PHILOSOPHY of LAW

Epistemology official name of the study of knowledge in Philosophy

Epistemological pertaining to the study of knowledge

Knowledge the account of what it takes to be knowledge

To give this account, there are conditions which are necessary
A condition is necessary for being x when something cant be x unless it satisfies the condition
Ex. 1. Being female is a necessary condition for being your sister
2. Killing is a necessary condition in murder or homicide

Knowledge and Truth

Truth us a necessary condition for knowledge (i.e., if it is true, it is knowledge)
Knowledge and Belief
If a belief is true, it does not follow that it is knowledge
Knowing-that
The philosophical tradition in epistemology concentrates on knowledge of facts
Ex. 1. Fred knows that the party is cancelled
2. Fred knows who killed John.
Knowing-that is the kind of knowing whose object is proposition
Proposition
Is what a sentence means, what it expresses
Expressed by a whole declarative sentence rather than just a noun or noun phrase
Two distinct propositions:
(a) X murdered Y.
(b) It has been proved that X murdered Y.
The propositional object is either true or false
Example: If X murdered Y, then the proposition expressed by the words X murdered Y is true; if X did not, it is
false.
Evidence is sound and acceptable
Rules on admissibility of evidence:
o To allow the judicial process to get at the truth; and
o To uphold certain identified public policies (i.e., exclusionary rules) a step in the direction of
getting at the truth
Ex.: After a bank heist, a man caught running out of the building is brought to the police station,
after some questions by the police, he confesses his involvement
How do you get at the truth?
What is proved in court (what the law allows to be proved and in the manner the law permits):
o What evidence may be introduced
Examples: 1. Rules of Admissibility (Object, Documentary and Testimonial)
2. Burden of Proof and Presumptions
3. Presentation of Evidence
o

What weight is to be given

Examples: 1. Positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any
showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness
2. Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value
3. Factual findings of trial courts are entitled to great weigh and respect on appeal,
especially when established by unrebutted testimonial and documentary evidence
4. Findings of the trial and its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties
are accorded great weight because of its unique advantage of monitoring and observing the
demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses
The manner it is introduced

Assumptions about human nature

Under certain limited circumstances, a witness may be impeached by eliciting an admission of former
conviction of dishonesty, perjury or crimes of moral turpitude
Assumption: a witness who has proved untrustworthy in the past cannot be relied on in the present case
Lejano vs People
Jurisprudence has consistently summoned, however, that for testimonial evidence to be worthy of belief, it
must firstly proceed from the mouth of a credible witness. A person may be credible where he is without previous
conviction of a crime; who is not a police character and has no police record; who has not perjured in the past; whose
affidavit or testimony is not incredible; who has a good standing in the community; and who is reputed to be
trustworthy and reliable. Secondly, the persons testimony must in itself be credible. (Concurring Opinion, Carpio
Morales, J.)
Bug-atan, et al vs People
Maramaras previous conviction neither detracts his competency as a witness nor necessarily renders his
testimony totally untrustworthy and inadmissible. While Maramara admitted to having been previously convicted in
Criminal Case No. DU-3721, this circumstance does not necessarily make him or his testimony ipso facto incredible.
The determination of the character of a witness is not a prerequisite to belief in his testimony. His alleged bad
reputation, even if true, should not sway the court in the evaluation of the veracity of his testimony. Other important
factors should be considered in determining the inherent probability of his statements for a convicted person is not
necessarily a liar. After all, conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification of witnesses.
Assumptions about human nature

People v Batoltol
An appeal from CFI of Samar convicting appellant of double murder
According to witnesses of prosecution, appellant approached Sabasado in a cockpit and stabbed him at
the back. Sabasado was close behind Bernardino Lacambra with his two hands holding the shoulders of the
latter
The weapon pierced thru the body of Sabasido at the abdominal region and wounded Lacambra also
The appellant admits having caused the death of Potenciano Sabasido but denies having wounded
Lacambra. I do not know who caused the woubd of Lacambra, he testified. According to him, while he
was walking around the ring of the cockpit looking for a bet, Sabasido saw him and said to him: So you
are the one who filed a complaint against me. I am going to kill you. At that very moment, he said,
Sabasido stabbed him and hit him on his left buttock; that then he held the right arm of Sabasido with his
left hand and stabbed Sabasido on the right side of his body, which is a little bit to the back. Sabasido
released my hand which was holding his right arm and then stabbed me from left to right. Then I held his
right wrist with my left hand and pushed same towards Sabasidos body and I thrust him on his abdomen.
After that he ran away, he said.
Held:
After a careful and thorough study of the record we agree with the trial court. The nature and the position
of the wounds of the Sabasido completely belie the theory of the defense. Both wounds pierced thru the
body from the back to front and could not have been inflicted by the accused in the manner claimed by
him, that is to say, in a face-to-face fight. Moreover, the story of the witnesses for the defense as to how
Lacambra was wounded, namely, that Sabasido accidentally hit him while he was pursuing the appellant
after the latter had wounded him twice, is unbelievable. No man with two bolo wounds thru his body, one
thru the abdominal region, and the other thru the thorax, could possibly run in pursuit of another. Those
wounds were necessarily so fatal as to cause instantaneous death.
Compatibility with human knowledge, observation and common experience of man
People v De Guzman
Furthermore, the reaction of Flores, in hurriedly going home and leaving Urieta alone to die, was
unnatural and contrary to common human experience. The seemingly apathetic behavior displayed by Flores
in leaving Urieta without even checking his condition to see if he was still breathing and his failure to report
about what happened on the same night were highly inconsistent with the natural/common reaction of one
who had just witnessed the stabbing of his childhood friend. The Court cannot accept a story that defies reason
and leaves much to the imagination. The failure of Flores to lend a touch of realism to his tale leads to the
conclusion that he was either withholding incriminating information or was not telling the truth.
The time-honored test in determining the value of the testimony of a witness is its compatibility with
human knowledge, observation and common experience of man. Thus, whatever is repugnant to the
standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside
judicial cognizance. Consistently, the Court has ruled that evidence to be believed must proceed not only
from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with
the knowledge and common experience of mankind. In the case at bench, the testimony of Flores, the lone
eyewitness of the prosecution does not bear the earmarks of the truth and, hence, not credible.
Familiarity with sociological observations
People v Nunez
An appeal by Arsenia Nunez from a judgment of the Peoples Court which convicted her of the crime of
treason
Appellant argued that the alleged overt acts (that she adhered to the enemy Empire of Japan and
Japanese Forces) alleged n the information and which were made the basis of her conviction were not
clearly proven to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, that the guilt of appellant
was predicated merely on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution failed to prove the traitorous
intent of the accused in accordance with the requirement of the treason law.
Held:
Alleging that he was afraid of the Japanese, he said, however, that he did not notify the local
authorities about it nor take any steps to ascertain the whereabouts of his daughter, and that it was only on
the following year, when the American forces were already occupying the province of Cavite, that the witness
learned that his daughter, the appellant, was in the City of Cavite. The attitude of utter indifference shown by
Nunez in connection with the matter of the alleged kidnapping of his daughter is so unnatural, so contrary to
the well-known strength and closeness of the family ties of the Filipinos, that we hardly believe the accuracy of
this story of the kidnapping, and that appellant voluntarily left her home for the City of Cavite to join the
Japanese.
How does one resolve a case in the face of doubt or uncertainty?
Burdens of Persuasion refer to the rules crafted by express rules on evidence or judicial practice:
(a) Preponderance of evidence (civil case)
(b) Clear and convincing evidence (where presumptions are to be overcome)
(c) Proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases)
Preponderance of evidence
Revised Rules of Evidencem Rule 133, Section 1:
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof
must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance of evidence or
superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider, all the facts and circumstance of the
case, the witness manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which
they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability of their testimony, their interest or want
of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon trial. The court may
also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.

