SALONGA VS CRUZ PANO (1985)

Also the court discussed in that case where THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST is applicable. It is applicable if the expression sought to be
suppressed, prevented or regulated creates a clear and present danger of bringing about the substantive evil which the government has the
power to prohibit. The freedom of speech and press is susceptible of restriction only when necessary to prevent the grave and immediate danger
to the interests which the government may lawfully protect. The doctrine involved in the context of insurrection and rebellion involving the
overthrow of the Government. So remember those tests kay basi mugawas sa exam or sa bar exam.

2. APPLICATIONS IN VARIOUS CONTEXTS

So let’s go now to the relationship between your right to express yourself—freedom of expression and going beyond that criticism of official
conduct.

Can you validly criticize without violating any law or is that absolutely protected?

So we have penal laws that punish criticism na sobra sobra na which would amount already to libel. That is under the Revised Penal Code article
353.

What is libel?

Article 353.Definition of libel. A libel is a 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 or juridical person, or to blacken the memory
of one who is dead.

So be careful with the words you utter especially if they are meant not to do any good. So for a person to be held guilty for libel it must have the
following elements;

ELEMENTS OF LIBEL

1. The allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another.

2. The publication of the charge (you spread it or you tell it to a third person dili lang kadtong imong gi disparage.

If giingun nimo sya to that person that you disparage that is not publication)

3. Identity of the person defamed. (dapat there should be a clear connect between the person you are trying to destroy and the person who is
actually destroyed or is claiming to be destroyed , dili pwede na muingon “na mura lage to ug ako” so naigo lang sya that is not enough)

4 The existence of malice. (You made that statement because you wanted to destroy the reputation of that person you did it for no apparent
good )

B.FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND CRITICISM OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

Article 354 requires that the utterance must be publicized there is this requirement of publicity. Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
malicious. Even if it is true if no good intention and justifiable motive for making that imputation except in the following cases; so Article 354
enumerates some instances where the communication is privilege because it would appear this instances na naay good actually wala sya in the
first instance.

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, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings
which are not confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed
by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

If you can fit the utterance under any of those 2 instances that will fall as a privilege form of communication that will removed the presumption
of malice. Pag mawala ang presumption of malice it would now be the burden of the state to prove that the utterance was made at the outset
maliciously.

How is libel committed?

Can you say that it is libel because you shouted the person has a syphilis? Libel is done by writing so if you say someone has a syphilis that is
slander.

Under article 355 A libel is committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means. Mao to sya ang means to commit libel.

However you can also prove that whatever you said had

(1)a good reason or you had a justifiable motive; and

(2) It was true.

You can offer the proof of truth in criminal prosecutions for libel as a defense under article 361.

Article 361. Proof of the truth. In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the
matter charged as libelous is true, and moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall be
acquitted.

Remember the utterance made against in the Pinoy ako blog giingnan sya ug shrek atong political analyst in the social media, she was ugly , she
has a big nose and gikasuhan sya ug libel. Her defense is that it was true, it was used as a defense well I don’t know what happened to that case.

So anyway those are the provisions under the revised penal code that penalize your expression. In other words it underscores the fact that the
expression in our freedom to expression is not that absolute. If it becomes libelous speech it becomes punishable. And so we have cases involving
libel and

What is the effect if you are charged with libel?

Instead of speaking out mahadlok naka because you would be penalized for libel but the provision of the revised penal code are clear that there
are standards that will have to be transgressed before you can be held liable for libel. And if you do not transgress those standards then you can
be off the spot even if you criticized as long as the criticism does not become libelous.

Does it have a chilling effect on the right to free speech?

As to the chilling effect, as we already discussed before that is precisely the effect of penal laws, they create chilling effects for would be violators.
They are not supposed to do that because otherwise they would be violated so they would refrain from that act.