Está en la página 1de 15


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 can’t 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
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
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
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


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 person’s testimony must in itself be credible.” (Concurring Opinion, Carpio
Morales, J.)
Bug-atan, et al vs People
“Maramara’s 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

the story of the witnesses for the defense as to how Lacambra was wounded. in a face-to-face fight.” he testified. observation and common experience of man People v De Guzman “Furthermore. Sabasido saw him and said to him: “So you are the one who filed a complaint against me. their intelligence. appellant approached Sabasado in a cockpit and stabbed him at the back. Those wounds were necessarily so fatal as to cause instantaneous death. “which is a little bit to the back. however. Thus. and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon trial. 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. their interest or want of interest. while he was walking around the ring of the cockpit looking for a bet. Held:  After a careful and thorough study of the record we agree with the trial court. No man with two bolo wounds thru his body. The attitude of utter indifference shown by Nunez in connection with the matter of the alleged kidnapping of his daughter is so unnatural. the witness’ manner of testifying. that Sabasido accidentally hit him while he was pursuing the appellant after the latter had wounded him twice. was in the City of Cavite. could possibly run in pursuit of another. not credible. their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying. though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. Then I held his right wrist with my left hand and pushed same towards Sabasido’s body and I thrust him on his abdomen. that we hardly believe the accuracy of this story of the kidnapping. Evidence preponderates when: . namely.     Cited Popper’s 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. Section 1: Section 1. According to him. Moreover. hence. Compatibility with human knowledge. and that it was only on the following year. I am going to kill you. The court may also consider the number of witnesses. that the witness learned that his daughter. 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.” After that he ran away. so contrary to the well-known strength and closeness of the family ties of the Filipinos. Preponderance of evidence. The Court cannot accept a story that defies reason and leaves much to the imagination. 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. observation and common experience of man. Sabasido released my hand which was holding his right arm and then stabbed me from left to right. whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge. the reaction of Flores. that he did not notify the local authorities about it nor take any steps to ascertain the whereabouts of his daughter. The nature and the position of the wounds of the Sabasido completely belie the theory of the defense.”  The time-honored test in determining the value of the testimony of a witness is its compatibility with human knowledge. “I do not know who caused the woubd of Lacambra. he said. 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. the probability of their testimony. Consistently. the testimony of Flores. Held: “Alleging that he was afraid of the Japanese.” At that very moment. 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. 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. and the other thru the thorax. the appellant. – In civil cases. in hurriedly going home and leaving Urieta alone to die. In determining where the preponderance of evidence or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies. all the facts and circumstance of the case. he said. how determined. Sabasido stabbed him and hit him on his left buttock. the court may consider. Familiarity with sociological observations People v Nunez  An appeal by Arsenia Nunez from a judgment of the People’s 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. he said. when the American forces were already occupying the province of Cavite. In the case at bench. one thru the abdominal region. the lone eyewitness of the prosecution does not bear the earmarks of the truth and.” 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. was unnatural and contrary to common human experience. that is to say. the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. the nature of the facts to which they testify. and that appellant voluntarily left her home for the City of Cavite to join the Japanese. observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance. is unbelievable. that then he held the right arm of Sabasido with his left hand and stabbed Sabasido on the right side of his body.People v Batoltol  An appeal from CFI of Samar convicting appellant of double murder  According to witnesses of prosecution.

documentary evidence that is contested c. It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. and it has in its favor the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear. Furthermore. The testimony or proof of an accused’s insanity must. Documentary evidence supporting the claim is uncontested v.)  When is evidence preponderant? a. unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. 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. When it is more convincing to the judge than is the opposing evidence b. the presumption is that every human is sane. defendant prevails If verifying evidence outweighs the falsifying evidence. or is more amply verified and less falsified. As stated above. means probability to truth. Plaintiff’s claim: “I am in possession of lot x” o Judge then asks the following: a.” Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which. v. however.    a. Under Article 800 of the Civil Code. plaintiff and defendant ought to be treated equally o If there is a tie and evidence preponderates in favor of neither. the pieces of evidence presented by respondent weigh more than petitioners’ bare claims and denials. This circumstance. strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. the presumption of due execution of notarial document lies on the one contesting the same. but those of verification do not. The Manila Banking Corp. Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition. there should be a margin that makes him/her confident about arriving at a judgment  a) b) c) d) Criteria: When A’s theory of the facts makes more precise assertions than B’s When A’s theory of the facts explains more facts than B’s A’s theory of the facts describes or explains the facts in more detail than B’s A’s assertions have passed tests which B’s have failed Sps. 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. however. and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same. Preponderance of evidence is the weight. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt . plaintiff’s evidence preponderates over none (but this does not necessarily result to judgment in favor of plaintif)  Judgment is dependent on the judge’s appreciation of the persuasive value of the evidence before him/her. et al. It is verified or corroborated and not falsified. When that which the evidence purports to prove is more probable than not c. the party having the burden of proof must establish his case only by a preponderance of evidence. Testimonial evidence supporting that claim is consisted and corroborated v. testimonial evidence supporting that is contradicted and rebutted b. the real estate mortgage contract between the parties was notarized. 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. in the last analysis. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. an allegation of forgery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. related to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged. 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 Popper’s model. b. The instances of falsification decrease. evidence preponderates in favor of plaintiff If that which verifies and that which falsifies are equal. A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. “50 percent plus”: probability that slightly favors the party with the burden of persuasion However:  If there is default. Absent such. Object evidence supports the claim as against that which repels it If falsifying evidence outweighs the verifying evidence. Arante  Held: Second. 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. then the plaintiff fails to make his case Preponderance of evidence  “We stress that in civil cases. the judge should not be content with higher verifying-content over falsifyingcontent. credit. They merely denied that they did not execute the REM and that the same was a forgery. Certainly. petitioners failed to prove their allegations. Alcazar v. is not easily available to an accused as a successful defense.