Cited Poppers measure of verisimilitude

Formula:
o P (e) = V (e) F (e)
Means that evidence is to be considered preponderant when that which establishes it is greater than that
which falsifies it.
Evidence preponderates when:

a. It is verified or corroborated and not falsified, or is more amply verified and less falsified.
b. The instances of falsification decrease, but those of verification do not.
Plaintiffs claim: I am in possession of lot x
o Judge then asks the following:
a. Testimonial evidence supporting that claim is consisted and corroborated v. testimonial
evidence supporting that is contradicted and rebutted
b. Documentary evidence supporting the claim is uncontested v. documentary evidence that is
contested
c. Object evidence supports the claim as against that which repels it
If falsifying evidence outweighs the verifying evidence, defendant prevails
If verifying evidence outweighs the falsifying evidence, evidence preponderates in favor of plaintiff
If that which verifies and that which falsifies are equal, then the plaintiff fails to make his case

Preponderance of evidence
We stress that in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case only by a
preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of
evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence. Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in
the last analysis, means probability to truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto (Magdiwang Realty Corp. et al. v. The
Manila Banking Corp.)
When is evidence preponderant?
a. When it is more convincing to the judge than is the opposing evidence
b. When that which the evidence purports to prove is more probable than not
c. 50 percent plus: probability that slightly favors the party with the burden of persuasion
However:
If there is default, plaintiffs evidence preponderates over none (but this does not necessarily result to
judgment in favor of plaintif)
Judgment is dependent on the judges appreciation of the persuasive value of the evidence before
him/her; what is persuasive or unpersuasive depends in large measure on the tacit knowledge or the
prejudices of a judge (nothing amiss about this and it is the essence of human adjudication)
What preponderance of evidence enshrines?
o Before trial, plaintiff and defendant ought to be treated equally
o If there is a tie and evidence preponderates in favor of neither, the status quo is kept and the
defendant prevails (as it is the plaintiff who seeks to undo the prevailing order of things)
Clear and

Convincing Evidence
Evidence demanded by law
Evidence not mere preponderance
clear and convincing evidence lies in between plain preponderance and proof beyond reasonable doubt
Witnesses to the fact must be found to be credible and the facts to which they have testified are distinctly
remembered and the details thereof narrated exactly and in due order
Using Poppers model, the judge should not be content with higher verifying-content over falsifyingcontent, there should be a margin that makes him/her confident about arriving at a judgment

a)
b)
c)
d)

Criteria:
When As theory of the facts makes more precise assertions than Bs
When As theory of the facts explains more facts than Bs
As theory of the facts describes or explains the facts in more detail than Bs
As assertions have passed tests which Bs have failed

Sps. Alcazar v. Arante

Held: Second, the real estate mortgage contract between the parties was notarized. A notarized document
carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and it has in its favor the
presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to
exclude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate. Absent such, the presumption of due execution of
notarial document lies on the one contesting the same. Furthermore, an allegation of forgery must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same. As
stated above, petitioners failed to prove their allegations. They merely denied that they did not execute
the REM and that the same was a forgery. Certainly, the pieces of evidence presented by respondent weigh
more than petitioners bare claims and denials.
People v Isla
Held: Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides for one of the circumstances which will exempt
one from criminal liability which is when the perpetrator of the act was an imbecile or insane, unless the
latter has acted during a lucid interval. This circumstance, however, is not easily available to an accused
as a successful defense. Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition. Under
Article 800 of the Civil Code, the presumption is that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the
exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. It is
in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the
crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The testimony or proof of an accuseds
insanity must, however, related to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of
the offense with which he is charged.

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, Section 2:

SECTION 2.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a
degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced.
The degree of certainty is not absolute certainty but moral certitude
Moral certitude is that certitude arising from an expectation that states of affairs are as they have always
been and as they usually are
Conditioned:
The accused is guilty of homicide
Conditions:
1. The accused is identified by eyewitnesses as the person who fired at the victim.
2. The accused tests positive of powder burns, his prints are on the firearm, he had earlier sworn to kill
the victim, he was the last person seem with the victim, he was noticed exiting the room where the
victim was in haste after the gun report was heard, his footprint matches the footprint found at the
bedside of the victim.
Fulfillment of the conditions:
The evidence presented meets the conditions, judgment is morally certain
Relevant questions on fulfillment of the conditions?
a) Are the conditions sufficient conditions?
Examples:
1. Is it enough that the accused failed a polygraph test?
2. Is it sufficient that the accused vowed to kill the victim?
3. Is it sufficient that the accused was the last person seen in the company of the victim?
b) Were the conditions fulfilled?
Examples:
1. Two witnesses testify that they saw the accused shoot the victim. Is their perception trustworthy?
2. When accused admits the killing but did so in self-defense. Court is left with self-defense.
When is this proof required?
Not during preliminary investigation because it only involves mere determination of probable cause or
sufficient ground to engender that a crime has been committed
Why is this proof required?
Resterion v People
Because the accused is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved and because of the inequality
of the position in which the accused finds herself, with the State being arrayed against her with its
unlimited command of means, with counsel usually of authority and capacity, who are regarded public
officers, and with an attitude of tranquil majesty often in striking contrast to that of (the accused)
engaged in a perturbed and distracting struggle for liberty if not for life.
ONLY Moral Certainty is required!
People v Santiago
o
It is accused-appellants testimony that at about 12:00 to 12:30 in the morning of July 7, 1994,
he was asleep in his house. His claim is buttressed by the testimony of his own mother, who affirmed
that he was indeed sleeping next to her at the time in question. Also according to accused-appellants
mother, the house of the victim. We are hard to put to treat the foregoing as credible and convincing
proof that he could not have been at the scene of the crime. Considering that alibis are so easy to
fabricate with the aid of immediate family members or relatives, they assume no importance in the
face of positive identification, as in the instant case by the rape victim herself.
Findings of medical examination
o It will be remembered that the findings of the medical examination of Michelle Mana, as admittedby Dr.
Boado himself, are not per se indicative of whether she had been through sexual intercourse, much
less whether such had been committed against her will. These findings, however, do no damage to the
prosecutions case for it is now settled that a negative sperm-detection test is immaterial to the crime
of rape, it being firmly settled that the important consideration in rape is penetration and not emission.
The absence of spermatozoa in the complainants vagina does not disprove the commission of rape,
because there may be a valid explanation for such absence, as when the semen may have been
washed away or when the rapist failed to ejaculate.
Absence of physical injuries
Nor does the absence of physical injuries on the victims body negate rape, because his crime can also
be committed through intimidation, such as by threatening the victim with a scythe, as in this case
Sole testimony of victim
A pronouncement of guilt arising from the sole testimony of the victim is not unheard of, so long as her
testimony meets the test of credibility. This is especially true in the crime of rape the evidentiary
character of which demands so much on the part of the victim it entails her to submit to an
examination of her private parts, and to subject the sordid details of her story to a public trial and
against a given presumption of the accuseds innocence. Hence, it is not unusual for lower courts in
cases of rape to convict on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim, upon an ascertainment that
she is motivated solely by the desire to have her honor avenged and for the culprit to meet his just
punishment.
Trial Courts findings
SC agreed with the trial courts finding upholding the credibility of the testimony of complainant
Michelle Mana and agree that her accusations bore no apparent ulterior motive other than to tell the truth
and seek justice for herself. Her positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the rape
is well-taken, her vision during the incident having been aided by the light of a lampara and also
because she knew accused-appellant for quite some time. We also find entirely plausible the fear which
forced her to succumb to accused-appellantss heinous wishes, as her life and even her daughters were
being threatened.
People v. Tadepa

