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.

Outlines

00:00

📜 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.

05:02

🔒 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.

10:05

📢 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.

Keywords

💡Free Speech

Free speech refers to the right to express one's opinions and ideas without fear of censorship or punishment. In the context of the video, it is a fundamental right protected under the Philippine Constitution, which is essential for the media to function effectively. The video discusses how the Philippine constitution safeguards this right, emphasizing its importance in a democratic society.

💡Mass Media

Mass media encompasses various forms of communication that reach a large audience, including newspapers, television, and radio. The video highlights the role of mass media in Philippine society, particularly in relation to the freedom of expression and the dissemination of information. It underscores the media's responsibility to inform the public accurately and objectively.

💡Philippine Constitution

The Philippine Constitution is the supreme law of the Philippines, outlining the country's fundamental principles and laws. The video script mentions the constitution's protection of freedom of speech and press, as well as the limitations placed on these freedoms. It is central to understanding the legal framework within which Philippine media operates.

💡Press Freedom

Press freedom is the right of the media to report news and information without censorship or restraint from the government. The video discusses how the Philippine Constitution enshrines press freedom, making the Philippines one of the countries with the freest press in Asia. It also touches on the responsibilities that come with this freedom.

💡Privacy of Communication

Privacy of communication is the right to keep one's communication and correspondence private, protected under the Philippine Constitution. The video references a case where this right was invoked to determine the admissibility of evidence obtained without consent, illustrating the balance between privacy rights and the need for evidence in legal proceedings.

💡Prior Restraint

Prior restraint refers to government restrictions on speech or press before it is disseminated. The video explains that the Philippine Constitution protects against prior restraint, ensuring that the government cannot censor publications in advance. This is crucial for maintaining the freedom of the press and preventing government control over information.

💡Subsequent Punishment

Subsequent punishment is the potential for legal consequences after speech or publication has occurred. The video discusses the assurance that authors should not be subjected to punishment for their utterances or publications, which is part of the protection of freedom of expression under the Philippine Constitution.

💡Clear and Present Danger Rule

The clear and present danger rule is a legal principle that allows for the limitation of free speech when there is an imminent threat of harm. The video uses this concept to discuss the boundaries of free speech and press freedom, emphasizing that these rights are not absolute and can be limited to prevent substantive evils.

💡National Telecommunication

National Telecommunication refers to the government agency responsible for regulating telecommunications in the Philippines. The video mentions a case involving the National Telecommunication Commission, highlighting issues of press freedom and the potential for government interference in media operations.

💡Informational Privacy

Informational privacy is the right of individuals to control information about themselves, especially in digital contexts like social networks. The video discusses a case involving Facebook, where the court had to determine the extent of privacy rights in the context of online sharing, illustrating the evolving nature of privacy in the digital age.

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