– In a criminal case. 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. Moral certainty only is required. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. such as by threatening the victim with a scythe. he had earlier sworn to kill the victim. his prints are on the firearm. The absence of spermatozoa in the complainant’s vagina does not disprove the commission of rape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as. Hence. Tadepa . People v. he was the last person seem with the victim. as her life and even her daughter’s were being threatened. Is their perception trustworthy? 2.  Absence of physical injuries Nor does the absence of physical injuries on the victim’s body negate rape. are not per se indicative of whether she had been through sexual intercourse. because there may be a valid explanation for such absence. who affirmed that he was indeed sleeping next to her at the time in question. as when the semen may have been washed away or when the rapist failed to ejaculate. The accused tests positive of powder burns. much less whether such had been committed against her will. do no damage to the prosecution’s case for it is now settled that a negative sperm-detection test is immaterial to the crime of rape. “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. it being firmly settled that the important consideration in rape is penetration and not emission.  Trial Court’s findings SC agreed with the trial court’s 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. he was asleep in his house. with counsel usually of authority and capacity. Two witnesses testify that they saw the accused shoot the victim. they assume no importance in the face of positive identification. and to subject the sordid details of her story to a public trial and against a given presumption of the accused’s innocence. Is it enough that the accused failed a polygraph test? 2. Is it sufficient that the accused was the last person seen in the company of the victim? b) Were the conditions fulfilled? Examples: 1. These findings. who are regarded public officers. he was noticed exiting the room where the victim was in haste after the gun report was heard. Her positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the rape is well-taken. Boado himself. 2. the house of the victim. so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility. Section 2: SECTION 2. judgment is morally certain Relevant questions on fulfillment of the conditions? a) Are the conditions sufficient conditions? Examples: 1. 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. produces absolute certainty. ONLY Moral Certainty is required! People v Santiago o It is accused-appellant’s testimony that at about 12:00 to 12:30 in the morning of July 7. Considering that alibis are so easy to fabricate with the aid of immediate family members or relatives. Is it sufficient that the accused vowed to kill the victim? 3. His claim is buttressed by the testimony of his own mother.  Findings of medical examination o It will be remembered that the findings of the medical examination of Michelle Mana.  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. 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.Revised Rules on Evidence. 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. 1994. however. the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. 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. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced. Also according to accused-appellant’s mother. with the State being arrayed against her with its unlimited command of means. excluding possibility of error. as admittedby Dr. Fulfillment of the conditions:  The evidence presented meets the conditions. it is not unusual for lower courts in cases of rape to convict on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim. We also find entirely plausible the fear which forced her to succumb to accused-appellants’s heinous wishes. as in the instant case by the rape victim herself. his footprint matches the footprint found at the bedside of the victim. because his crime can also be committed through intimidation. Court is left with self-defense. as in this case  Sole testimony of victim A pronouncement of guilt arising from the sole testimony of the victim is not unheard of. When accused admits the killing but did so in self-defense. Rule 133. The accused is identified by eyewitnesses as the person who fired at the victim.

Hare. 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  Dworkin’s 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. he said that he did not hear the conversation which transpired between Pat.M. the prosecution presented two witnesses: Buy-bust Operation Team Leader Sgt. insufficient to induce moral certainty. Region 8. Alfiler. Triste the alleged poseur-buyer was not presented  The prosecution did not present as witness Pat. Triste. Triste and the accused. the alleged poseur-buyer. 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.  The prosecution built its case solely on the testimony of Team Leader Sgt.J. Universalizable – intended to apply not merely to the case in which it is made but also to all similar cases.A Hart called Hare’s 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. 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. argues that we can identify a person’s moral judgments in total independence of their content  According to Hare. then my judgment. principles of property and ownership  Even if it should turn out that there are no objective solutions to moral problems. Thus in People v. 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. stationed in Ormoc City.” and failure to present his is fatal.  Pat. 2.  The uncorroborated testimony of the state’s star witness Sgt.L. 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. to prove that accused Dionisia Tadepa sold 25 sticks of marijuana to a peace officer. Alfiler who admittedthat he was some 7 to 8 meters away from where the actual transaction took place.Facts:  In this case. R. a person has made a moral judgment about some matter if that judgment manifests 3 formal characteristics: 1. distribution of resources. 3. Luis Alfiler of NARCOM. vulnerable. Prescriptive – recommendation on how to act. Overriding – it takes precedence over all other judgments in cases of conflict o  Moral o o Example:  If I prescribe “Let there be a blending of red and green in the world”. Such omission casts serious doubt on appellant’s 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. weird as it is. We find this testimony of Sgt. As a consequence. 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. Warnock  He argued that Hare’s 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. and Forensic Chemist Capt. even if coming from a police officer who enjoys the presumption of regularity. 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 .

