Media Laws and Ethics (Philippine Constitution)
Summary
TLDRThis 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.
Outlines
📜 Philippine Media and Free Speech Laws
This paragraph discusses the historical context and legal framework surrounding free speech and media in the Philippines. It highlights the country's struggle for liberation and the significant role the press played in the national struggle for independence. The Philippine Commonwealth's establishment and the country's full sovereignty in 1946 are mentioned, emphasizing the press's strong and independent role. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is highlighted for its protection of press freedom, with specific references to Article 2, Section 24 and 28, and Article 3, Section 3, which address the role of media in nation-building and the privacy of communication. The paragraph also introduces a case study on the inadmissibility of evidence obtained without respecting privacy rights, illustrating the application of these constitutional provisions.
🔒 Privacy Rights and Social Media
The second paragraph delves into the concept of informational privacy, focusing on a case involving Vivarius versus Saint Theresa's College. This case examines the extent to which privacy rights should be protected on social media platforms designed for information sharing. It discusses the right to privacy in the context of Facebook, where privacy settings can limit the visibility of personal information. The court's decision emphasized that an individual's expectation of privacy on social media is contingent upon their use of privacy tools to restrict access to their information. The paragraph also touches on the broader implications of the 1987 Constitution's Article 3, Section 4, which balances freedom of expression with the responsibility of the press to provide accurate and fair reporting, and Article 16, which guarantees the right to access official records of public interest.
📢 Freedom of Expression and Its Limitations
The final paragraph addresses the limitations of freedom of expression as outlined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It explains the concepts of freedom from prior restraint and subsequent punishment, emphasizing that these freedoms are not absolute and can be subject to state regulations to protect the rights of others. The paragraph discusses the 'clear and present danger rule' as an exception to freedom of speech, using the case of Chavez versus Gonzalez and the National Telecommunication as an example. This case involves the controversy over a press statement that potentially constituted a form of prior restraint, infringing on freedom of speech and press. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the constitutional limitations on freedom of expression and the implications of these limitations for media and public discourse.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Free Speech
💡Mass Media
💡Philippine Constitution
💡Press Freedom
💡Privacy of Communication
💡Prior Restraint
💡Subsequent Punishment
💡Clear and Present Danger Rule
💡National Telecommunication
💡Informational Privacy
Highlights
The Philippine constitution plays a crucial role in defining free speech and media ethics.
The Philippines has a complex history with its press, dating back to the struggle for independence from Spain.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution prohibits laws that abridge freedom of speech, expression, or the press.
Despite political and business interests, the Philippines is known for having the freest press in Asia.
The 1987 Constitution was presented to President Corazon C. Aquino and ratified through a plebiscite.
Congress must ensure that laws do not violate the constitutional protection of press freedom.
Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution discusses the role of media in nation building and public interest.
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution protects the privacy of communication and correspondence.
The case of Zoeta v. Court of Appeals highlights the protection of marital privacy despite legal separation proceedings.
The right to privacy is not lost upon entering a marriage, as established in the Zoeta case.
Exceptions to privacy protection include lawful orders and when public safety or order requires it.
The Vivarius v. Saint Theresa's College case addresses the right to informational privacy in social networks.
Facebook privacy settings and user expectations were central to the Vivarius case.
The court ruled that there's no privacy expectation if information on social media is publicly accessible.
Freedom of expression is not absolute and can be regulated to protect the rights of others.
Article 3, Section 7 of the Constitution guarantees access to official records of public interest.
The concept of freedom from prior restraint protects against government censorship.
The Chavez v. Gonzalez case examines the limits of press freedom and prior restraint.
The clear and present danger rule is an exception to freedom of speech and press.
Transcripts
um hello everyone so this is another
recording for
our lesson on media loss and ethics but
we're going to pay more attention on
some of the laws
relevant to free speech in mass media
under the philippine constitution
this is important because
you have to know the relevant laws again
as i've mentioned affecting free speech
and mass media limitations of freedom of
expression and for you to know as well
the
principles and processes of
communication and its importance to
society
now the philippines has always had a
complicated relationship with its press
going back to the country's national
struggle for liberation from the
colonial regime of spain
when the media ceded the armed
revolution with ideas drawn from europe
and with the proclamation of the
philippine republic in 1898 the
philippines became the first asian
country to win its freedom from a
foreign power
the country was taken over by the united
states at the end of the
spanish-american war leading to the
establishment of the philippine
commonwealth
and by the time the country claimed full
sovereignty in 1946
the press assumed a strong role
independent and influential
filipinos enshrined the protection of
press freedom in their written
constitutions both in the 1899-1935
the present constitution ratified in
1987 prohibits laws that will abridge
the freedom of speech
of expression or of the press
privatization of the broadcast industry
has set it apart
even with the media owners hauling
political or holding political and
business interests the country still
boasts of
having the freest press in asia
by the way
the
1987 constitution of the republic of the
philippines was presented to president
corazon c aquino on october 15 1986
but it was approved by the 1986
constitutional commission on october 12
1986.
