UPDATED. Law on Mass Media & Communication: Philosophic Basis, Right to a Free Press, Right to Free Speech (3rd Exercise)

UPDATED.

Law on Mass Media and Communication: Philosophic Basis, Right to a Free Press, Right to Free Speech (3rd Exercise)

       Pls illustrate, using a news event, 1)the fundamental principle behind the constitutional guarantee of the right to a free press and the right to free speech as expounded upon by Justice Holmes in his dissent in Abrams vs. US;

          or

     2)the function of a free press as enunciated by Justice Malcolm when he said “Complete liberty to discuss the conduct of public officials is like a scalpel in the case of free speech. Its sharp incision relieved the abscesses of officialdom…, etc”

     For the bonus post: please write your opinion (there are no right or wrong answers for this one:  your opinion will be evaluated based on your legal reasoning, or arguments based on legal principles i.e., your opinion should not just be rants) on the following questions (answer all) :

    1.A group of UP students and faculty members issued a statement today calling for the banning of the Marcoses (Imee Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Imelda Marcos) and groups associated with them, from using any UP facility. Does this violate any constitutional right of the Marcoses? Does it violate their right to free speech and freedom of assembly? Why or why not? Explain (Or: Specifically, as outsiders, if they are not allowed to use any UP facility, would such a “ban” be an unconstitutional restraint on  their right to free speech?  )
     2.Would the ban be a form of discrimination that constitutes a violation of the Constitution, specifically the right to “equal protection of the law” clause? (Or: Specifically: Would the “ban” be a form of discrimination against a class of persons based on their political beliefs, as to be unconstitutional? ) Why or why not? Explain.

3. Or : Would the “ban” be simply an action similar to   declaring a certain individual, or certain individuals,  persona non grata, resulting in barring said person ,or persons,  from entering a specific locality — legally and lawfully practised by local governments? Explain (explain by using a modicum of research).

 

19 thoughts on “UPDATED. Law on Mass Media & Communication: Philosophic Basis, Right to a Free Press, Right to Free Speech (3rd Exercise)

  1. THIRD WEEK POST:

    https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/07/06/1830962/tough-corruption-not-many-fired-officials-rehired

    “MANILA, Philippines — President Duterte has taken great pride in firing nearly two dozen officials in an anti-corruption drive since he came to power two years ago. The catch: about a quarter have already been rehired.”

    In this article by the Philippine Star, they elaborated how Duterte’s quest to eradicate corruption is not being followed as Duterte himself, after firing corrupt officials, rehires them for different positions. Thus, the corruption of the government continues. Looking back at our lesson, this is just like what Justice Malcolm said on the free press’ function: “Complete liberty to discuss the conduct of public officials is like a scalpel in the case of free speech. Its sharp incision relieved the abscesses of officialdom, etc.” In this case, it showed how under Duterte’s administration, the corruption didn’t lessen but is part of a vicious cycle. He only declares to an audience him firing corrupt officials but doesn’t announce rehiring them or transferring them to different positions. Moreover, this article lists some of the officials Duterte has rehired and says what corrupt deeds they have done (and what they got away with) while in government. It really shows us their faults and abuses.

    From our lesson this week, it really reflects how the free press is important because it serves as society’s watchdog. It especially can show us the abuses and corruption within government. If it weren’t for this news, we would be completely blinded by the undertakings of the government and would not be able to act against these kinds of corruption. Having a free press enables us to see what is happening and ultimately gives us the power to decide on either supporting or negating these actions by our politicians.

  2. THIRD WEEK POST:

    Link: https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/07/06/1830962/tough-corruption-not-many-fired-officials-rehired

    “MANILA, Philippines — President Duterte has taken great pride in firing nearly two dozen officials in an anti-corruption drive since he came to power two years ago. The catch: about a quarter have already been rehired.”

    In this article by the Philippine Star, they elaborated how Duterte’s quest to eradicate corruption is not being followed as Duterte himself, after firing corrupt officials, rehires them for different positions. Thus, the corruption of the government continues. Looking back at our lesson, this is just like what Justice Malcolm said on the free press’ function: “Complete liberty to discuss the conduct of public officials is like a scalpel in the case of free speech. Its sharp incision relieved the abscesses of officialdom, etc.” In this case, it showed how under Duterte’s administration, the corruption didn’t lessen but is part of a vicious cycle. He only declares to an audience him firing corrupt officials but doesn’t announce rehiring them or transferring them to different positions. Moreover, this article lists some of the officials Duterte has rehired and says what corrupt deeds they have done (and what they got away with) while in government. It really shows us their faults and abuses.