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. 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 one’s 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. 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 people’s preferences. 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. Utilitarianism 2. TO give such proof is as impossible as it is needless. approve certain general rules or practices that assign certain rights to persons (the right not to be experimented on without one’s 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.o  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.  If Bentham cannot prove the validity of the principle of utility. a chain of proofs must have their commencement somewhere. 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. discount any preferences that will not produce happiness. would never be able to live lives of stability and predictability and thus could not be happy . then they would never be secure. 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. 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.

If Jones has a right to life. assaulted. this means at a minimum that all other persons have an obligation not to kill Jones o With respect to any claim of right. It is rather and simply that the . If Jones promises Smith to give him a book at a certain time. deceived  If one violates these rights in a person. 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. 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 Kant’s concept of rationality o The ability to appreciate morally relevant differences and similarities in people. rights. we must ask 3 basic questions: 1. 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. What person or class of persons has the right? 2. they are derivative goods – protections and guarantees that are valuable because of what they lead to. assault. then surely we would no longer give utilitarianism the time of day)  According to the authors. rape . 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. there will be areas of agreement in outcome between utilitarians and Kantians. fairness. 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. 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. and theft and Kantianism condemned these acts. To what is it a right? 3. 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 Kant’s ethics was an attempt to pursue Christianity by secular means. one thereby shows that one fails to respect that person as a person 2. Kant wrote “Always act”.o o o Rights are not ultimate goods. 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. 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. “so that you treat rational persons as ends in themselves and never as means only”  According to the authors. 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. 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. I conceive. merit John Stuart Mill defines a right (“To have a right the is. upon which Kant built his entire moral theory Thus. 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. the differences between the two traditions will merely be a matter of emphasis (if utilitarianism came out in favor of murder. because the societies that accord them will be happier societies Utilitarians have a place for important concepts such as justice. which is to be respected and protected.

This preferred status of free speech has also . right to be protected against liability for defamation.  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. The cognate rights codified by Article III. Aquino’s Libel Case”:  Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendant’s right to due process as well as to the fair and orderly administration of justice. therefore. the mass media shall play an active role in the promotion of child rights. right of physician (and nobody else) to perform surgery. “Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C. 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. Section 4 of the Constitution. Art. were considered the necessary consequence of republican institutions and the complement of free speech. No video shots or photographs shall be permitted during the trial proper. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech. the parties and their counsel taken prior to the commencement of official proceedings. right to attend criminal trials and gain information about them.  Freedom of expression has gained recognition as a fundamental principle of every democratic government. rational and autonomous beings Philippine Context Freedom of expression: Constitution. Respect-based rights (privacy. Video footages of court hearings for news purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots of the courtroom. 9344: “As provided in Section 14 of the Act. Rights assigned to maintain the integrity of our political system (freedom of assembly and press – fundamental constitutional rights) 3. live radio and television coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed. Media practitioners shall. or of the press. 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. 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. the judicial officers. III: SECTION 4. and given a preferred right that stands on a higher level than substantive economic freedom or other liberties. and delinquency prevention by relaying consistent messages through a balanced approach. of expression. 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. rational and autonomous beings  Justice Black regarded freedom of speech as an absolute right. dialogue and argument that we reveal ourselves as thinking. freedom of religious worship and freedom of speech – fundamental constitutional rights) 2. 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. 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. Bill of Rights. dialogue and argument that we reveal ourselves as thinking. 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. 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. 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). copied almost verbatim from the First Amendment of the U. 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... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.S. degrading and prejudicial means.

