When a free society falls under a dictatorial or fascist regime, the “right to speak” or the freedom of speech, is the first right that is curtailed. It includes freedom of the press, assembly, petition, religion, association, access to information, and the right not to be detained due to one’s political beliefs and aspirations.
As a “particle of sovereignty”, every citizen has the right to express his views or objections on governance, where public funds are used.
Voltaire said: ”I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it!”
The freedom to speak includes the right to be silent.
As Socrates said, this freedom was meant not only to protect the minority who want to talk but also to benefit the majority who refuse to listen.
So what about the veiled threats made to the publisher of this paper by a high government official?
The official acts, even the private life of a government official, elective or appointive, is subject to public scrutiny. The reason is that each citizen is burdened with the payment of the salaries, perks, and other emoluments of his government position.
Every Juan is the “boss” of all government officials and employees, with no exception, including , P-Noy.
As long as the comments are on the government official’s acts, the citizens are insulated from legal suits, even if such views are inaccurate or erroneous.
Does a government official have the right to reply or refute the statements made? Of course, it is his burden to present his side, with proof of the truth, on public matters.
If the subject is a public document publicized, then he should refute the contents or its authenticity, with competent evidence to the contrary.
Were the contents of the publicized COA Report on Disallowances on the calamity fund expenditures erroneous or fabricated?
No less than three Congressmen can attest to its existence and authenticity.
In fact, the responsible officers have filed their respective appeals.
Does anyone have the right to criticize? In the case of Ramon Tulfo, he summarily labeled the Supreme Court as sangkatutak na bobo (a bunch of morons), for its Decision on the checkpoints case. The Supreme Court upheld his freedom of speech, but he was found guilty of contempt for the use of vulgar, insulting, disrespectful language.
The importance of the “checks and balance” on matters of the State is vital as a counterbalance to the awesome power of the State against the private individual.
In the case of U.S. vs. Bustos, the Supreme Court ruled: “The interest of society and the maintenance of good governance 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 abcesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and unjust accusation; the wound relieved by a balm of clear conscience. A public official must not be too thin- skinned with reference to his official conduct.”
Media practitioners are messengers of information. They deserve their democratic space, and any attempt to silence them will impact greatly on the freedoms guaranteed under our Constitution.
Media men are simply doing their job: Keeping the officials honest.
_______________________________
Author’s email: [email protected]