    From our lesson this week, it really reflects how the free press is important because it serves as society’s watchdog. It especially can show us the abuses and corruption within government. If it weren’t for this news, we would be completely blinded by the undertakings of the government and would not be able to act against these kinds of corruption. Having a free press enables us to see what is happening and ultimately gives us the power to decide on either supporting or negating these actions by our politicians.

  3. THIRD WEEK BONUS:

    Personally, if they are banned, I think that it doesn’t violate the constitutional rights of the Marcoses or their right to free speech and assembly because it is within the rights of the owners to ban them. According to property rights law, they can ban anyone as long as its not based on sex, religion, race, etc. In this case, UP can ban the Marcoses because of what they’ve done in the past. It’s not a matter of restraining their right to free speech but more of banning them due to past transgressions.
    I don’t think its unconstitutional. Like what I said, they should be banned because of their past transgressions. For example, the Nazis of Germany. Any item that is symbolic of the Nazis were taken down or burned. If you make a Nazi symbol, whether you are aware of it or not, you’ll be imprisoned. This was Germany’s efforts to stop a very dark part of their history from happening again. I think there is a parallelism of this with the Marcoses. They have caused so much deaths and problems in the Philippines and they didn’t even pay it back or get imprisoned for it. Another reason is that UP is a space that has been greatly and negatively been affected by the Marcoses and the Marcos regime. It is also a space that is very anti-Marcos. And as it is an institution on its own, it can ban them from coming over to the said university. It is not then a discrimination against a person’s political beliefs but of their past misdeeds. Thus, it does not coincide with the accusation that it restrains their freedom to free speech or assembly.
    It is very much like a persona non grata. The phrase is Latin, meaning “unwelcome person”. It is basically practiced by our local government units to prohibit a person from entering a place or locality due to offenses that that person might have done to an official, etc. An example would be in 2005, wherein the Batangas government declared Mei-Magsino-Lubis (from Philippine Daily Inquirer) as persona non grata as he infuriated the Batangas governor due to a comment he said about him. Minor offenses like those can instigate a persona non grata. In the case of UP and the Marcoses, it is much similar to that as the Marcoses have inflicted much pain and suffering and even death to some UP students and professors. UP is also very against them and treats them as unwelcomed visitors. So they are like persona non grata.

    Link for #3: https://philippinelegal.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/role-confusion/

  4. 3rd Exercise
    Sept 3 2018
    Nestor Corrales

    http://globalnation.inquirer.net/169528/part-free-press-says-palace-israel-media-sentiment-vs-duterte
    JERUSALEM – Malacañang on Monday said the opposition of some Israeli lawmakers here and the critical reporting of the local media on the official visit of President Rodrigo Duterte in their country are “part of the free press.”

    President Durte’s visit to Israel has stirred up some commotion among the country’s media. As if he didn’t stir enough commotion in our press here in the Philippines, many have speculated his visit quite questionable as his rep for causing extrajudicial killings has reached to different parts of the world. President Spokesperson Harry Roque acknowledges this as free press recognizing its rights to create such stories.

    In our discussion of free press, we discussed the importance of free press and how its rights must be upheld. Duterte’s administration could’ve thought of ways to take these down but instead respects the rights of free press. This is the voice of people who desire to tell others what is going on with important matters of the world. In this case the people of Israel used Duterte to give insights of the traits of their government and how they would overlook his characteristics to make negotiations.

  5. https://www.rappler.com/nation/211033-patricia-fox-petition-challenges-doj-bureau-immigration-deportation-order

    Sister Patricia Fox challenges deportation order at DOJ
    Lian Buan
    @lianbuan
    Published 4:15 PM, September 03, 2018
    Updated 4:15 PM, September 03, 2018

    “MANILA, Philippines – Australian missionary nun Patricia Fox filed on Monday, September 3, a petition for review at the Department of Justice (DOJ) asking for a reversal of the deportation order against her by the Bureau of Immigration (BI).”