may vary from those of another. 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. analysis. “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. The protection afforded free speech extends to speech or publications that are entertaining as well as instructive or informative (Chavez v.” As formulated. political speech. all speech are not treated the same. so as to enable members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period. subversive speech. i. the speech of the broadcast media and of the traditional print media. economic. For freedom of expression is not an absolute. inasmuch as the Constitution’s basic guarantee of freedom to advocate ideas is not confined to the expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by majority. and evaluation of the permissible scope of restrictions on various categories of speech. broadcast media have established a uniquely persuasive presence in the lives of all citizens. and under well defined standards. that in our jurisdiction slander or libel. news. in order that it may not be injurious to the equal right of others or those of the community or society. obscene speech. with the government having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality. The constitutional protection assures the broadest possible exercise of free speech and free press for religious. and is not confined to any particular field of human interest. restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by either or a combination of three tests. only a substantial governmental interest is required for its validity. not only in public. obscene speech. symbolic speech. television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to newspapers and other print media (First.g. Gonzales)  Thus. speech before hostile audience. libelous speech. 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. speech that affects the right to a fair trial.been codified at the international level. e. Gonzales) Limits and restraints on free speech  From the language of the specific constitutional provision. e. i.  The constitutional protection is not limited to the exposition of ideas. its recognition now enshrined in international law as a customary norm that binds all nations (Chavez v. Gonzales)  Moreover.. about which information is needed or appropriate. The difference in treatment is expected because the relevant interests of one type of speech. the content-based restraint will be struck down (Chavez v Gonzales)  With respect to content-based restrictions. (a) the dangerous tendency doctrine which permits limitations on speech once rational connection has been established between the speech restrained and the danger contemplated. 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.. as well as “fighting words” are not entitled to constitutional protection and may be penalized.e..e. Material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen. the restriction is based on the subject matter of the utterance or speech. vagueness. It is a question of proximity and degree (Chavez v Gonzales) . speech affecting associational rights. (Chavez v. (Chavez v Gonzales)  Generally. The cast of the restriction determines the test by which the challenged act is assayed with.” (Chavez v. and requires a conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation of type of situation. i. i. or one that merely controls the time. Gonzales}  When the speech restraints take the form of a content-neutral regulation. Gonzales)  The scope of freedom of expression is so broad that it extends protection to nearly all forms of communication. but the same selectivity cannot be done in radio or television. 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. or (2) a content-based restraint or censorship. 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. (Chavez v. where the listener or viewer is constantly tuning in and out. The rule requires that the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive. Prior restraint on speech based on its content cannot be justified by hypothetical fears. (b) the balancing of interest tests. it would appear that the right to free speech and a free press is not susceptible of any limitation. either consciously or unconsciously. but in the privacy of his home. political. or information ends. Bookstores and motion picture theaters may be prohibited from making certain material available to children.. A distinction has to be made whether the restraint is (1) a content-neutral regulation. lewd and obscene speech. merely concerned with the incidents of the speech. (Chavez v. the techniques of reviewing alleged restrictions on speech (over breadth.. 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.. place or manner. It protects speech. Distinctions have therefore been made in the treatment. and speech associated with rights of assembly and petition.  Unless the government can overthrow this presumption. Some types of speech may be subjected to some regulation by the State under its pervasive police power. 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.e.e. scientific. We have ruled. Gonzales)  While all forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of freedom of expression clause. and so on) have been applied differently to each category. Second. for example. 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. broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children.g. “but only by showing a substantive and imminent evil that has taken the life of a reality already on the ground. Only when the challenged act has overcome the clear and present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster. The protection covers myriad matters of public interest or concern embracing all issues. the freedom of film. print and assembly regarding secular as well as political causes. “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. used as a standard when courts need to balance conflicting social values and individual interests.

it is an abuse of such right. is undeserving of the protection of the guaranties of free speech and press. got their hopes up for a semblance of judicial recourse in the case of Vinuya v Exec. Nagpadala ng liham ang Court of appeals sa mga magkakatunggaling partido upang simulang dinggin ang kaso. when the prior restraint partakes of a content-neutral regulation. the Court decided this case based on polluted sources. The latter will pass constitutional muster only if justified by a compelling reason.. the making of contemptuous statements directed against the Court is not an exercise of free speech. 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. 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. Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts cannot be disguised as free speech. xxx xxx xxx” Held: . lacking in social value and aimed solely at besmirching the reputation of the Court. and sexual slavery as crimes against humanity have attained the status of jus cogens. May mga nagsasabing binayaran umano nga hanggang sa P2—Milyon ang isang mahestrado ng Korte upang pagbigyan ang kahilingan ni Garcia. Yet. Ano pa ba kaya ng na-TRO gayung sinisimulan na ni Garcia ang kanyang suspension. 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. that the High Court actually misrepresents the conclusions of their work entitled “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens. oblivious to the deaths of many of the petitioners seeking justice from the Court. Ito umano ay paglabag sa tinatawag na Forum Shopping.The reputation of the Phil. After they courageously came out with their very personal stories of abuse and suffering as comfort women. (2) Such a fundamental breach endangers the integrity and credibility of the entire SC and undermines the foundations of the Phil. and the restrictions imposed are neither overbroad nor vague (Chavez v Gonzales) Some decided cases on free speech  Garcia. Marami umano ang nagdududa kung papaano nakakuha ng TRO si Garcia gayung malinaw na ang kaso ay kasalukuyang dinidinig noon ng Court of Appeals. malinaw na naihain na ang suspension order kay Garcia ng DILG kaya’t opisyal ng epektibo ang suspension. By so doing. 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. 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.” “xx xxx xxx With these considerations. (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. waited for almost two decades for any meaningful relief from their own government as well as from the government of Japan. the SC added insult to injury by failing to actually exercise its “power to urge and exhort the Executive Dept. the Vinuya decision uses pars of the same article to arrive at the contrary conclusion. it is subjected to an intermediate review. torture. SC and the standing of the Phil.” “Dalawang Division ng Court of Appeals ang tumanggi na dinggin ang petisyon ni Garcia para sa TRO hanggang sa dininig ito ng isang division. rather.” xxx xxx xxx “But a far more serious matter is the objection of the original writers. Thus. coupled with false sympathy and nonchalance. Jr. belies a more alarming lack of concern for even the most basic values of decency and respect.   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. Nang inilabas ng Korte ang TRO. unethical and in breach of the high standards of moral conduct and judicial and professional competence expected of the Supreme Court. and bearing in mind the solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as teachers in the profession of Law. Legal profession before other Judiciaries and legal systems are truly at stake. Judicial system by allowing implicitly the decision of cases and the establishment of legal precedents through dubious means.”  Held: Certainly. 2012) o “TRO ng Korte Suprema binayaran ng P20-M?” – published in the Jnuary 14 to 20. Secretary is unacceptable. Nakapagtataka umano kung bakit hindi ito binigyang galang ng Korte Suprema.” the main source of the plagiarized text. In this article they argue that the classification of the crimes of rape. they only had these hopes crushed by a singularly reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the highest Court of the land. Professors Evan Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent. bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured against the clear and present danger rule. Secretary. et al. Manrique’s article. When it dismissed the Vinuya petition based on misrepresented and plagiarized materials. A content-based regulation. 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. such as the petitioners therein. making it obligatory upon the State to seek remedies on behalf of its aggrieved citizens. to take up the claims of the Vinuya petitioners. Its callous disposition. “xxx xxx xxx But instead of acting with urgency on this case. however. the Court delayed its resolution for almost seven years. v Manrique (Oct 10.

