1. In her daily morning radio program at DYUP, Janna Namula was red-faced in anger lambasting the members of the President's cabinet and other Malacanang officials, describing them as utterly dishonest and wasteful of people's money. The following day, a group of officials and employees of the Presidential Communications Operations Office who heard the broadcast and felt alluded to, considering they have been accused before of spending millions on food catering and out-of-town trips, filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Namula for uttering what the group claimed to be defamatory statements in her radio program. If you were the judge, how would you resolve the case? Decide with reasons.
Answer: There was no definite person or persons
dishonored. The crime of libel or oral defamation is a crime against honor such
that the person or persons dishonored must be identifiable even by innuendos;
otherwise, the crime against honor is not committed. The PCOO was not named nor
its individual members or officers particularly singled out. There is also no
injury to the reputation of the individual employees and officers of the
executive department, which is a large organization composed of several units,
that can give rise to an action for group libel. Each reputation is personal in
character to every person.
- Janna Namula was not making a malicious imputation, but
merely stating an opinion. Malice being inherently absent in the utterance, the
statement is not actionable as defamatory.
2.
In the morning of
October 25, 2019, a group of renegade Philippine soldiers instigated by the
Dilawans launched a coup d'etat against the government of President Rodrigo
Duterte. During the height of the fighting at the government channel PTV 4 and
in the areas surrounding Malacañang Palace, the military loyal to the
government closed Radio Station DZRS, which was excitedly reporting the
successes of the rebel soldiers and the movements towards Manila from the
provincial camps of other troops friendly to the rebels. The reports were
actually correct and factual. Two days later, after normalcy had returned and
the Duterte government had full control of the situation, DZRS sued the
government for damages because of the station’s temporary closure by the
government at the height of the coup. Is the closing down of Radio Station DZRS
on October 25, 2019 permissible? Discuss the legality or illegality of said
action.
Answer: The closing down of the radio station
during the fighting is permissible. With respect to news media, wartime
censorship has been upheld on the ground that when a nation is at war, many
things that might be said in time of peace are such hindrance to government's
efforts that their utterance will not be endured so long as there is still
fighting, and no court could regard such speech as protected by any
constitutional right. The security of community life may be protected against
boosting the morale of rebels, and incitements to acts of violence and the
overthrow by force of orderly government. (Near vs. Minnesota; New York Times
vs. United States)
3.
In a protest rally in front
of the Malacanang compound gate, Bea Betina Violente took up the makeshift
stage and began shouting "Ligtas na balik eskwela! End the semester! Mass
testing now! Duterte resign!” At the same time, she brought out a carton replica
of the head of the president and crushed it with a baseball bat before burning
it. Palace guards immediately approached Bea and arrested her. She was charged
with the crime of seditious speech and threatening the life of the president.
Bea argued that she was merely exercising her freedom of speech and freedom of
expression guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. As the judge, decide the case with
reasons.
Answer: As judge, I will acquit Bea Betina
Violente. Her freedom of speech should not be limited in the absence of a clear
and present danger of a substantive evil that the state had the right to
prevent. While she crushed a carton replica of the head of the president with a
bat and then burned it, such act did not harm anyone and did not amount to
lawless violence.
(Cite O'Brien case which held that when "speech"
and "non-speech" elements are combined in the same course of conduct,
only a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the
non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment
freedoms.)
4.
Ethics, Morality, Law --
(1) What is the relationship among these three? (2) Their difference?
Answer: Ethics answers the question "What
should I do?" as opposed to “What should one do?" Morality is an
informal framework of values, principles, beliefs, customs, and ways of living,
not often enforced by the state but by social pressures: "How should one
live? What should one do?" Laws, meanwhile, are formal rules regarding how
we behave as members of society. It answers the questions "What we must
do?" and "What we must not do?" But ideas about what is moral
and ethical still guide the formulation of laws.
5.
A weekly television program
by the religious congregation Iglesia Independente Sagrado presents and
propagates its religious doctrines and compares its practices with those of
other religions. The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board
(MTRCB) found as offensive several episodes of the program which attacked other
religions. So it required the show producers to submit their tapes for review
prior to airing. The religious organization brought the case to court on the
ground that the action of the MTRCB of requiring it to submit its tapes for
review is misguided because it suppresses the organization’s freedom of speech
and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. (1) Decide the case
with reasons. (2) Can the MTRCB ban the tapes on the ground that they attacked
other religions? Explain.
Answer: (1) The
religious organization cannot invoke freedom of speech and freedom of religion
as grounds for refusing to submit the tapes to the Movie and Television Review
and Classification Board for review prior to airing. When the religious
organization started presenting its program over television, it went into the
realm of action. The right to act on one's religious belief is not absolute and
is subject to police power for the protection of the general welfare. Hence the
tapes may be required to be reviewed prior to airing. (Cite Iglesia ni Cristo
vs. Court of Appeals)
(2) The MTRCB cannot ban the tapes on the ground that they
attacked other religions. In Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court held that even a side glance at the law creating the MTRCB
reveals that attacking other religions is not among the grounds to justify an
order prohibiting the broadcast of INC's television program. Moreover, the
broadcasts of IIS do not give rise to a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil. In the case of Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals, prior
restraint on speech, including the religious speech, cannot be justified by
hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil
which has taken the reality already on the ground.
Comments
Post a Comment