Facts:
In this case, to prove that accused Dionisia Tadepa sold 25 sticks of marijuana to a peace officer, the
prosecution presented two witnesses: Buy-bust Operation Team Leader Sgt. Luis Alfiler of NARCOM, Region
8, stationed in Ormoc City, and Forensic Chemist Capt. Liza Madeja-Sabong who certified that specimens
submitted to her for examination were indeed marijuana leaves
Held:
SC was not convinced that the state has presented sufficient evidence to engender that moral certitude
exacted by the fundamental law to prove the guilt of the accused.
The prosecution built its case solely on the testimony of Team Leader Sgt. Alfiler who admittedthat he was
some 7 to 8 meters away from where the actual transaction took place. As a consequence, he said that he
did not hear the conversation which transpired between Pat. Triste and the accused. We find this testimony
of Sgt. Alfiler insufficient evidence considering that the accused in effect claimed that he was not merely
lured but in fact directed under threat to buy marijuana from the real drug pusher amounting not merely to
entrapment but to instigation.
Pat. Triste the alleged poseur-buyer was not presented
The prosecution did not present as witness Pat. Triste, the alleged poseur-buyer. Such omission casts
serious doubt on appellants guilt because without the testimony of the poseur-buyer there is no
convincing evidence to show that the accused was a marijuana peddler and not merely a victim of
instigation. Thus in People v. Fider SC decreed that we have held in many cases that the testimony of the
poseur-buyer becomes material and well-nigh indispensable when the accused denies having committed
the prohibited act, and failure to present his is fatal.
The uncorroborated testimony of the states star witness Sgt. Alfiler, even if coming from a police officer
who enjoys the presumption of regularity, insufficient to induce moral certainty.
ISSUES IN PHILOSOPHY OF LAW
MORAL THEORY AND ITS APPLICATION TO LAW
Introduction
John Austin:
o Normative Jurisprudence the task of morally evaluating law
o Consults in understanding law as it is (positive law) and then developing a rational theory about
what a law ought to be
Dworkins theory of law:
o Normative jurisprudence will have another task theoretically illuminating the moral content found
in the law itself
Nature of Morality
What is morality?
o Formalists:

There is no theoretically defensible answer to the question of what morality is all about

Any issue at all can be a moral issue and any problem at can be a moral problem

Morality is a matter of attitude that a person takes to the problem than a matter of any
intrinsic characteristic of the problem itself
o Philosopher, R.M. Hare, argues that we can identify a persons moral judgments in total
independence of their content

According to Hare, a person has made a moral judgment about some matter if that
judgment manifests 3 formal characteristics:
1. Prescriptive recommendation on how to act;
2. Universalizable intended to apply not merely to the case in which it is made but also
to all similar cases;
3. Overriding it takes precedence over all other judgments in cases of conflict

Moral
o
o

Example:

If I prescribe Let there be a blending of red and green in the world, then my judgment,
weird as it is, constitutes part of my morality (and not merely part of my aesthetic
preferences)

If I regard it as overriding other values (I regard it as justified to slaughter people on lawns

in order to get the effect) and I agree tp its universal application (I am willing to support
the slaughter even if the victim is myself or someone I care about)
G.J. Warnock

He argued that Hares characterization of morality makes it so personal and subjective a

matter and thus fails to capture the essence of morality as a social institution

H.L.A Hart called Hares theory as too Protestant

Critics of formalism invite us to see morality as a social artifact that has evolved to deal
with certain recurring problems (we are selfish, vulnerable, limited creatures living in
hostile world forces us to confront problems of social living) occasioned by the human
condition problems that generate a certain essential content for morality

So humans need to work out a way in which they can live amicably together

The techniques we develop for human experience coexistence constitute our morality

Moral problems will be problems about conditions of acceptable social life: reduction and
control of interpersonal violence, distribution of resources, principles of property and
ownership

Even if it should turn out that there are no objective solutions to moral problems, there is
an objective answer to the question of what a moral problem is and what kinds of reasons
are relevantly brought to bear in discussing such problems
Philosophy
The search for a rational mechanism for the resolution of moral controversy
The seach for a theory that would establish the right answer to each moral question and transform
moral opinion into moral knowledge

Moral
o
o
o
o
o

The attempt to develop the standards of rational evaluation and criticism that will allow us to
transform positive morality (moral beliefs actually held by a particular group of people) into critical
morality (moral beliefs that these people hold after a process of rational evaluation and criticism)
Theory
The articulated, systematic and defended proposal of standards stated in moral philosophy
What are the various plausible moral theories and how does one make a rational choice among
competing theories? There is no answer to these what seems private to one person may seem to
another to be a matter of important social concern
Example: is abortion the morally trivial decision to remove a bit of ones bodily tissue or is it the
intentional murder of a human person?
Two moral theories as best representatives of the tensions that are characteristic of moral life:
1. Utilitarianism
2. Kantianism
May be seen as representing theoretical defenses of two moral values policies promoting social
welfare and principles securing rights

UTILITARIANISM
Means judging each action by its utility (that is its usefulness in bringing about consequences of a
certain kind)
Moral actions are those which produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people
Bentham and Mill argued that moral goodness involves achieving the greatest amount of pleasure and
minimizing the greatest amount of pain for the greatest number of people
Example: utilitarian attitude toward punishment (penalties should be harsh enough to deter but not cause
unnecessary suffering
JEREMY BENTHAM
Bentham took a maxim that had been enunciated in the 18th century by a Scots-Irish philosopher called
Francis Hutcherson: That action is best which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers
His philosophy the rightness or wrongness of an action was to be judged entirely in terms of its
consequences (so motives were irrelevant)
His philosophy attracts people in his time because of its simplicity and its way of confirming what most of
us already believe that everyone desires pleasures and happiness
For Bentham, moral goodness had not only the merit of simplicity but scientific accuracy as wekk (every
act is measured by a standard that everyone knows pleasure)
Principle of Utility
The principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which
it appears to have to augment or diminish happiness
Proof that happiness is the basis of good? Bentham admitted that there is no proof for that which is
used to prove everything else cannot itself be proved; a chain of proofs must have their commencement
somewhere. TO give such proof is as impossible as it is needless.
If Bentham cannot prove the validity of the principle of utility, he felt that he could at least reject so-called
higher theories either they can be reducible to the principle of utility or inferior to this principle because
they had no clear meaning or could not be consistently followed
Example: social contract theory and obligations to obey the law
o There is difficulty of determining whether there ever was such a contract o agreement
o Even the theory itself rests on the principle of utility for it really says that the greatest happiness of
the greatest number can be achieved only of we obey the law
Attraction of utilitarian theory
o Who would deny that human happiness is a good? (world without many people get preferences
satisfied is preferable than a world with those same people unsatisfied)
o It gives the appearance of rendering ethical choice easy almost a mechanical or quantitative
matter (add peoples preferences, discount any preferences that will not produce happiness, then
seek to satisfy as many or thwart as few of those preferences as possible)
Serious doubts on utilitarian theory o Are future consequences really all that matter in ethics?
o Are there not moral goods (respect for free choice) that we should be concerned with?
o Does not each of us have some kind of right simply to be left alone and free from the claims and
desires of others?
o Example: Do I act wrongly in going to the movies tonight because there is some action I could do
instead that would be more productive of social utility doing volunteer work at a local hospital?
Scapegoat counterexamples raised by critics of utilitarianism
o Victimization of people for majority benefits

Example: cancer could be cured by rounding few persons against their will and subjecting
them to painful and fatal medical experiments (the experiments would require a certain
enzyme secreted by the brain only when persons are aware that they are being coerced,
hurt and threatened with death)
o Even given the benefits, adopting the process would be immoral (it is unjust to treat people that
way and they have a right not to be treated this way)
Construction of utilitarian theory
o Not only to condemn scapegoating and victimizing
o To defend the claim that persons have a right not to be victimized
o As utilitarians, approve certain general rules or practices that assign certain rights to persons (the
right not to be experimented on without ones consent) or make a law that forbids such
experimentation
o For if citizens had no protection against simply being used by the state whenever the state
believed that general welfare could be promoted by such use, then they would never be secure,
would never be able to live lives of stability and predictability and thus could not be happy

o
o
o

Rights are not ultimate goods, they are derivative goods protections and guarantees that are
valuable because of what they lead to, because the societies that accord them will be happier
societies
Utilitarians have a place for important concepts such as justice, fairness, rights, merit
John Stuart Mill defines a right (To have a right the is, I conceive, to have something that society
ought to defend me in the possession of)