spilling into the territory of sanctionable utterances. The realities of life in a complex society preclude however a literal interpretation. degrade and even destroy the courts and their members” typical of unprotected judicial criticism. on the one hand. the UP law faculty statement is far removed from speech the Court has rightly sanctioned for proffering no useful social value. Children could be motivated by curiosity and ask the meaning of what petitioner said. children could hardly be expected to have same discernment. masahol pa sa puntang babae. yung outing babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba. 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. If. the unbridled use of such language as that of petitioner in a television broadcast could corrupt impressionable young minds. o Upon learning the meaning of the words. i. 2009) o Petitioner. Petitioner further used the terms. dissenting: Second. unprotected speech. and in a time slot that would likely reach even the eyes and ears of children. it is. at least with respect to the average child. the 12-paragrapg. to balance one against the other and arrive at a judgment where the greater weight shall be place. the statement. And children may not have the adult’s 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. not even those stated in the free speech and expression clause. solely crafted to vilify members and threaten its very existence. On the contrary. 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 di ba!” may not constitute obscene but merely indecent utterances. Under this analytical framework. obscenity or pornography. o The balancing of interest test. then stating that Sandoval was worse than thay by using his mouth in a similar manner. ridicule. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito. . A term wholly inappropriate for children. They may be inquisitive as to why Sandoval is different from a female prostitute and the reasons for the dissimilarity. They can be viewed as figures of speech or merely a play on words. and the free expression clause afftected by it.. o di ba! O. The problem with the challenged statements is that they were uttered in a TV program that is rate “G” or for general viewership. the balance-of-interest theory rests on the basis that constitutional freedoms are not absolute. masahol pa sa putang babae yan. o It has been established in this jurisdiction that unprotected speech or low-value expression refers to libelous statements. It would be too much to insist that at all time and under all circumstances it should remain unfettered and unrestrained. does not exhibit that “irrational obsession to demean. in that context. reckless and unfair attacks on judicial decisions and institutions pose Carpio. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba. then the court will find the legislation valid. Gonzales v COMELEC. rests on the theory that it is the court’s function in a case before it when it finds public interests served by legislation. Even In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Relief Re: Constitutionality of RA 4880. held that: “From the language of the specific constitutional provision. o The Court finds that petitioner’s statement can be treated obscene. it would appear that the right is not susceptible of any limitation. made the following remarks: Lehitimong anak ng demonyo. making reference to the female sexual organ and how a female prostitute uses it in her trade. children may use it in their own speech. seeks to uphold the bedrock democratic value of keeping judicial processes free of any taint of dishonesty or misrepresentation. and that they may be abridged to some extent to serve appropriate and important interests. Thus. the balancing of interest doctrine is the more appropriate test to follow. “ang gumagana lang doon yungg ibaba”. 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. take as a whole... No law may be passed abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. To the mind of the Court. Both are absent here. o A cursory examination of the utterances complained of and the circumstances of the case reveal that to an average adult. on the other. Freedom of expression is not an absolute. masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. relied upon by respondents in the Common Compliance. they may not appeal to the prurient interests of an adult. kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas. those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace and expression endangering national security. insulting or “fighting words”. on balance. o While adults may have understood that the terms thus used were not to be taken literally.o o o  Werily. fale or misleading advertisement. Sabin ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. On the matter of institutional degradation. missing the context within which it was used. There are other societal values that press for recognition. as host of the program Ang Dating Daan. In testing whether speech critical of judges and judicial processes falls outside the ambit of constitutionally protected expression. sinungaling. an utterance is constitutionally protected unless “the evil consequence of the comment or utterance is ‘extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high. J. The term “putang babae” means “a female prostitute”..’” “It appears that the evil consequences the UP law faculty statement will supposedly spawn are (1) the slurring of this Court’s dignity and (2) the impairment of its judicial independence vis-à-vis the resolution of the plagiarism complaint in Vinuya. also without placing the phrase in context. the utterances “Gago ka talaga. 1533 word statement of the UP law faculty. Gago ka talaga Michael. We find petitioner’s utterances obscene and not entitled to protection under the umbrella of freedom of speech. In the context they were used. this Court adheres to the “clear and present danger” tes. In short. it appears that the public interest served by restrictive legislation is of such nature that it outweighs the abridgement of freedom.e. dito kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas. Aired on UNTV 37. who could look it up in a dictionary and just get the literal meaning. W/o parental guidance. taken as a whole.” Soriano v MTRCB (Apr 29. Hence.

