Media Laws and Ethics (Philippine Constitution)

Summary

This lesson delves into the Philippine Constitution's stance on media freedom and ethics, emphasizing the importance of understanding relevant laws that affect free speech and mass media. It highlights the country's historical struggle for press freedom and the 1987 Constitution's protection of expression. The discussion includes key cases like Zoeta v. Court of Appeals, which underscores privacy rights, and Vivarius v. Saint Theresa's College, focusing on informational privacy in social networks. The lesson also addresses the non-absolute nature of free speech, with limitations like the clear and present danger rule, using the Chavez v. Gonzalez case to illustrate these points.

Takeaways

• 📜 The Philippine Constitution plays a crucial role in safeguarding free speech and press freedom, with specific articles addressing these rights.
• 🏛️ The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, which was ratified in 1987, is the supreme law of the nation and sets the framework for media laws and regulations.
• 🗞️ The Philippine press is considered one of the freest in Asia, despite historical complexities and the influence of media owners with political and business interests.
• 📚 Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution emphasizes the role of the media in nation-building and the importance of transparency in public transactions.
• 📑 Article 3, Section 3 of the Bill of Rights protects the privacy of communication and correspondence, as illustrated in the Zoeta vs. Court of Appeals case.
• 🚫 The right to privacy is not absolute and can be overridden by lawful orders or when public safety or order requires it, as per the Constitution.
• 🤝 In Vivarius vs. Saint Theresa's College, the court discussed the extent of privacy rights in online social networks, emphasizing the need for users to manifest an intention to keep information private.
• 📰 Freedom of the press comes with the responsibility of providing accurate, objective, and fair reporting to the public, as outlined in the Constitution.
• 🚫 Freedom of expression, including press freedom, is not absolute and can be regulated by the state to protect the equal rights of others, as per Article 3, Section 4.
• 📖 The Chavez vs. Gonzalez case highlights the limitations on freedom of expression and the application of the 'clear and present danger' rule in the context of press statements and prior restraint.

Q & A

What is the significance of the Philippine press in the country's history?

The Philippine press has played a significant role in the country's history, dating back to the national struggle for liberation from Spanish colonial rule. It has been a vehicle for disseminating ideas and has been influential in shaping the country's political landscape.

When was the Philippine Republic proclaimed, and what was its significance?

The Philippine Republic was proclaimed in 1898, marking the country's first step towards freedom from foreign powers and making it the first Asian country to win its independence.

How did the United States' involvement affect the Philippine press?

After the Spanish-American War, the United States took control of the Philippines, leading to the establishment of the Philippine Commonwealth. This period influenced the development of the press, which later became strong, independent, and influential upon the country's full sovereignty in 1946.

What does the 1987 Philippine Constitution say about freedom of speech and expression?

The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines prohibits laws that abridge the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, ensuring these rights are protected under the supreme law of the nation.

What are the two sections of the 1987 Constitution that discuss the role of media in nation-building?

The two sections of the 1987 Constitution that discuss the role of media in nation-building are Section 24 and Section 28, found under Article 2 Declaration of Principles and State Policies.

What is the 'clear and present danger rule' as it pertains to freedom of speech?

The 'clear and present danger rule' is an exception to the freedom of speech that allows for restrictions when speech is likely to incite imminent lawless action or cause substantial harm.

What is the significance of the Zoleta vs. Court of Appeals case in the context of privacy rights?

The Zoleta vs. Court of Appeals case highlights the importance of privacy rights within a marriage. The court ruled that one spouse cannot violate the other's privacy by searching their personal belongings without consent, even in cases of suspected infidelity.

What is the right to informational privacy, and how does it relate to social media?

The right to informational privacy is the right of individuals to control information about themselves. In the context of social media, it relates to how users can manage who has access to their personal information and posts.

What did the Vivarius vs. Saint Theresa's College case determine about privacy on social media?

The Vivarius vs. Saint Theresa's College case determined that there is no expectation of privacy on social media if a user does not utilize privacy settings to limit the visibility of their information.

What are the two freedoms protected by Article 3, Section 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution?

Article 3, Section 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution protects the freedom from prior restraint, which is the freedom from government censorship, and the freedom from subsequent punishment, which assures that authors are not punished after making a publication.

How does the 1987 Constitution address the limitations of freedom of expression and the press?

The 1987 Constitution acknowledges that freedom of expression and the press are not absolute rights. It allows for certain regulations by the state to protect the equal rights of others and to ensure accurate, objective, and fair reporting.