KANT
There is such a thing as free choice
Some of the movements of material objects in space are not determined wholly by laws of science
Some are decided by the free operations of our will
free means not impersonally determined, not governed by scientific laws
His philosophy was an attempt to understand how morality and free will can exist in a world that is
amenable to scientific explanation
Kants concept of rationality
o The ability to appreciate morally relevant differences and similarities in people, actions, and states
of affairs and to choose to act consistently on the basis of an appreciation of those differences and
similarities
It is one thing If I suffer a loss because I brought it upon myself through my own free choices; it is
something quite different (and quite unacceptable) if I suffer a loss because others brought it on me for
their benefit
Ethics is not primarily about preference satisfaction but how to respect the freedom of rational beings
Kants ethics was an attempt to pursue Christianity by secular means. Christian ethics accepted by Kant
there is something uniquely precious about human beings from the moral point of view
Example: There are certain special moral requirements (rights) that attach to human beings that do not
attach to any other animal
We do not kill and eat human beings for good or hunt them for sport or experiment on them for medical
science as they are owed special respect simply because they are people
This is where utilitarians fail because the capacity to feel pleasure and pain is a property we shae with
animals, not something that separates us from them and make us morally unique
o
o
o
o
o

Autonomous those creatures who possessed the capacity for rational choice and argued that autonomouse
creatures are morally special
Dignity refers to the moral status, which is to be respected and protected, upon which Kant built his entire moral
theory
Thus, Kant wrote Always act, so that you treat rational persons as ends in themselves and never as means only
According to the authors, there will be areas of agreement in outcome between utilitarians and Kantians;
the differences between the two traditions will merely be a matter of emphasis (if utilitarianism came out
in favor of murder, rape , assault, and theft and Kantianism condemned these acts, then surely we would
no longer give utilitarianism the time of day)
According to the authors, each tradition has an important perspective to offer on ethics even if unsure or
just how to integrate them both into one coherent overall moral vision
John Stuart Mill and other utilitarians embrace human rights, arguing that rights exist because a society
that did not grant such rights would be insecure and fearful and thus unhappy (my rights are then a
function of how uncomfortable it would make for others if my rights were violated)
The reason for respecting rights is wrong according to the Kantian because it allows some to benefit
through their unjust exploitation of others (through violating a right against unjust exploitation)
Applications of traditions to law (Freedom of speech and press)
Claims of right are diverse examples:
1. If Jones promises Smith to give him a book at a certain time, then Smith has a right to be given the
book at that time and Jones has an obligation to give him the book at the time
2. If Jones has a right to life, this means at a minimum that all other persons have an obligation not to kill
Jones
o With respect to any claim of right, we must ask 3 basic questions:
1. What person or class of persons has the right?
2. To what is it a right?
3. Against whom is the right claimed?
Teleology of rights an argument that certain rights should be adopted not merely because they promote utility
but because they promote a system that increases the probability that rights of the more basic Jantian sort will be
respected (Robert Nozick)
It allows rights violations of some if such violations would have the tendency to expand rights protection
for the majority
Kantian oppose this theory as the theory requires treating any individual with less than the full respect that
individual is owed as a person

2 Kinds of Rights:
1. Respect-based rights (natural rights)
A certain mandatory way in which persons must be treated if their essential humanity is to be respected
and preserved
Claims against certain kinds of interference
Examples: right not to be killed, assaulted, deceived
If one violates these rights in a person, one thereby shows that one fails to respect that person as a person
2. Policy-based rights (conventional rights)
They give certain people certain powers or liberties against interference but not because these people
would be diminished as people if they lacked those powers or liberties. It is rather and simply that the

social good (general welfare or health of our political institutions is judged to be better promoted on the
whole if these persons are accorded these rights
Society has decided to create those special roles and assign certain rights to the occupants of those roles
(for social purposes)
Example: right of police officer (and nobody else) to carry a concealed weapon, right of physician (and
nobody else) to perform surgery, right of a lawyer (and nobody else) to represent a client in court

In the words of Ronald Dworkin we respect the right of a person not to be killed as a matter of principle; we respect
the right of a police officer to carry a concealed weapon as a matter of social policy
Upshot of distinction of the kinds of rights?
If a right is respected on principle, then it may be overridden only for very compelling reasons (Example:
we might allow the state to kill in capital punishment but the reason will have to be more compelling that
mere net gain in utility)
When a right exists merely as a matter of social policy, we are free to do a kind of cost-benefit analysis and
decide to modify or drop the right simply because of some slight net gain in pursuit of other social policies
Threefold classification of rights:
1. Respect-based rights (privacy, freedom of religious worship and freedom of speech fundamental
constitutional rights)
2. Rights assigned to maintain the integrity of our political system (freedom of assembly and press fundamental
constitutional rights)
3. Rights based on ordinary social utility (right of police to carry weapons (rights without significant constitutional
status)
Free speech should be viewed as natural or respect-based right
What is more natural than that we are communicative creatures who value expressing ourselves and
forming our opinions and life plans through rational dialogue with others?
To thwart such expression is to thwart the essential humanity of a person
It is through discourse,, dialogue and argument that we reveal ourselves as thinking, rational and
autonomous beings
Justice Black regarded freedom of speech as an absolute right, a right not to be encumbered by the state
or to be encumbered when only the most compelling reasons dictate
Free speech has a great social and political value fosters marketplace of ideas as a means to truth
(favored by John Stuart Mill and Justice Holmes)
It also serves as a mechanism that helps secure other rights (right to fair trial)
right to listen has fundamental individual value and social value
Freedom of press is a conventional or policy-based right
Includes right to protect and shield confidentiality of sources, right to be protected against liability for
defamation, right to attend criminal trials and gain information about them, right to seek and publish
information
Social policy goals are best served if those rights are granted (securing an informed citizenry in order for
our system of constitutional democracy to work in an intelligent and meaningful way)
Rights-base open to cost-benefit analysis
IRR of RA no. 9344:
As provided in Section 14 of the Act, the mass media shall play an active role in the promotion of child rights,
and delinquency prevention by relaying consistent messages through a balanced approach. Media practitioners shall,
therefore, have the duty to maintain the highest critical and professional standards in reporting and covering cases of
children in conflict with the law consistent with the Guidelines for Media Practitioners on the Reporting and Coverage of
Cases Involving Children issued by the Special Committee for the Protection of Children"
En Banc Resolution of SC (1991), Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C. Aquinos
Libel Case:
Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendants right to due process as well as to the fair and orderly
administration of justice, and considering further that the freedom of the press and the right of the people
to information may be served and satisfied by less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means, live radio
and television coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed. Video footages of court hearings for
news purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots of the courtroom, the judicial officers, the parties
and their counsel taken prior to the commencement of official proceedings. No video shots or photographs
shall be permitted during the trial proper.
Free speech should be viewed as natural or respect-based right
What is more natural than that we are communicative creatures who value expressing ourselves and
forming our opinions and life plans through rational dialogue with others?
To thwart such expression is to thwart the essential humanity of a person
It is through discourse,, dialogue and argument that we reveal ourselves as thinking, rational and
autonomous beings
Philippine Context
Freedom of expression:
Constitution, Art. III:
SECTION 4. 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.
Freedom of expression has gained recognition as a fundamental principle of every democratic government,
and given a preferred right that stands on a higher level than substantive economic freedom or other
liberties. The cognate rights codified by Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution, copied almost verbatim
from the First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, were considered the necessary consequence of
republican institutions and the complement of free speech. This preferred status of free speech has also