Persons who interfere or defeat the freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication are liable for damages. or of any other act performed by public officer in the exercise of their functions. For this failure of the respondents alone to offer proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test. omission. place or manner of the dissemination of speech or expression. every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious o The presumption of malice. Undoubtedly these did not merely provide regulations as to the time. 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. violation of law is just a factor. not absolute. by itself and w/o more. which should be weighed in adjudging whether to restrain freedom of speech and of the press. violations of law should be vigorously prosecuted by State for they breed their own evil consequence. made in good faith. From Lucas v Royo comes this line: “The freedom to express one’s sentiments and belief does not grant one the license to vilify in public the honor and dignity of another. It may be regulated to some extent to serve important public interests. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. real or imaginary. as with the other freedoms encased in the Bill of Rights. Gonzales said he would start with Inq7. legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature. Indeed. moral or social duty. These persons included Sec. The freedom of  . 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. does not exist in the ff. In fine. Bunye and Atty Paguia. some of them provide norms of conduct which even if violated have only an adverse effect on a person’s private comfort does not endanger national security. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal.o o   In the case at bar. Our laws are of different kinds and doubtless. (Chavez v Gonzales) LIBEL – “public and malicious imputation of a crime. or speech delivered in said proceedings. and 2. Gonzales (Feb 15. or of a vice or defect.: 1. o We rule that not every violation of a law will justify straitjacketing the exercise of 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. There are laws of great significance but their violation. It is the instrument by which citizens keep their government informed of their needs. But to repeat. condition. is however. be they private individual or public officials. report. Without a vigilant press. It is the sharpest weapon in the fight to keep government responsible and efficient. a joint venture between the Philippine Daily Inquirer and GMA 7 tv network. or contempt of a natural person or juridical person. the wound can be assuaged with balm of clear conscience. because by the very nature of the internet medium. The productions of writers are classified as intellectual and proprietary. There is no showing that the feared violation of the anit-wiretapping law clearly endangers the national security of the State. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Any sentiments must be expressed within the proper forum and with proper regard for the rights of others. the Court has no option but to uphold the exercise of free speech and free press. a preferred right whose breach can lead to greater evils. Gonzales ordered NBI to go after media organizations “found to have cause the spread. of any judicial.”  Its contribution to the public weal makes freedom of the press deserving of extra protection. 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. petitioner used indecent and obscene language and a 3-month suspension was slapped on him for breach of MTRCB rules. the assertion by the petitioner of his enjoyment of his freedom of speech is ranged against the duty of the gov’t to protect and promote the development and welfare of the youth. or any act.” Chavez v. some forms of speech not being protected. 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. or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor. 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. or of any statement. w/o any comments or remarks. the need to prevent their violation cannot per se trump the exercise of free speech and free press. a vital one to be sure. 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. A fair and true report. 354 of the RPC. In this setting. their aspirations and their grievances. the Court should not be misinterpreted as devaluing violations of law. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and unjust accusation. 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 press benefits from certain ancillary rights.” Any of these imputations is defamatory and under the general rule in Art. discredit. as they are content-based restrictions. 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. o By all means. status. It is the most pervasive and perhaps most powerful vehicle of opinion on public questions. The limits of the freedom of expression are reached when the expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern. cannot support suppression of free speech and free press.

