar as it infringes on freedom of expression, will come to court with a very good presumption of unconstitutionality.There can be vigour sadder than suing the son of icons of democracy for infringement into a treasure right.***************************************************** ********************IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSIONArticle 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees the right to freedom of expression in the following term Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression this right includes the right to hold opinions without disruption and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.The UDHR, as a UN General Assembly resolution, is not now binding on postulates. However, parts of it, including Article 19, are widely regarded as having acquired legal force as customary multinational law since its adoption in 1948.The International Covenant on Civil and semipolitical Rights (ICCPR), a treaty ratified by over 150 bows, including the Philippines, imposes formal legal obligations on State Parties to respect its cookerys and elaborates on many of the rights include in the UDHR.Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to freedom of expression in terms very comparable to those found at Article 19 of the UDHR1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of opinion. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, both orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice.Freedom of expression is also defend in all three regional human rights instruments, by Article 10 of the European conventionalism on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.The right to freedom of expression enjoys a prominent post in each of these regional conventions and, although the Philippines cannot be a party to them, the judgments and decisions issued by courts under these regional mechanisms, allow for an authoritative interpretation of freedom of expression principles in various different cont exts.Freedom of expression is a key human right, in particular because of its unsounded role in underpinning democracy. At its very branch session, in 1946, the UN General Assembly adopted endurance 59(I) which states Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.As the UN Human Rights Committee has said The right to freedom of expression is of paramount importance in any democratic society.RESTRICTIONS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSIONThe right to freedom of expression is not absolute both international law and most national constitutions recognise that it may be restricted. However, any limitations must remain deep down strictly defined parameters. Article 19(3) of the ICCPR lays down the conditions which any restriction on freedom of expression must meet The proceeding of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore b e subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are essential(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others(b) For the tribute of national security or of public tack (ordre public), or of public health or morals.A similar formulation can be found in the European, American and African regional human rights treaties. These have been interpreted as requiring restrictions to meet a strict three-part test.International jurisprudence makes it clear that this test presents a high standard which any interference must overcome. The European apostrophize of Human Rights has utter Freedom of expression is subject to a shape of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the requisite for any restrictions must be convincingly established.First, the interference must be provided for by law. This requirement will be fulfilled only where the law is approachable and formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen t o model his conduct.Second, the interference must pursue a legitimate aim. The list of aims in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR is scoop in the sense that no other aims are considered to be legitimate as grounds for limiting freedom of expression. Third, the restriction must be necessary to secure one of those aims. The word necessary means that there must be a military press social need for the restriction. The reasons given by the State to justify the restriction must be pertinent and sufficient and the restriction must be proportionate to the aim pursued.The Constitution of the Philippines, however, does not explicitly provide for restrictions to the right to freedom of expression. The only restriction to the rights to expression and information and press freedom is encapsulated in the provision on the right to privacy.Article III, Sections 3 of the Constitution states(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be watertight except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE MEDIAThe guarantee of freedom of expression applies with particular force to the media, including the broadcast media and public service broadcasters. The European Court of Human Rights, for example, has systematically emphasised the pre-eminent role of the press in a State governed by the rule of law.The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stated It is the mass media that make the exercise of freedom of expression a reality. Media as a whole merit special protection, in part because of their role in making public information and ideas on matters of public interest. Not only does the press have the task of imparting such information and ideas the public also has a right to receive them. Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of public watchdog.It may be say that the obligation to respect freedom of expression lies with States, not with the media per se. However, this obligation does apply to publicly-funded broadcasters. Because of their link to the State, these broadcasters are directly bound by international guarantees of human rights. In addition, publicly-funded broadcasters are in a special position to satisfy the publics right to know and to guarantee pluralism and access, and it is therefore particularly important that they promote these rights.