been codified at the international level, its recognition now enshrined in international law as a customary
norm that binds all nations (Chavez v. Gonzales)
The scope of freedom of expression is so broad that it extends protection to nearly all forms of
communication. It protects speech, print and assembly regarding secular as well as political causes, and is
not confined to any particular field of human interest. The protection covers myriad matters of public
interest or concern embracing all issues, about which information is needed or appropriate, so as to enable
members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period. The constitutional protection assures the
broadest possible exercise of free speech and free press for religious, political, economic, scientific, news,
or information ends, inasmuch as the Constitutions basic guarantee of freedom to advocate ideas is not
confined to the expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by majority.
The constitutional protection is not limited to the exposition of ideas. The protection afforded free speech
extends to speech or publications that are entertaining as well as instructive or informative (Chavez v.
Gonzales)
While all forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of freedom of expression clause, the
freedom of film, television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded
to newspapers and other print media (First, broadcast media have established a uniquely persuasive
presence in the lives of all citizens. Material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in
public, but in the privacy of his home. Second, broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children. Bookstores
and motion picture theaters may be prohibited from making certain material available to children, but the
same selectivity cannot be done in radio or television, where the listener or viewer is constantly tuning in
and out. (Chavez v. Gonzales)
Limits and restraints on free speech
From the language of the specific constitutional provision, it would appear that the right to free speech and
a free press is not susceptible of any limitation. But the realities of life in a complex society preclude a
literal interpretation of the provision prohibiting the passage of a law that would abridge such freedom. For
freedom of expression is not an absolute, not is it an unbridled license that gives immunity for every
possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom. (Chavez v.
Gonzales)
Thus, all speech are not treated the same. Some types of speech may be subjected to some regulation by
the State under its pervasive police power, in order that it may not be injurious to the equal right of others
or those of the community or society. The difference in treatment is expected because the relevant
interests of one type of speech, e.g., political speech, may vary from those of another, e.g., obscene
speech. Distinctions have therefore been made in the treatment, analysis, and evaluation of the
permissible scope of restrictions on various categories of speech. We have ruled, for example, that in our
jurisdiction slander or libel, lewd and obscene speech, as well as fighting words are not entitled to
constitutional protection and may be penalized. (Chavez v. Gonzales)
Moreover, the techniques of reviewing alleged restrictions on speech (over breadth, vagueness, and so on)
have been applied differently to each category, either consciously or unconsciously. A study of free speech
jurisprudence whether here or abroad will reveal that courts have developed different tests as to
specific types or categories of speech in concrete situations; i.e., subversive speech; obscene speech; the
speech of the broadcast media and of the traditional print media; libelous speech; speech affecting
associational rights; speech before hostile audience; symbolic speech; speech that affects the right to a
fair trial; and speech associated with rights of assembly and petition. (Chavez v Gonzales)
Generally, restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by either or a combination of
three tests, i.e., (a) the dangerous tendency doctrine which permits limitations on speech once rational
connection has been established between the speech restrained and the danger contemplated; (b) the
balancing of interest tests, used as a standard when courts need to balance conflicting social values
and individual interests, and requires a conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests
observable in a given situation of type of situation; and (c) the clear and present danger rule which
rests on the premise that speech maybe restrained because there is substantial danger that the speech
will likely lead to an evil the government has a right to prevent. The rule requires that the evil
consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive, extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high (Chavez v Gonzales)
Hence it is not enough to determine whether the challenged act constitutes some form of restraint on
freedom of speech. A distinction has to be made whether the restraint is (1) a content-neutral
regulation, i.e., merely concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one that merely controls the time,
place or manner, and under well defined standards; or (2) a content-based restraint or censorship, i.e.,
the restriction is based on the subject matter of the utterance or speech. The cast of the restriction
determines the test by which the challenged act is assayed with. (Chavez v. Gonzales}
When the speech restraints take the form of a content-neutral regulation, only a substantial governmental
interest is required for its validity. Because regulations of this type are not designed to suppress any
particular message, they are not subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny but an immediate
approach somewhere between the mere rationality that is required of any other law and the compelling
interest standard applied to content-based restrictions. The test is called intermediate because the Court
will not merely rubberstamp the validity of a law but also require that the restrictions be narrowly-tailored
to promote an important or significant governmental interest that is unrelated to the suppression of
expression (Chavez v Gonzales)
On the other hand, a governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on
content is given the strictest scrutiny in light of its inherent and invasive impact. Only when the challenged
act has overcome the clear and present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the government
having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality.
Unless the government can overthrow this presumption, the content-based restraint will be struck down
(Chavez v Gonzales)
With respect to content-based restrictions, the government must also show the type of harm the speech
sought to be restrained would bring about especially the gravity and the imminence of the threatened
harm otherwise the prior restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech based on its content cannot be
justified by hypothetical fears, but only by showing a substantive and imminent evil that has taken the life
of a reality already on the ground. As formulated, the question in every case is whether the words used
are used in such circumstances and are such a nature as to create clear and present danger that they will
bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and
degree (Chavez v Gonzales)

Thus, when the prior restraint partakes of a content-neutral regulation, it is subjected to an

intermediate review. A content-based regulation, however, bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and
is measured against the clear and present danger rule. The latter will pass constitutional muster only if
justified by a compelling reason, and the restrictions imposed are neither overbroad nor vague (Chavez v
Gonzales)

Some decided cases on free speech

Garcia, Jr., et al. v Manrique (Oct 10, 2012)
o TRO ng Korte Suprema binayaran ng P20-M? published in the Jnuary 14 to 20, 2009 issue of the
Luzon Tribune:
Bukod sa mga kontrobersiya na bumabalot ngayon sa Korte Suprema dahil sa isyu ng umanoy
pagpapatalsik kay CJ Renato Puno, hindi maalis sa isip ng ilang Bataeno ang pagtatanong kung
totoo nga kayang binayaran ng kampo ni Bataan Governore Enrique Garcia ag isa o ilang
Mahestrado ng Korte upang mag-isyu ng Temporary Restraining Order ang Korte na humarang sa
implementasyon ng anim na buwang suspension ng Punong Lalawigan.
Marami umano ang nagdududa kung papaano nakakuha ng TRO si Garcia gayung malinaw na ang
kaso ay kasalukuyang dinidinig noon ng Court of Appeals. Ito umano ay paglabag sa tinatawag na
Forum Shopping.
Dalawang Division ng Court of Appeals ang tumanggi na dinggin ang petisyon ni Garcia para sa
TRO hanggang sa dininig ito ng isang division. Nagpadala ng liham ang Court of appeals sa mga
magkakatunggaling partido upang simulang dinggin ang kaso. Nakapagtataka umano kung bakit
hindi ito binigyang galang ng Korte Suprema.
Nang inilabas ng Korte ang TRO, malinaw na naihain na ang suspension order kay Garcia ng DILG
kayat opisyal ng epektibo ang suspension. Ano pa ba kaya ng na-TRO gayung sinisimulan na ni
Garcia ang kanyang suspension.
May mga nagsasabing binayaran umano nga hanggang sa P2Milyon ang isang mahestrado ng
Korte upang pagbigyan ang kahilingan ni Garcia.
Held:
Certainly, the making of contemptuous statements directed against the Court is not an exercise of free
speech; rather, it is an abuse of such right. Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts cannot be
disguised as free speech, for the exercise of said right cannot be used to impair the independence and
efficiency of courts or public respect therefore and confidence therein. Therefore, Manriques article,
lacking in social value and aimed solely at besmirching the reputation of the Court, is undeserving of the
protection of the guaranties of free speech and press.

RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE
FACULTY OF THE UNOVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF
PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT (March 8, 2011):
o RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNOVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE
SUPREME COURT
An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had
suffered abuse during a time of war. After they courageously came out with their very personal
stories of abuse and suffering as comfort women, waited for almost two decades for any
meaningful relief from their own government as well as from the government of Japan, got their
hopes up for a semblance of judicial recourse in the case of Vinuya v Exec. Secretary, they only
had these hopes crushed by a singularly reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by
the highest Court of the land.
xxx xxx xxx
But a far more serious matter is the objection of the original writers, Professors Evan Criddle and
Evan Fox-Descent, that the High Court actually misrepresents the conclusions of their work entitled
A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens, the main source of the plagiarized text. In this article they
argue that the classification of the crimes of rape, torture, and sexual slavery as crimes against
humanity have attained the status of jus cogens, making it obligatory upon the State to seek
remedies on behalf of its aggrieved citizens. Yet, the Vinuya decision uses pars of the same article
to arrive at the contrary conclusion. This exacerbates the intellectual dishonesty of copying works
without attribution by transforming it into an act of intellectual fraud by copying works in order to
mislead and deceive.
xxx xxx xxx But instead of acting with urgency on this case, the Court delayed its resolution for
almost seven years, oblivious to the deaths of many of the petitioners seeking justice from the
Court. When it dismissed the Vinuya petition based on misrepresented and plagiarized materials,
the Court decided this case based on polluted sources. By so doing, the SC added insult to injury
by failing to actually exercise its power to urge and exhort the Executive Dept. to take up the
claims of the Vinuya petitioners. Its callous disposition, coupled with false sympathy and
nonchalance, belies a more alarming lack of concern for even the most basic values of decency
and respect.The reputation of the Phil. SC and the standing of the Phil. Legal profession before
other Judiciaries and legal systems are truly at stake.
xx xxx xxx
With these considerations, and bearing in mind the solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as
teachers in the profession of Law, it is the opinion of the Faculty of the UP College of Law that:
(1) The plagiarism committed in the case of Vinuya v Exec. Secretary is unacceptable, unethical
and in breach of the high standards of moral conduct and judicial and professional competence
expected of the Supreme Court;
(2) Such a fundamental breach endangers the integrity and credibility of the entire SC and
undermines the foundations of the Phil. Judicial system by allowing implicitly the decision of
cases and the establishment of legal precedents through dubious means;
(3) The same breach and consequent disposition of the Vinuya case does violence to the
primordial function of the SC as the ultimate dispenser of justice to all those who been left
without legal or equitable recourse, such as the petitioners therein; xxx xxx xxx
Held:

o
o

Werily, the accusatory and vilifying nature of certain portions of the Statement exceeded the limits
of fair comment and cannot be deemed as protected free speech. Even In the Matter of Petition for
Declaratory Relief Re: Constitutionality of RA 4880, Gonzales v COMELEC, relied upon by
respondents in the Common Compliance, held that:
From the language of the specific constitutional provision, it would appear that the right is not
susceptible of any limitation. No law may be passed abridging the freedom of speech and of the
press. The realities of life in a complex society preclude however a literal interpretation. Freedom
of expression is not an absolute. It would be too much to insist that at all time and under all
circumstances it should remain unfettered and unrestrained. There are other societal values that
press for recognition.
One such societal value that presses for recognition in the case at bar is the threat to judicial
independence and the orderly administration of justice that immoderate, reckless and unfair
attacks on judicial decisions and institutions pose
Carpio, J. dissenting:
Second. In testing whether speech critical of judges and judicial processes falls outside the
ambit of constitutionally protected expression, spilling into the territory of sanctionable
utterances, this Court adheres to the clear and present danger tes. Under this analytical
framework, an utterance is constitutionally protected unless the evil consequence of the
comment or utterance is extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high.
It appears that the evil consequences the UP law faculty statement will supposedly spawn are (1)
the slurring of this Courts dignity and (2) the impairment of its judicial independence vis--vis the
resolution of the plagiarism complaint in Vinuya. Both are absent here. On the matter of
institutional degradation, the 12-paragrapg, 1533 word statement of the UP law faculty, taken as a
whole, does not exhibit that irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy
the courts and their members typical of unprotected judicial criticism. On the contrary, the
statement, take as a whole, seeks to uphold the bedrock democratic value of keeping judicial
processes free of any taint of dishonesty or misrepresentation. Thus, the UP law faculty statement
is far removed from speech the Court has rightly sanctioned for proffering no useful social value,
solely crafted to vilify members and threaten its very existence.

Soriano v MTRCB (Apr 29, 2009)

o Petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating Daan. Aired on UNTV 37, made the following
remarks:
Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;
Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. Yung putang babae ang
gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, dito kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O, masahol
pa sa putang babae yan. Sabin ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang
kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito..
o It has been established in this jurisdiction that unprotected speech or low-value expression refers
to libelous statements, obscenity or pornography, fale or misleading advertisement, insulting or
fighting words, i.e., those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an
immediate breach of peace and expression endangering national security.
o The Court finds that petitioners statement can be treated obscene, at least with respect to the
average child. Hence, it is, in that context, unprotected speech.
o A cursory examination of the utterances complained of and the circumstances of the case reveal
that to an average adult, the utterances Gago ka talaga.. masahol pa sa puntang babae.. yung
outing babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di
ba! may not constitute obscene but merely indecent utterances. They can be viewed as figures of
speech or merely a play on words. In the context they were used, they may not appeal to the
prurient interests of an adult. The problem with the challenged statements is that they were
uttered in a TV program that is rate G or for general viewership, and in a time slot that would
likely reach even the eyes and ears of children.
o While adults may have understood that the terms thus used were not to be taken literally, children
could hardly be expected to have same discernment. W/o parental guidance, the unbridled use of
such language as that of petitioner in a television broadcast could corrupt impressionable young
minds. The term putang babae means a female prostitute. A term wholly inappropriate for
children, who could look it up in a dictionary and just get the literal meaning, missing the context
within which it was used. Petitioner further used the terms, ang gumagana lang doon yungg
ibaba, making reference to the female sexual organ and how a female prostitute uses it in her
trade, then stating that Sandoval was worse than thay by using his mouth in a similar manner.
Children could be motivated by curiosity and ask the meaning of what petitioner said, also without
placing the phrase in context. They may be inquisitive as to why Sandoval is different from a
female prostitute and the reasons for the dissimilarity.
o Upon learning the meaning of the words, children may use it in their own speech. And children may
not have the adults grasp of figures of speech and may lack understanding of certain kinds of
language such as what the petitioner said which undeniably meant the female sexual organ and its
function. We find petitioners utterances obscene and not entitled to protection under the umbrella
of freedom of speech.
o Petitioner asserts that his utterances must present a clear and present danger of bringing about a
substantive evil the State has a right and duty to prevent and such danger must be grave and
imminent.
o The balancing of interest test, rests on the theory that it is the courts function in a case before it
when it finds public interests served by legislation, on the one hand, and the free expression clause
afftected by it, on the other, to balance one against the other and arrive at a judgment where the
greater weight shall be place. If, on balance, it appears that the public interest served by
restrictive legislation is of such nature that it outweighs the abridgement of freedom, then the
court will find the legislation valid. In short, the balance-of-interest theory rests on the basis that
constitutional freedoms are not absolute, not even those stated in the free speech and expression
clause, and that they may be abridged to some extent to serve appropriate and important
interests. To the mind of the Court, the balancing of interest doctrine is the more appropriate test
to follow.

In the case at bar, petitioner used indecent and obscene language and a 3-month suspension was
slapped on him for breach of MTRCB rules. In this setting, the assertion by the petitioner of his
enjoyment of his freedom of speech is ranged against the duty of the govt to protect and promote
the development and welfare of the youth.
The freedom of expression, as with the other freedoms encased in the Bill of Rights, is however,
not absolute. It may be regulated to some extent to serve important public interests, some forms
of speech not being protected. The limits of the freedom of expression are reached when the
expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern. From Lucas v Royo comes this
line: The freedom to express ones sentiments and belief does not grant one the license to vilify in
public the honor and dignity of another. Any sentiments must be expressed within the proper
forum and with proper regard for the rights of others.

Chavez v. Gonzales (Feb 15, 2008)

o Respondent DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales warned reporters that those who had copies of the CD
and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping
Act. These persons included Sec. Bunye and Atty Paguia. He also stated the persons possessing or
airing said tapes were committing a continuing offense subject to arrest by anybody who had
personal knowledge if the crime was committed or was being committed in their presence
o Sec. Gonzales ordered NBI to go after media organizations found to have cause the spread, the
playing and the printing of the contents of a tape of an alleged wiretapped conversation involving
the President about fixing votes in the 2004 national elections. Gonzales said he would start with
Inq7.net, a joint venture between the Philippine Daily Inquirer and GMA 7 tv network, because by
the very nature of the internet medium, it was able to disseminate the contents of the tape more
widely
Held:
o The challenged acts in the case at bar need to be subjected to the clear and present danger rule,
as they are content-based restrictions. The acts of respondents focused solely on but one subject
a specific content fixed as these were on the alleged taped conversations between the President
and a COMELEC official. Undoubtedly these did not merely provide regulations as to the time, place
or manner of the dissemination of speech or expression.
o We rule that not every violation of a law will justify straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of
speech and of the press. Our laws are of different kinds and doubtless, some of them provide
norms of conduct which even if violated have only an adverse effect on a persons private comfort
does not endanger national security. There are laws of great significance but their violation, by
itself and w/o more, cannot support suppression of free speech and free press. In fine, violation of
law is just a factor, a vital one to be sure, which should be weighed in adjudging whether to
restrain freedom of speech and of the press. The totality of the injurious effects of the violation to
private and public interest must be calibrated in light of the preferred status accorded by the
Constitution and by related international covenants protecting freedom of speech and of the press.
In calling for a careful and calibrated measurement of the circumference of all these factors to
determine compliance with the clear and present danger test, the Court should not be
misinterpreted as devaluing violations of law.
o By all means, violations of law should be vigorously prosecuted by State for they breed their own
evil consequence. But to repeat, the need to prevent their violation cannot per se trump the
exercise of free speech and free press, a preferred right whose breach can lead to greater evils. For
this failure of the respondents alone to offer proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test, the
Court has no option but to uphold the exercise of free speech and free press. There is no showing
that the feared violation of the anit-wiretapping law clearly endangers the national security of the
State.

