In Defense of Freedoms

By now, too, it should be public knowledge that because I have seen the trailer, I was able to form a judgment that the controversial film is nothing but garbage. But unless I viewed it, I would not know what is in it. Hence, I would not be able to opine, as I do now, that it is trash.

This is the foundation of freedom of expression. It is only in the market place of ideas that we can discern what the truth is. It is only here that we are able to form opinions which, taken collectively, becomes the ever powerful public opinion.

The ground invoked by the UP administration in seeking to cancel the showing of the trailer was the safety of the students. There were text messages circulating that a group of rallyist consisting of no less than a thousand people were on their way to the UP campus in Diliman to protest the showing. The text also said that the UP police force does not have the required manpower to maintain peace and order in case the demonstration should push through.

Of course anyone can resort to peaceful rallies to make their beliefs known. As held by our Court in Primicias vs. Fugoso, our streets have since time immemorial been held in trust for use of the people, among others, to make public their grievances. But should this be a basis to limit two important democratic freedoms, to wit, the freedom of expression and academic freedom? My decision to proceed with film showing was my personal conviction on the matter: Certainly not!

 I concede that freedom of expression is not absolute. It is limited primarily where there is a clear and present danger that the state has a right to prevent. The concern was that the same kind of hysteria that was shown against the film in Libya and Egypt may erupt in the Philippines were I to show the film in class. But as was borne by our experience after the film was shown, there was absolutely no untoward incident that happened.

 In the first place, the showing was in a classroom in a class on the Bill of Rights. What better way to teach the nuances of freedom of expression but allow the students to judge for themselves whether to accept the ideas expressed by a controversial film? Moreover, the fact that the UP administration sought to stop the showing of the film was a pedagogical tool on the true nature of rights: They are not given in a silver platter.

 I concede that a further exception to protected speech is hate speech. In Chaplin ski v. New Hampshire, the US Supreme Court ruled that there are “certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include x x x insulting or ‘fighting’ words, those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” The test according to the Court, is “what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight . . .”

 The problem with hate speech as a limitation to freedom of speech is that you need hate speech legislation to begin with. In the absence of such, them maxim “nullum crimen, nulla puena, sine legue” apply. There can be no crime where there is no law making conduct criminal. In the absence of Philippine legislation on hate speech, freedom of expression cannot be infringed on this basis.

Unless there be any misunderstanding, I do not endorse the message of film as in fact, I consider it to be garbage. It is however the right to see it so that I can make my own judgment that is protected by the Constitution.

 And to those who say I did it in support of election, let me be very clear: I am not standing for any elective position. Full stop.

I did it because like Justice Homes, I believe in freedom of expression: “When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market…”

Showing of Film Trailer of Innocence of Muslims to push through despite Chancellor’s prohibition

I have just learned that the Chancellor of UP Diliman has issued an order forbidding the showing of the trailer of the movie “Innocence of Muslims”. That order however is in direct contravention of my academic freedom and freedom of expression. It is in the nature of prior restraint. I will hence still show the movie trailer as scheduled today at 6:30pm at rm 305 of Malcolm Hall, UP College of Law

I am showing it in my class on Constitutional Law 2 where we are discussing freedom of expression, freedom of religion and ironically, even academic freedom which we are scheduled to start with today.

My license to show the trailer is granted by the Constitution and Human Rights Law. It falls under both academic freedom and freedom of expression. Hence, the Chancellor’s prohibition is tantamount to exceeding his jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction. We are viewing the film clip in connection with our ongoing study on freedom of expression .No order from the Chancellor or from anyone else can infringe on these rights.  I am showing it because unless we see it, we will not know what is depicted in the film. Unless we see it, we cannot make a judgment on it. This is why there is a constitutional commitment to this freedom. It is only in the free marketplace of ideas that we can discern the truth and form our individual opinions.

I warn those who will try to prevent me from discharging my functions as an academic and as a lawyer that I will hold them civilly and criminally liable.

I will persist with the showing to uphold the freedom which was the first to be suppressed by the dictatorship , which we are painfully recalling today.This is irony.

The public is welcome.

Cybercrimes and Freedom of Expression

Despite the view of the United Nations Committee on Human Rights that Philippine criminal libel is contrary to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on freedom of expression, Congress and President Benigno Aquino III still enacted the Cybercrime Prevention Law which, among other things, added electronic libel as a new criminal offense. […] More →

Whistleblowers

What do Jun Lozada, Sandra Cam, Vidal Doble, and Primitivo Mijares have in common? They’re all whistleblowers whose guts enabled the nation to know about illegalities happening either in their offices or in their line of business. Jun Lozada was of course the trusted associate of former National Economic and Development Authority Secretary-General Romulo Neri […] More →

UP Law 1990 and Judicial Affidavits

You have to give it to Mark Meruenas of GMA news online. Of the ten or so reporters covering the Maguindanao massacre, only he reported that Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno’s latest judicial reform, the use of judicial affidavits, has been practiced in the controversial case involving the gruesome death of 58 victims. In a […] More →