    This news article illustrates us a good example of exercising dissent and constitutional guarantees of right to free speech. As we all know, Sister Patricia Fox is a 71-year old Australian missionary who faces deportation after the verbal attacks on the nun regarding his alleged participation in political rallies. According to Sister Fox, her activities in support of the workers and national minorities in the Philippines are in line with her missionary. Her dissent and act of challenging the Bureau of Immigration (BI) in a dialogue is fundamentally an act practicing her right to freedom of expression and religious rights. This case is also similar to our lecture (Abrams vs. United States) where Justice Holmes raised very important points like “free trade of ideas” and “freedom of speech”. Although the news article confirmed that the dialogue did not take place, Sister Pat’s action is good illustration of how a person under political persecution can use his or her constitutional rights to defend herself.

  6. Exercise 3:

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1027938/nfa-chief-admits-fund-diversion-for-debt-payment

    NFA chief admits fund diversion for debt payment

    “National Food Authority (NFA) Administrator Jason Aquino on Monday admitted that the agency used nearly all of P7 billion in state subsidy for the purchase of palay (unhusked rice) from farmers this year to service its debts without approval from the agency’s policy-making body.”

    The article discusses the latest update on the NFA rice supply issue and overall rice price increase in the Philippines. The news article also sheds light on the controversies happening inside the National Food Authority (NFA) and the authorities linked to it.

    This is the watchdog function of the media that needs to be protected and upheld. It is important that the public is provided with the right information about matters of the government especially if it involves issues that has great effect to the lives of the people. In this case, presenting the questionable decision of the NFA head Jason Aquino would allow the public to form well-informed opinion and stand on the issue.

  7. NFA chief admits fund diversion for debt payment

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1027938/nfa-chief-admits-fund-diversion-for-debt-payment

    “National Food Authority (NFA) Administrator Jason Aquino on Monday admitted that the agency used nearly all of P7 billion in state subsidy for the purchase of palay (unhusked rice) from farmers this year to service its debts without approval from the agency’s policy-making body.”

    This article presents the latest updates and information regarding the NFA rice supply shortage and overall rice price hike–a matter that directly affects Filipino people who are primary consumers of rice. It also sheds light on the funding issue for the institution.

    The presentation of facts and even controversies are all part of the watchdog function of media. In this case, it is a matter that directly affects the people and thus the government should be held accountable. This article exposes the questionable decision made by NFA head Jason Aquino, thus allowing the public to be aware of what really is happening and form informed opinion regarding the issue.

  8. Third week bonus:

    Regarding this issue, I think that what we should take into consideration is the right of the University of the Philippines (as the property owners) to call the shot whether or not they should allow the Marcoses to use UP facilities, because UP has the constitutional right to disallow a person/ group of people as stated in R.P. No. 386 (Civil Code of the Philippines ) Article 429 (The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.) Since the argument of the UP faculty, students and alumni who strongly opposed Imee Marcos and the Kabataang Baragay to use the facility is based on a political standpoint (accounting their history of human rights violations against UP students during the Martial Law) and not discrimination based on sex, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, gender expression or civil status. I think it is arguable that the banning of the Marcoses from using UP facilities is not unconstitutional.

    In our past lectures, we have discussed that the Bill of Rights is basically created to limit the powers of the government. The Bill of Rights and Equal Protection of the Law clause can only be invoked by the people and civil groups against the government. In this case, since Imee Marcos is a government official, this clause cannt be used to defend herself. Also, Republic Act No. 6713, Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees states that all government officials should always uphold public interest above their personal interests, uphold justice, sincerity and accountability to the public. Imee Marcos should and must espouse these norms and conduct as dictated by law.

    Finally, as a respected institution, the UP administration can institutionalize its political stand regarding the anti-marcos and anti-dictatorship struggle. As what the student and faculty in the presscon stated the “Urgent need for the UP administration leadership to remember the history of UP as a bastion of the anti-dictatorship movement and an institution that opposes and exposes any and all attempts in historical revisionism” In practice, the UP administration has accorded agreements to protect its community from political persecution and military surveillance (for example PNP and AFP must seek permission from the UP administration before conducting any operation). Similarly, the UP Administration can move for the banning of the Marcoses from using its facilities, especially if it espouses any electoral campaign engagements. There are also practices in local governments were persona non grata status (“unwelcome person” in Laatin) was given to some personalities. An example is in the year 2008 where GRP peace process adviser Hermogenes Esperon became a persona no grata in Zamboanga City because of allegedly traitors to the cause of Mindanao.

    sources:
    https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
    https://philippinelegal.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/role-confusion/

    https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1989/ra_6713_1989.html

  9. Third Week Regular Post: Ex-PMA official fired for corruption

    https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/08/15/1842752/ex-pma-official-fired-corruption

    “MANILA, Philippines — President Duterte has fired a military officer for alleged malversation of the allowances of Philippine Military Academy (PMA) cadets.”

