![]() ![]() Here the expression “freedom of expression” is not found, but the rights included-free speech, free press, and conduct such as peaceful assembly and petitioning for redress-can be understood as instances of the mother right, freedom of expression. But the language is largely the same: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” In the 1973 Constitution, for instance, which the dictator Ferdinand Marcos caused into being, the position of this guarantee has changed the Bill of Rights is now Article IV, and the provision is now Section 9. The language in the 1987 Constitution does not follow this distinction, but all our previous constitutions did. Some scholars use freedom of expression, not freedom of speech, as the foundational right each of the rights included in this constitutional guarantee, as well as in related provisions such as on freedom of information, is vital and consequential in itself, but the birth-right, so to speak, is freedom of expression. Article III, Section 4 reads: “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.” The language of the 1987 Constitution is straightforward. I would think that for many if not most of us in the Philippines, our understanding of freedom of expression is legalistic-that is, it is based on the language we find in our basic laws. ![]() (And in a sidebar, I want to propose Hohfeld’s system as an analytical framework we can use to deepen our understanding, and our practice, of freedom of expression.) And then I want to rediscover the roots of this fundamental freedom in Philippine history. I want to revisit the largely legal language we commonly use when we talk about freedom of expression and its related rights. What, exactly, is under threat? And what, exactly, is the nature of the threat? When I received the invitation to speak today, I readily accepted it, partly because I welcomed the opportunity to study this fundamental right and the risks it faces. The risk is not only local the trend is global. I believe that many if not most of us are here today, connecting virtually, because we sense, we fear, that freedom of expression is under grave threat. In other words, it is principally a freedom of expression issue for me. There are many serious infirmities in Republic Act 11479, but for me, as a journalist and a teacher, the principal reason for opposing it is Section 9: the law unconstitutionally creates a new speech crime. Ours-making common cause with academics and lawyers, retired and active lawmakers, and framers of the Constitution-was the 12th or 13th petition today, the number of petitions against the new law is nearing 30. Last month, I joined other journalists in filing a petition with the Supreme Court against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |