Libel in relation to freedoms of speech, press, assembly and petition

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appelle, vs. GREGORIO PERFECTO, defendant-appellant. EN BANC, G.R. No. 16924, March 23, 1922


"x x x.

In the case of United States vs. Bustos ([1918], 37 Phil., 731, 739), it was said, and it is now repeated:

Freedom of speech as cherished in democratic countries was unknown in the Philippine Islands before 1900. A prime cause for revolt was consequently ready made. Jose Rizal in Filipinas Despues de Cien Años ( The Philippines a Century Hence, pages 62 et seq.) describing "the reforms sine quibus, non," 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 "liberty of the press, of cults, and of associations." (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.

x x x x x x x x x

A reform so sacred to the people of these Islands and won at so dear a cost, should now be protected and carried forward as one would protect and preserve the covenant of liberty itself.

Next comes the period of American-Filipino cooperative effort. 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 Instructions 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.

x x x x x x x x x

The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Compete 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 borne 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.

The development of an informed public opinion in the Philippines can certainly not be brought about by the constant prosecution of those citizens who have the courage to denounce the maladministration of public affairs. The time of prosecuting officers could be better served, in bringing to stern account the many who profit by the vices of the country, than by prosecution which amounts to persecution of the few who are helping to make, what the country so much needs, an enlightened public opinion. Accordingly, it is again for the appellate court to vindicate a defendant editor.

x x x."