Freedom of the Press

Philosophical basis part of the larger right of free discussion and expression
It is basically the chief source of information on current affairs. It is the most pervasive and perhaps most
powerful vehicle of opinion on public questions. It is the instrument by which citizens keep their
government informed of their needs, their aspirations and their grievances. It is the sharpest weapon in
the fight to keep government responsible and efficient. Without a vigilant press, the mistakes of every
administration would go uncorrected and its abuses unexposed (Chavez v Gonzales)
Justice Malcolm (US v Bustos):
The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public
affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free
speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may
suffer under a hostile and unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with balm of clear
conscience.
Its contribution to the public weal makes freedom of the press deserving of extra protection. Indeed, the
press benefits from certain ancillary rights. The productions of writers are classified as intellectual and
proprietary. Persons who interfere or defeat the freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical
publication are liable for damages, be they private individual or public officials. (Chavez v Gonzales)
LIBEL
public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural
person or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Any of these imputations is
defamatory and under the general rule in Art. 354 of the RPC, every defamatory imputation is presumed
malicious
o The presumption of malice, does not exist in the ff.:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, w/o any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or
other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech
delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officer in the exercise of their
functions.

The enumeration under Art. 354 is not an exclusive list of qualified privileged communications since fair
commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged and constitute a valid defense in an
action for libel or slander. The rule on privileged communication had its genesis in the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and the press.
Nature and History:
o History of press freedom dates back to the English Magna Carta, promulgated in 1215, which
established the principle that not even the lawmaker should be above the law. Through the years,
many treatise on press freedom arose in reaction to various measures taken to curtail it. (In re:
Macasaet)
o John Milton, during the 17th century, wrote Areopagitica which defended the right of free speech
and which was in reaction to a licensing order which states that no book, pamphlet, paper, nor
part of any such, shall from henceworth be printed, bound, stitched or put to sale by any person or
persons whatsoever, unless the same be first approved of and licensed under the hands of such
person or person as both, or either of the said Houses shall appoint for the licensing of the same.
Milton advocated that a written work should not be suppressed before publication. Writers of
treacherous, slanderous, or blasphemous materials should first be tried according to law. Only after
it has been established that their writings are of treacherous, slanderous or blasphemous nature
should they be punished. (In re: Macasaet)
o Every free man has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to
forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper,
mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to
restrictive power is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man. But to punish
as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, is necessary for the preservation of
peace and good order of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus,
the will of individuals is still left free; the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal
punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upn freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of
private sentiments is still left; the disseminating or making public of bad sentiments destructive to
the ends of society is he crime which society corrects.

Villanueva v. PDI (May 15, 2009)

o
Petitioner was one of the mayoralty candidates in Bais, Negros Oriental during the May 11, 1992
elections
o On March 30, 1992, Ricardo Nolan, another mayoralty candidate, petitioned for the disqualification
of petitioner from running in the elections. Said petition, however, was denied by COMELEC.
o Two days before the elections, May 9, 1992, respondent Manila Daily Bulletin Publishing Corp.
(Manila Bulletin) published the following story:
The COMELEC has disqualified Hector G. Villanueva as Lakas-NUCD candidate for mayor of
Bais City for having been convicted in 3 adminitrative cases for grave abuse of authority and
harassment in 1987, while he was officer-in-charge of the mayors office of Bais City.
Held:
o In the instant case, there is no denying that the questioned articles dealt with matters of public
interest. These are matters about which the public has the right to be informed, taking into
account the very public character of the election itself. For this reason, they attracted media
mileage and drew public attention not only to the election itself but to the candidates. As one of
the candidates, petitioner consequently assumed the status of a public figure within the purview of
Ayers Productions Pty. Ltd v Capulong
o Under the current state of our jurisprudence, to be considered malicious, the libelous statement
must be shown to have been written or published with the knowledge that they are false or in
reckless disregard of whether they are false or not means that the author or publisher entertains
serious doubt as to the truth of the publication or that he possesses a high degree of awareness of
their probable falsity
o In the instant case, we find no conclusive showing that the published articles in question were
written with knowledge that these were false or reckless disregard of what was false or not.
o According to Manila Bulleting reporter Edgardo T. Suarez, he got the story from a fellow report who
told him that the disqualification case against petitioner was granted. PDI said that they got the
story from a press release the very same day the Manila Bulletin published the same story. PDI
claims that the press release bore COMELEC. They wanted to contact her but she was already out
of the office. Since the news item was already published in the Manila Bulletin, they felt confident
the press release was authentic. Thus, the above being said, it cannot be said that the publication
was published recklessly disregarding of what is false or not.
o Nevertheless, even assuming that the contents of the articles turned out to be false, mere error,
inaccuracy or even falsity alone does not prove actual malice. Error or misstatements are
inevitable in any scheme of truly free expression and debate. Consistent with good faith and
reasonable care, the press should not be held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest
mistakes or imperfections in the choice of language. There must be some room for misstatement
of fact as well as misjudgment. Only by giving them much leeway and tolerance can they
courageously and effectively function as critical agencies in our democracy.
o A newspaper, especially one national in reach and coverage, should be free to report on events
and developments in which the public has a legitimate interest with minimum fear of being hauled
to court by one group or another on criminal or civil charges for malice or damages, i.e., libel, so
long as the newspaper respects and keeps within the standards of morality and civility prevailing
within the general community
o Respondents failure to counter-check their report or present their informant should not be a
reason to hold them liable.
o Jurisprudence instructs us that a privileged communication should not be subjected to microscopic
examination to discover grounds for malice or falsity.
Freedom v. Responsibillity
Tulfo v. People (Sept. 16, 2008)
o PINAKAMAYAMAN SA CUSTOMS
Ito palang si Atty. Ding So ng Intelligence Division ng Bureau of Customs and (sic) pinakamayaman na
yata na government official sa buong bansa sa pangungurakot lamanw diyan sa South Harbor.