it was ratified on february to 1987 by a
plebiscite
and then it was proclaimed in force on
february 11 1987
and since the philippine constitution is
the supreme law of the nation
when congress makes laws
it must not violate or contravene the
constitution
hence it is really important to know the
bylaws and provisions of the
constitution affecting mass media
as i said earlier we're gonna know the
relevant laws affecting free speech and
mass media
with emphasis on the philippine
constitution and in this slide we can
see that under the 1987 constitution on
article 2 declaration of principles and
state policies we can see two sections
section 24 and section 28
that both discuss the declarations of
the role of media in nation building and
full disclosure of public transactions
of public interests
another important provision under the
1987 constitution is article 3
of the bill of rights specifically
section 3 on the privacy of
communication and correspondence
the first case that i'd like you to look
at is
the case
on
zoeta versus the court of appeals
and martin
now this is basically about
[Music]
whether or an issue here is whether or
not the documents and papers in question
are inadmissible and evidence because
the petitioner here which is the wife of
a doctor
allegedly
transacted on the file cabinet of a
husband so the documents and papers were
seized for use and evidence in a case
for legal separation
and for disqualification from the
practice of medicine
so
without by the way without the knowledge
of
the
the husband
so
here
uh the court ruled that the
intimacies between husband and wife do
not justify any one of them in breaking
the drawers and cabinets of the other
and in ransacking them for any telltale
evidence of marital infidelity
so a person by contracting marriage does
not shed his or her integrity or his
right to privacy as an individual and
the constitutional protection is ever
available to him or to her
so
the court held that indeed the documents
and papers in question are inadmissible
in evidence
the constitutional injunction declaring
the privacy of communication and
correspondence to be inviolable
is no less applicable simply because it
is the wife who thinks herself aggrieved
by her husband's infidelity who is the
party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced
the only exception to the prohibition in
the constitution is if there is a lawful
order from say for example a court or
when public safety or order requires
otherwise as prescribed by law so any
violation of this provision renders the
evidence obtained inadmissible for any
purpose
in any proceeding
another case that i'd like you to look
at is this case between
vivarius versus saint theresa's college
so this case is
basically
about
the right to informational privacy which
is defined as the right of individuals
to control information about themselves
and the question to this case is that to
what extent should the right to privacy
be protected in online social networks
whose sole purpose is sharing
information over the web
in in this case
the petitioners argued that
the privacy settings on facebook limit
who can see
what information so this gives users a
subjective expectation of privacy
hence
the decision of the court was
that
whether or not there was indeed an
actual or threatened violation of the
right to privacy in the life liberty or
security of the miners involved in the
case
a writ of hobbyist data provides an
individual rights against invasion of
informational privacy and a nexus
between the right to privacy and the
right to life liberty or security must
be proven
because here the court agreed and the
court also ruled that before one can
have an expectation of privacy in her
facebook information he or she must
manifest an intention to keep that
information private by utilizing privacy
tools so if someone posts something on
facebook and does not limit who can see
that information there is no expectation
of privacy
so the photos in the case at hand were
all viewable by the friends of the girls
or by the general public
therefore the court ruled that the
defendants did not violate the miners
privacy rights by viewing and copying
the pictures on the miners facebook
pages
you can just read them the facts of the
case as you can see here on this side or
you can browse it based from the
suggested reference in your moodle
interface
since we have discussed section 3 of
article 3 the bill of rights under the
1987 constitution
we have
or will proceed now to section four
and so just as the 1987 constitution
guarantees freedom of expression
it also recognizes that freedom of
expression is not absolute and the right
can be subject to some regulations of
the state in order that it may not be
endorsed to the equal rights of others
so freedom of the press
carries a big responsibility to keep the
public informed with accurate objective
and fair reporting
also under this provision of the law on
the bill of rights article 3 section 7
gives
us every right
to
access on official records and documents
which
is of public interests
since it's protected by the law
article 16 of the general professions
section 10 in the 1987 constitution
gives every communication instructors
the right to give balance flow of
information in and out
of and across the country as long as it
would have respect freedom of speech and
of the press
there are two aspects of this provision
that we must remember first is the
freedom from priors trained now prior
restraint refers to the official
governmental restrictions on the press
or other forms of expression in advance
of actual publication or dissemination
freedom from
prior restraint is largely freedom from
government censorship of publications
whatever the form of censorship and
regardless of whether it is wielded by
the executive legislative or judicial
branch of the government
next is the freedom from subsequent
punishment
this means the assurance that after
making the utterance or publication the
author is not subjected to any form of
punishment
with all the provisions that we have
tackled under the 1987 constitution
protecting
the rights to
freedom of expression enough through
press the question is is freedom
embodied in the bill of rights absolute
the answer to that is a resounding no
because in every right there's always an
exception
or limitation
one exception is the clear and present
danger rule which means the abridgement
of the liberty
the last case that i'd like you to pay
attention is the case between chavez
versus gonzalez and the national
telecommunication
now this is a very popular case at that
time because
this case originates from the events
that occurred after or a year after the
2004 national and local election this is
regarding the statement of press
secretary ignacio buni then
on the
opposition or
of the the statement that he told the
reporters that the opposition was
planning to destabilize the
administration by releasing an audio
tape of a mobile phone so this was
actually that conversation between the
president of the philippines gloria
macapaca arroyo and high ranking
official of the commission on election
so if you remember the car seat
so the
um the thing that i'd like you to
remember from this is
whether freeze
speech and freedom of the press have
been infringed because of the prior
restraint
in in this case
uh we slide to the issue of whether the
mere press statements of the secretary
of justice and of the ntc in question
constitute a form of content based prior
restraint
that has transgressed the constitution
considering that petitioner has argued
that respondents press statement
constitute a form of impermissible prior
restraint which is a closer scrutiny of
this principle
as well as a subspecies of the content
based regulation
and we
this
case is very important because this is
also a test for limitations on freedom
of expression
that continues to be the clear and
present danger rule and that words are
used in such circumstances to be clear
and
present danger rule
and hence will bring about substantive
evils that the lawmakers has a right to
prevent i'd just like you to
read on the
entire case
from the sources consulted and the
suggested reference link that i'll be
posting in your moodle interface for
this
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)