    In the article, Duterte states that Lt. Col. Hector Maraña malversed an amount of P15 million from the cadets’ allowance. Therefore, Duterte formally discharged him from the service.

    As the fourth estate, the media serves a watchdog function. The free press oversees and calls out the state. Like a scalpel, the free press could cut through genuine public servants and corrupt officials. When the media reports about the misdeeds of certain officials, the reportage will tarnish reputations enough to rid offices of the latter.

  10. Third Week Bonus Post

    Banning the Marcoses in UP would not be a violation of their constitutional rights. The university reserves the right to choose whom it lends venues. According to the Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 429, “the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.”

    Prohibiting the Marcoses from entering UP not based on their SOGIE, race, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, etc. but for their offenses against activists in UP is a valid resolution. Besides, they would still able to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed right to speak and to peaceably assemble someplace else. They are still equally protected by the law.

    Declaring individuals as persona non grata has been a practice not just by the state but also by local governments. Local governments may ban people from visiting their city at any time without having to explain their decision, as stated under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. For example, in 2014, Ramon Bautista was declared a persona non grata by the Davao City Council because of his controversial jokes during the celebration of Kadayawan Festival. Banning the Marcoses would be similar to declaring them persona non grata.

    Sources:
    http://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippinesbook2.htm
    https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1964/06/19640624%2002-10%20AM/Ch_III_3p.pdf

  11. THIRD WEEK REGULAR POST

    Link: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1021310/duterte-admits-drug-problem-wont-end-under-his-watch

    Duterte admits drug problem won’t end under his watch
    President Rodrigo Duterte on Tuesday admitted that the illegal drugs problem will not end under his watch.
    “I’m tired, and I think I cannot fulfill my promise of ending all these problems,” a seemingly helpless Duterte said during a speech at the launch of “Pilipinas Angat Lahat” program at Malacañang.

    By: Julius N. Leonen
    INQUIRER.net / 09:14 PM August 14, 2018

    The news report highlighted the president’s dismay regarding his campaign against drug. He further stated that the situation on drugs might just worsen. The report also included Duterte’s thoughts about stepping down from his office due to the seemingly endless corruption activities continue to occur under his administration.

    News reports such as this highlight the role of the media as the fourth estate and as the watchdog of society. It is in the public’s interest to know the state of Duterter’s war on drugs and corruption, seeing how his war on drugs in particular has resulted to numerous deaths and arrests.

  12. THIRD WEEK BONUS POST
    With regards to this topic, I do not think that there are any violations commited by not letting the Marcoses use any of the UP Facilities. UP students and faculty members has no intention to discriminate any racial, gender or their intention of their said “event”. UP has the right to stop them from using the establishment, even though it is rented by another group. Legally, UP owns the land and establishment. Thus, making their intervention with their services legal. Banning them from entering UP or any facility would not be unconstitutional for the long history of their actions of abusing their powers. No matter what the Marcoses say or do regarding their rights, UP will always know the truth and will never forget the violence they did against students and citizens who got in their way.

  13. 3rd Week Regular Post

    https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/amp.rappler.com/nation/211095-opposition-senators-statements-duterte-revocation-order-trillanes-amnesty

    “Opposition senators to fight ‘illegal, abusive’ Duterte order vs Trillanes”

    This article tells us about the reaction of the opposition senators to the Proclamation 575 that Duterte signed to declare that Trillanes’ amnesty “void ab initio.”

    Senator Trillanes have been the apple of the eye of the President and has been thought as a fierce critic of the President after his numerous statements.

    Being in the eye of the President, Trillanes faced a lot of controversies especially those which came from the President himself. And I think he’s getting all those attention from the President because he speaks of him in a way the President doesn’t want him to.

    This we can connect to how Duterte threatened the Commission on Human Rights a budget cut when they criticized the President’s war on drugs.

    Is the President abusing his presidential power? And does he, after his various threats to the people at his bad side, really silences his critics?

