The
human mind is by nature an inquiring mind, whether of the very young or
of the very old or in-between; for freedom of speech in the words of
John Milton is the "liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely
according to conscience above all liberties." The people are not obliged
to speak of the conduct of their officials in whispers or with bated
breath in a free government, but only in a despotism.
Turning to the pages of history, freedom of speech as cherished in democratic countries was unknown in the Philippines before 1900. A prime cause for revolt was consequently ready made. Jose Rizal in "Filipinas Despues de Cien Anos" (The Philippines a Century Hence, pages 62 et seq.) describing reforms which the Filipinos insist upon, said: "The minister, . . . who wants his reforms to be reforms, must begin by declaring the press in the Philippines free and by instituting Filipino delegates." The Filipino patriots in Spain, through the columns of "La Solidaridad" and by other means invariably in exposing the wants of the Filipino people demanded freedom of speech (See Mabini, La Revolucion Filipina). The Malolos Constitution, the work of the Revolutionary Congress, in its Bill of Rights, zealously guarded freedom of speech and press and assembly and petition.
*****
Freedom of speech took roots in the Philippines during the American
occupation. The Constitution of the United States and the State
constitutions guarantee the right of freedom of speech and press and the
right of assembly and petition. We are therefore, not surprised to find
President McKinley in that Magna Charta of Philippine Liberty, the
Instruction to the Second Philippine Commission, of April 7, 1900,
laying down the inviolable rule "That no law shall be passed abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press or of the rights of the people to
peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of
grievances." The Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902,
and the Jones Law, the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, in the nature
of organic acts for the Philippines, continued this guaranty. The words
quoted are not unfamiliar to students of Constitutional Law, for they
are the counterpart of the first amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, which the American people demanded before giving their
approval to the Constitution.
*****
The guaranties mentioned are now part and parcel of the Constitution
of the Philippines. These paragraphs found in the Philippine Bill of
Rights are not threadbare verbiage. The language carries with it all the
applicable jurisprudence of great English and American Constitutional
cases. (Kepner vs. U. S. [1904], 195 U. S., 100; Serra vs. Mortiga
[1907], 204 U. S., 470.) And what are these principles? Volumes would
inadequately answer. But included are the following:
*****
The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand
a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the
conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The
sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men
in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the
wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public
officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his
official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the
individual be exalted. Of course, criticism does not authorize
defamation. Nevertheless, as the individual is less than the State, so
must expected criticism be born for the common good. Rising superior to
any official, or set of officials, to the Chief Executive, to the
Legislature, to the Judiciary — to any or all the agencies of Government
— public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and
democracy. (See the well considered cases of Wason vs. Walter, 4 L.R. 4
Q. B., 73; Seymour vs. Butterworth, 3 F. & F., 372; The Queen vs.
Sir R. Garden, 5 Q. B. D., 1.)
*****
The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to
criticize judicial conduct. The administration of the law is a matter
of vital public concern. Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is,
therefore, a fit subject for proper comment. If the people cannot
criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public
officer, public opinion will be effectively muzzled. Attempted
terrorization of public opinion on the part of the judiciary would be
tyranny of the basest sort. The sword of Damocles in the hands of a
judge does not hang suspended over the individual who dares to assert
his prerogative as a citizen and to stand up bravely before any
official. On the contrary, it is a duty which every one owes to society
or to the State to assist in the investigation of any alleged
misconduct. It is further the duty of all who know of any official
dereliction on the part of a magistrate or the wrongful act of any
public officer to bring the facts to the notice of those whose duty it
is to inquire into and punish them. In the words of Mr. Justice Gayner,
who contributed so largely to the law of libel. "The people are not
obliged to speak of the conduct of their officials in whispers or with
bated breath in a free government, but only in a despotism." (Howarth
vs. Barlow [1906], 113 App. Div., N. Y., 510.)
*****
The right to assemble and petition is the necessary consequence of
republican institutions and the complement of the right of free speech.
Assembly means a right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for
consultation in respect to public affairs. Petition means that any
person or group of persons can apply, without fear of penalty, to the
appropriate branch or office of the government for a redress of
grievances. The persons assembling and petitioning must, of course,
assume responsibility for the charges made.
0 comments:
Post a Comment