Neither is any restraint hereby laid upn freedom of thought or inquiry.. mere error. he got the story from a fellow report who told him that the disqualification case against petitioner was granted. They wanted to contact her but she was already out of the office. during the 17th century. while he was officer-in-charge of the mayor’s office of Bais City. he must take the consequences of his own temerity. o A newspaper. mischievous. which established the principle that not even the lawmaker should be above the law. for honest mistakes or imperfections in the choice of language. May 9. o Two days before the elections. As one of the candidates. 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.e. petitioned for the disqualification of petitioner from running in the elections. Freedom v. Suarez. Consistent with good faith and reasonable care. Only by giving them much leeway and tolerance can they courageously and effectively function as critical agencies in our democracy. Ltd v Capulong o Under the current state of our jurisprudence. (In re: Macasaet) o John Milton. to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press. libel. (Manila Bulletin) published the following story: “The COMELEC has disqualified Hector G. Said petition. Ricardo Nolan. Villanueva v. Only after it has been established that their writings are of treacherous. 1992.”  Held: o In the instant case. or either of the said Houses shall appoint for the licensing of the same. These are matters about which the public has the right to be informed. i. 1992. to a point of suppression. they felt confident the press release was authentic. even assuming that the contents of the articles turned out to be false. slanderous or blasphemous nature should they be punished. the will of individuals is still left free. liberty of private sentiments is still left. or blasphemous materials should first be tried according to law.  . stitched or put to sale by any person or persons whatsoever. For this reason. especially one national in reach and coverage. PDI (May 15. 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. Thus. another mayoralty candidate. the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. unless the same be first approved of and licensed under the hands of such person or person as both. the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Error or misstatements are inevitable in any scheme of truly free expression and debate. 16. PDI said that they got the story from a press release the very same day the Manila Bulletin published the same story. People (Sept. o Nevertheless. respondent Manila Daily Bulletin Publishing Corp. 2008) o PINAKAMAYAMAN SA CUSTOMS “Ito palang si Atty. it cannot be said that the publication was published recklessly disregarding of what is false or not. the above being said. Writers of treacherous. 1992 elections o On March 30. paper. to be considered malicious. The rule on privileged communication had its genesis in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and the press. there is no denying that the questioned articles dealt with matters of public interest. (In re: Macasaet) o Every free man has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public. o According to Manila Bulleting reporter Edgardo T. was denied by COMELEC. the press should not be held to account. promulgated in 1215. shall from henceworth be printed. slanderous. they attracted media mileage and drew public attention not only to the election itself but to the candidates. 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. 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. wrote Areopagitica which defended the right of free speech and which was in reaction to a licensing order which states that no ”book. Through the years. There must be some room for misstatement of fact as well as misjudgment. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings. PDI claims that the press release bore COMELEC. nor part of any such. 2009) o Petitioner was one of the mayoralty candidates in Bais. but if he publishes what is improper. is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order of government and religion. many treatise on press freedom arose in reaction to various measures taken to curtail it. Milton advocated that a written work should not be suppressed before publication. petitioner consequently assumed the status of a public figure within the purview of Ayers Productions Pty. To subject the press to restrictive power is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man. 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. inaccuracy or even falsity alone does not prove actual malice. 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. Negros Oriental during the May 11. taking into account the very public character of the election itself. pamphlet. or illegal. Responsibillity  Tulfo v. o Jurisprudence instructs us that a privileged communication should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover grounds for malice or falsity. the disseminating or making public of bad sentiments destructive to the ends of society is he crime which society corrects.  The enumeration under Art. Since the news item was already published in the Manila Bulletin. however. Thus. Nature and History: o History of press freedom dates back to the English Magna Carta. 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. bound.

This is but a case of a journalist abdicating his responsibility to verify his story and instead misinforming the public. The articles. 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. 2008) o GOSSIP TABLOD issue of June 14. ikaw na yata ang pinakagago at magnanakaw na miyembro nito. So dahil binabantayan ko siya at inexpose ang kagaguhan niya sa BOC. judicial criticism can be constructive. the trial court found that the allegations against Atty. o Respondent has absolutely no basis to call the SC a court of “thieves” and a “basket of rotten apple”. academics.” o Reading more deeply into the case. they also undermine the people’s confidence in the courts. it cannot be said that Tulfo followed the Journalist’s Code of Ethics and exercised his journalistic freedom responsibly o When Atty. Tulfo claimed that it was the practice of certain people to use other people’s names to advance their corrupt practices. however. Even in cases wherein the freedom of the press was given greater weight over the rights of individuals. 354 of RPC. Held: o The Court has long respected the freedom of the press. debate. These publications directly undermine the integrity of the justices and render suspect the SC as an institution. 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. effective and efficient judiciary. o The articles clearly are not the fair and true reports contemplated in the provision of Art. In re: Macasaet (Aug 8. Abangan bukas ang mga raket ni So sa BOC. 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). So before the subject articles. he had to rely on his sources. Informed discussion. or even how we run our public offices or public affairs. The recognition of a right is not free license for the one claiming it to run roughshod over the rights of others. containing statements and innuendoes about an alleged bribery incident in the SC. Fermin v. Held: o For sure.    Hindi matibag ang gagong attorner dahlia malakas daw ito sa Iglesia ni Kristo Hoy. that he neither knew Atty. and criticism of the courts ensure that people are informed of what they are doing that have broad implications for all citizens. Public awareness.” This was clearly abandoned by Tulfo when he wrote the subject articles.. nakakahiya ka sa mga INC. the exercise of press freedom must be done “consistent with good faith and reasonable care. So filed a libel suit against him. particularly in the South Harbor. and that he had several sources in the BOC. He also claimed that his articles had neither discredited nor dishonored the complainant because as per his source in the BOC. And since none of the elements of the 2nd paragraph of Art 354 is present in Tulfo’s articles. a newspaper of general circulation of which he is the publisher. comment. uncovering and addressing a problem that merits public attention. malapit kang itiwalang ng nasabing simbaha dahil sa mga kalokohan mo. They should even be constructive and should pave way for a more responsive. of vices or defects for being fugitives from the law (that complainants and . debate. it must be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. He further testified that he did not do any research on Atty. it cannot thus be argued that they are qualified privileged communications under the RPC. indeed. has stressed that such freedom is not absolute and unbounded. Balita ko. The exercise of this right or any right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.” o In his defense. So of the South Harbor was not directed against the complainant. Attacks upon the court or a judge not only risk the inhibition of all judges as they conscientiously endeavor to discharge their constitutional responsibilities. Atty. So nor met him before the publication of the articles. He testified that his criticism of a certain Atty. the Court. So were false and that Tulfo did not exert effort to verify the information before publishing his articles. and disagreement from lawyers. Art. People (March 28. Macasaet in the Malaya. So!. Art. “Ding” So at the South Harbor. 2008) o The case stemmed from certain articles that appeared in the “Business Circuit” column of Amado P. 1995 the following material. and upheld the same when it came to commentaries made on public figures and matters of public interest. o We have no problems with legitimate criticism pointing out flaws in our decisions. but against a person by the name of Atty. MAY MGA NAIWAN DING ASUNTO DOON SI ANNABELLE” “IMPOSIBLENG NASA AMERIKA NGAYON SI ANNABELLE DAHILA SA KALAT DIN ANG ASUNTO NILA DU’N. So had been promoted. VIII states that journalists “shall presume persons accused of crime of being innocent until proven otherwise” o In the present case. that this freedom carries duties and responsibilities. o The Journalist’s 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. because as a columnist. I of said code states that journalists “recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly”. petitioner Tulfo testified that he did not write the subject articles with malice. BUKOD PA SA NAPAKARAMING PINOY NA HUMAHANTING SA KANILA MAS MALAKING PROBLEMA ANG KAILANGAN NIYANG HARAPIN SA STATES DAHIL SA PERANG NADISPALKO NILA. As previously mentioned. to wit: “MAS MALAKING HALAGA ANG NADISPALKO NILA SA STATES. Tulfo wrote another wrote another article saying “Nagalit ang tarantadong si Atty. judicial reasoning. comes with an equal burden of responsible exercise of that right. o For a discreditable imputation to a public official to be actionable.