  14. THIRD WEEK BONUS:

    The call for the banning of the Marcoses and groups associated with them from using any UP facility doesn’t violate their right to free speech as it doesn’t hinder them from speaking their minds. With regards to their right to freedom of assembly, the Public Assembly Act of 1985 ensures their right to a public assembly, but only in public places such as highways, boulevards, parks, plazas, etc. This doesn’t automatically grant them permission to freely use any of UP’s facility given that it is not a public place.

    Also, the ban can’t be considered as a form of discrimination, as the basis of it transcends political beliefs. While it is true that the university is openly against the Marcoses, it is not purely on political differences but because of the past transgression and atrocities their family has caused, not just to the UP community, but also to the entirety of the Philippines.

    Persona non grata has been practiced by many local governments here in the Philippines. It prohibits a person from entering a place because of certain actions deemed unacceptable. An example of this is Ramon Bautista, who was declared persona non grata by Davao city after his controversial joke during the Kadayawan Festival was cited as a form of sexual harassment. Given that the provisions of this require no basis in any national law, declaring someone as persona non grata is totally up to their discretion. While UP has strong resentment against the Marcoses, banning them would be much like declaring personae non gratae on them as it is evident that they are hated by the UP community.

    Sources:
    “The Public Assembly Act of 1985″(https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/bataspam/bp1985/bp_880_1985.html)
    Role Confusion (https://philippinelegal.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/role-confusion/)

  15. THIRD WEEK REGULAR POST – 3 Valenzuela cops held for ‘kotong’ targeting junk shops

    “Three Valenzuela City policemen and a civilian have been arrested for allegedly extorting money from junk shop owners in Barangay Ugong.”

    The short article exposes the corrupt acts of four local policemen in Valenzuela. The four were said to have been extorting money from junk shops in the area, ranging from around 200-500 Pesos.

    According to Justice Malcolm, it is one of the functions of the free press to discuss the conduct of public officials. The media was able to exercise this function by exposing acts that threaten or abuse the public that these officials are supposed to serve.

    Sources: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1016829/3-valenzuela-cops-held-for-kotong-targeting-junk-shops#ixzz5QDJ638ti

  16. THIRD WEEK REGULAR POST:

    https://www.rappler.com/business/211176-inflation-rate-philippines-august-2018

    “Inflation or the increase in the prices of goods climbed to another 9-year high, hitting 6.4% in August.”

    This news article illustrated the surge of inflation into a whopping 6.4% this month, which is also the fastest rising rate since March 2009 during Arroyo’s administration. The article also featured how the current inflation rate surpassed The Department of Finance and BSP’s August inflation forecast of only 5.9%.

    This shows the importance of media as a watchdog of society as it is important for the people to know the current state of the our economy, and understand the reason for continuous increase in the prices of goods.

  17. THIRD WEEK BONUS POST

    UP has the right to disallow persons from using its property. Banning the Marcoses from using such facilities would not trample on any of their constitutional rights as UP owns the land. According to Article 429 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, “The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.” To add, UP Diliman has already practiced restrictions on its property such as its banning of pets, skaters, motorcycles, and tricycles on the Academic Oval regardless of whether or not it is a public space.

    The ban would not be a form of discrimination as the Marcoses are allowed to voice their opinions and hold assemblies anywhere else.

    Banning the Marcoses could be quite similar to declaring them persona non grata. Persona non grata literally means “unwelcome person” and the Marcoses are already unwelcome on UP soil by the general public. An example of a popular person declared persona non grata in the Philippines is actress Claire Danes after her demeaning remarks on the city of Manila.

    Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippinesbook2.htm
    https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/persona-non-grata/

  18. Third Week Regular Post: PNP relieves Isulan, Sultan Kudarat police officials over Sunday blast

    Link: https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/09/03/1848313/pnp-relieves-isulan-sultan-kudarat-police-officials-over-sunday-blast#CmpfAtpjw1a0mydu.99

    “MANILA, Philippines — Philippine National Police Director General Oscar Albayalde has ordered the relief of Isulan town and Sultan Kudarat provincial police officials in the wake of a a bombing there, the second in just five days.”

    This news proves the watchdog function of the press. The ability of the press to freely become the Fourth Estate or to check and balance what the administration is doing. This function of the press is vital in a democratic country and protected by our consittution.

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.