By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
The limits of freedom of expression
Recent events in our country have once again highlighted the need to prevent the proliferation of fake news and the delicate task of regulating free speech. Let us revisit how the Supreme Court addressed this challenging task in its decisions upholding constitutionally protected freedom of expression and its limitations.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right enshrined in the Philippine Constitution, allowing individuals to voice their opinions, share ideas, and engage in public discourse. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations, particularly when it intersects with other critical societal interests, such as the administration of justice and public order.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines has consistently emphasized that while freedom of expression is a cherished liberty, it must be balanced against the need to maintain respect for the judiciary and the integrity of legal proceedings. In the landmark case of Chavez v. Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. 168338 (2008), the Court ruled that any attempt to restrict freedom of the press must be met with a critical examination, allowing such restrictions only in the presence of a “clear and present danger” to public order or the administration of justice. The Court stated, “freedom of the press is crucial and so inextricably woven into the right to free speech and free expression, that any attempt to restrict it must be met with an examination so critical that only a danger that is clear and present would be allowed to curtail it” (Chavez v. Gonzales, et al. (2008)).
Moreover, in ABS-CBN Corporation, et al. v. Andalampatuan, Jr., G.R. No. 227004 (2023), the Court addressed the delicate balance between freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial. The ruling highlighted that while the press has the right to report on judicial proceedings, such reporting must not interfere with the administration of justice. The Court noted, “the administration of justice and the freedom of the press, though separate and distinct, are equally sacred, and neither should be violated by the other” (ABS-CBN Corporation, et al. v. Andalampatuan, Jr. (2023)).
In the case of Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651 (2003), the Court reiterated the importance of the “compelling state interest” test when evaluating limitations on religious freedom and expression. The Court ruled that the state’s interest in preserving marriage and family must be compelling enough to override an individual’s religious beliefs, thus establishing a precedent for how freedom of expression can be limited in certain contexts (Estrada v. Escritor (2003)).
These cases illustrate that while freedom of expression is a vital component of a democratic society, it is not without its boundaries. Certain expressions may be restricted to protect other fundamental rights and societal interests. As citizens, it is essential to understand these limits to ensure that our exercise of free speech does not infringe upon the rights of others or undermine the institutions that uphold our democracy.