his affairs. PLEASE FO TELL ME THE STATUS OF THOSE CASE. by his accomplishments. Any statement that does not contain a provably false factual connotation will receive full constitutional protection. Not only was there malice in law. The radio stations were based in Cebu City but the programs were aired over a large portion of the Visayas and Mindanao. THE CASES WERE FOUND IN THE BLOTTER OF THE CEBU CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. Petitioner contends inter alia that as editor-publisher of the Sunday Post and as a member of the fourth estate. or contempt of the complainants.  Public figure – a person who. and of being a wastrel (that Annabelle Rama Gutierrez lost the earnings from their business through irresponsible gambling in casinos). Petitioner claims that there was no malice on her part because. (Cases were Malicious Mischief. CEBUCITY TEXT: IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SERVICE. CA (Sept. as well as in the Visayas and Mindanao. discredit. In other words. WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 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. PLEASE DO ENLIGHTEN ME REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF THE FOLLOWING WHICH APPEAR HEREUNDER. CBU-26582. . and his character. Guingguing v. considering that Gossip Tabloid had a nationwide circulation. has become a ‘public personage’. Complainant Eddie Gutierrez ran against then incumbent Golez for the congressional seat in Paranaque City. The attribution was made publicly. but there was also malice in fact. unless he public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice – that is. ESTAFA. 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 Palattao’s court. Lim caused the publication of records of criminal cases filed against complainant as well as photographs of the latter being arrested. The complainants successfully refuted the imputations during the trial. and that they remained on good terms with the manufacturing company of cookware. 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. then no conviction of live can be had. An examination of the records of this case showed that the précis of information contained in the questioned publication were actually true. 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.o o o o  their family returned to the Philippines to evade prosecution in America). the article reeks of malice. 1991. 13. 30. Complainant was a broadcast journalist who handled two programs for radio stations DYLA and DYFX. The victims were identified and identifiable. STATION DYFX. the article being malicious in itself. o On Oct. both petitioner and Tugas failed to adduce evidence to show the truth of the allegations in the article despite the opportunity to do so. fame or mode of living or by adopting a profession or calling which give the public a legitimate interest in his doings. the lower court’s finding of guilt against him constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to freedom of speech and of the press. 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. allegedly. as there was motive to talk ill against complainants during the electoral campaign. The full text of the advertisement which was the basis of the information for libel reads:  REQUEST FOR PUBLIC SERVICE ATTN: RADIOMAN CHOY TORRALBA. More importantly. Further worthy of mention is the admission of petitioner before the trial court that she had very close association with then Cong. as it tends to cause the dishonor. Golez and mayoralty candidate Joey Marquez. It can be gleaned from her testimony that petitioner had the motive to make defamatory imputations against complainants. To the contrary. The Sunday Post was circulated in the province of Bohol. a celebrity o Actual Malice Not Proven o It should thus proceed that if the statements made against the public figure are essentially true. ARCHIVED AND/OR PENDING. They proved that they could return anytime to the USA after the publication of the article. The lower court failed to appreciate their invocation of self defense o For that matter. These were published by means of a one-page advertisement paid for by Lim in the Sunday Post. no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct. and that she would use her skills as a writer to campaign for them. even if the defamatory statement is false. a weekly publication edited and published by petitioner.