Hindi matibag ang gagong attorner dahlia malakas daw ito sa Iglesia ni Kristo
Hoy, So!.. nakakahiya ka sa mga INC, ikaw na yata ang pinakagago at magnanakaw na miyembro nito.
Balita ko, malapit kang itiwalang ng nasabing simbaha dahil sa mga kalokohan mo.
Abangan bukas ang mga raket ni So sa BOC.
o In his defense, petitioner Tulfo testified that he did not write the subject articles with malice, that
he neither knew Atty. So nor met him before the publication of the articles. He testified that his
criticism of a certain Atty. So of the South Harbor was not directed against the complainant, but
against a person by the name of Atty. Ding So at the South Harbor. Tulfo claimed that it was the
practice of certain people to use other peoples names to advance their corrupt practices. He also
claimed that his articles had neither discredited nor dishonored the complainant because as per
his source in the BOC, Atty. So had been promoted. He further testified that he did not do any
research on Atty. So before the subject articles, because as a columnist, he had to rely on his
sources, and that he had several sources in the BOC, particularly in the South Harbor.
Held:
o The Court has long respected the freedom of the press, and upheld the same when it came to
commentaries made on public figures and matters of public interest. Even in cases wherein the
freedom of the press was given greater weight over the rights of individuals, the Court, however,
has stressed that such freedom is not absolute and unbounded. The exercise of this right or any
right enshrined in the Bill of Rights, indeed, comes with an equal burden of responsible exercise of
that right. The recognition of a right is not free license for the one claiming it to run roughshod
over the rights of others.
o The Journalists Code of Ethics adopted by the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines shows
that the press recognizes that it has standards to follow in the exercise of press freedom; that this
freedom carries duties and responsibilities. Art. I of said code states that journalists recognize the
duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly. Art. VIII states that
journalists shall presume persons accused of crime of being innocent until proven otherwise
o In the present case, it cannot be said that Tulfo followed the Journalists Code of Ethics and
exercised his journalistic freedom responsibly
o When Atty. So filed a libel suit against him, Tulfo wrote another wrote another article saying
Nagalit ang tarantadong si Atty. So dahil binabantayan ko siya at inexpose ang kagaguhan niya sa
BOC.
o Reading more deeply into the case, the exercise of press freedom must be done consistent with
good faith and reasonable care. This was clearly abandoned by Tulfo when he wrote the subject
articles. This is but a case of a journalist abdicating his responsibility to verify his story and instead
misinforming the public.
o For a discreditable imputation to a public official to be actionable, it must be a false allegation of
fact or a comment based on a false supposition. As previously mentioned, the trial court found that
the allegations against Atty. So were false and that Tulfo did not exert effort to verify the
information before publishing his articles.
o The articles clearly are not the fair and true reports contemplated in the provision of Art. 354 of
RPC. And since none of the elements of the 2nd paragraph of Art 354 is present in Tulfos articles, it
cannot thus be argued that they are qualified privileged communications under the RPC.

In re: Macasaet (Aug 8, 2008)

o The case stemmed from certain articles that appeared in the Business Circuit column of Amado
P. Macasaet in the Malaya, a newspaper of general circulation of which he is the publisher. The
articles, containing statements and innuendoes about an alleged bribery incident in the SC.
Held:
o For sure, judicial criticism can be constructive, uncovering and addressing a problem that merits
public attention. Public awareness, debate, and criticism of the courts ensure that people are
informed of what they are doing that have broad implications for all citizens. Informed discussion,
comment, debate, and disagreement from lawyers, academics, and public officials have been
hallmarks of great legal tradition and have played a vital role in shaping the law
o But there is an important line between legitimate criticism and illegitimate attack upon the courts
or their judges. Attacks upon the court or a judge not only risk the inhibition of all judges as they
conscientiously endeavor to discharge their constitutional responsibilities; they also undermine the
peoples confidence in the courts.
o We have no problems with legitimate criticism pointing out flaws in our decisions, judicial
reasoning, or even how we run our public offices or public affairs. They should even be
constructive and should pave way for a more responsive, effective and efficient judiciary.
o Respondent has absolutely no basis to call the SC a court of thieves and a basket of rotten
apple. These publications directly undermine the integrity of the justices and render suspect the
SC as an institution.
o The comprehensive Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Committee enumerated the
inconsistencies and assumptions of respondent which lacked veracity and showed the reckless
disregard of whether the alleged bribery was false or not.
Fermin v. People (March 28, 2008)
o GOSSIP TABLOD issue of June 14, 1995 the following material, to wit:
MAS MALAKING HALAGA ANG NADISPALKO NILA SA STATES, MAY MGA NAIWAN DING ASUNTO
DOON SI ANNABELLE
IMPOSIBLENG NASA AMERIKA NGAYON SI ANNABELLE DAHILA SA KALAT DIN ANG ASUNTO NILA
DUN, BUKOD PA SA NAPAKARAMING PINOY NA HUMAHANTING SA KANILA MAS MALAKING
PROBLEMA ANG KAILANGAN NIYANG HARAPIN SA STATES DAHIL SA PERANG NADISPALKO NILA,
NAGHAHANAP LANG NG SAKIT NG KATAWAN SI ANNABELLE KUNG SA STATES NGA NIYA MAIISIPANG
PUMUNTA NGAYONG PARA LANG TAKASANG NIYA SI LIGAYA SANTOS AT ANG SINTESIYA SA KANYA
o There is evident imputation of the crime of malversation (that the complainants converted for their
personal use the money paid to them by fellow Filipinos in America in their business of distributing
high-end cookware); of vices or defects for being fugitives from the law (that complainants and

their family returned to the Philippines to evade prosecution in America); and of being a wastrel
(that Annabelle Rama Gutierrez lost the earnings from their business through irresponsible
gambling in casinos). The attribution was made publicly, considering that Gossip Tabloid had a
nationwide circulation. The victims were identified and identifiable. More importantly, the article
reeks of malice, as it tends to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the complainants.
Petitioner claims that there was no malice on her part because, allegedly, the article was merely a
fair and honest comment on the fact that Annabelle Rama Gutierrez was issued a warrant of arrest
for her conviction for estafa before then Judge Palattaos court. She even cited as proof of her lack
of malice the purported absence of ill will against complainants as shown by her article about Ruffa
Gutierrez which expressed her sympathy and admiration towards the complainants daughter.
The complainants successfully refuted the imputations during the trial. They proved that they
could return anytime to the USA after the publication of the article, and that they remained on
good terms with the manufacturing company of cookware. To the contrary, both petitioner and
Tugas failed to adduce evidence to show the truth of the allegations in the article despite the
opportunity to do so.
Further worthy of mention is the admission of petitioner before the trial court that she had very
close association with then Cong. Golez and mayoralty candidate Joey Marquez, and that she
would use her skills as a writer to campaign for them. Complainant Eddie Gutierrez ran against
then incumbent Golez for the congressional seat in Paranaque City.
It can be gleaned from her testimony that petitioner had the motive to make defamatory
imputations against complainants. Not only was there malice in law, the article being malicious in
itself, but there was also malice in fact, as there was motive to talk ill against complainants during
the electoral campaign.

Guingguing v. CA (Sept. 30, 2005)

o This case originated from a criminal complaint for libel filed by Cirse Choy Torralba (complainant)
against Lim and petitioner under Criminal Case No. CBU-26582. Complainant was a broadcast
journalist who handled two programs for radio stations DYLA and DYFX. The radio stations were
based in Cebu City but the programs were aired over a large portion of the Visayas and Mindanao.
o On Oct. 13, 1991, Lim caused the publication of records of criminal cases filed against complainant
as well as photographs of the latter being arrested. These were published by means of a one-page
advertisement paid for by Lim in the Sunday Post, a weekly publication edited and published by
petitioner. The Sunday Post was circulated in the province of Bohol, as well as in the Visayas and
Mindanao. The full text of the advertisement which was the basis of the information for libel reads:

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

ATTN: RADIOMAN CHOY TORRALBA, STATION DYFX, CEBUCITY
TEXT: IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SERVICE, PLEASE DO ENLIGHTEN ME REGARDING THE
DISPOSITION OF THE FOLLOWING WHICH APPEAR HEREUNDER. THE CASES WERE FOUND
IN THE BLOTTER OF THE CEBU CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. PLEASE FO TELL ME THE STATUS
OF THOSE CASE, WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARCHIVED AND/OR PENDING.
(Cases were Malicious Mischief, ESTAFA, and Serious Physical Injuries)
o Lim was convicted by the trial court and which conviction was affirmed by CA
o Petitioner now comes before this Court praying for the reversal of the judgment against him.
Petitioner contends inter alia that as editor-publisher of the Sunday Post and as a member of the
fourth estate, the lower courts finding of guilt against him constitutes an infringement of his
constitutional right to freedom of speech and of the press. The lower court failed to appreciate
their invocation of self defense
o For that matter, even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to
official conduct, unless he public official concerned proves that the statement was made with
actual malice that is, with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it
was false or not.
o The Court has likewise extended the actual malice rule to apply not only to public officials but
also to public figures.

Public figure a person who, by his accomplishments, fame or mode of living or by

adopting a profession or calling which give the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his
affairs, and his character, has become a public personage. In other words, a celebrity
o Actual Malice Not Proven
o It should thus proceed that if the statements made against the public figure are essentially true,
then no conviction of live can be had. Any statement that does not contain a provably false factual
connotation will receive full constitutional protection. An examination of the records of this case
showed that the prcis of information contained in the questioned publication were actually true.