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