Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

1051 May 19, 1903

THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. FRED L. DORR, ET AL., defendants-appellants. F. G. Waite for appellants. Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee. LADD, J.: The defendants have been convicted upon a complaint charging them with the offense of writing, publishing, and circulating a scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and the nsular Government of the Philippine slands. The complaint is based upon section ! of "ct #o. $%$ of the &ommission, which is as follows' (ver) person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the nsular Government of the Philippine slands, or which tend to disturb or obstruct an) lawful officer in e*ecuting his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, or to disturb the peace of the communit), the safet) and order of the Government, or who shall +nowingl) conceal such evil practices, shall be punished b) a fine not e*ceeding two thousand dollars or b) imprisonment not e*ceeding two )ears, or both, in the discretion of the court. The alleged libel was published as an editorial in the issue of the ,Manila -reedom, of "pril ., /%0$, under the caption of ," few hard facts., The "ttorne)-General in his brief indicates the following passages of the article as those upon which he relies to sustain the conviction' Sidne) "damson, in a late letter in ,1eslie2s 3ee+l),, has the following to sa) of the action of the &ivil &ommission in appointing rascall) natives to important Government positions' , t is a strong thing to sa), but nevertheless true, that the &ivil &ommission, through its e*-insurgent office holders, and b) its continual disregard for the records of natives obtained during the militar) rule of the slands, has, in its distribution of offices, constituted a protectorate over a set of men who should be in 4ail or deported. . . . 5Reference is then made to the appointment of one Tecson as 4ustice of the peace.6 This is the +ind of foolish wor+ that the &ommission is doing all over the slands, reinstating insurgents and rogues and turning down the men who have during the struggle, at the ris+ of their lives, aided the "mericans., *** *** *** There is no doubt but that the -ilipino office holders of the slands are in a good man) instances rascals.

*** *** *** The commission has e*alted to the highest positions in the slands -ilipinos who are alleged to be notoriousl) corrupt and rascall), and men of no personal character. *** *** *** (ditor 7alde8, of ,Miau,, made serious charges against two of the native &ommissioners 9 charges against Trinidad :. Pardo de Tavera, which, if true, would brand the man as a coward and a rascal, and with what result; . . . 5Reference is then made to the prosecution and conviction of 7alde8 for libel ,under a law which specifies that the greater the truth the greater the libel.,6 s it the desire of the people of the United States that the natives against whom these charges have been made <which, if true, absolutel) vilif) their personal characters= be permitted to retain their seats on the &ivil &ommission, the e*ecutive bod) of the Philippine Government, without an investigation; *** *** *** t is a notorious fact that man) branches of the Government organi8ed b) the &ivil &ommission are rotten and corrupt. The fiscal s)stem, upon which life, libert), and 4ustice depends, is admitted b) the "ttorne)-General himself to be most unsatisfactor). t is a fact that the Philippine 4udiciar) is far from being what it should. #either fiscals nor 4udges can be persuaded to convict insurgents when the) wish to protect them. *** *** *** #ow we hear all sorts of reports as to rottenness e*isting in the province 5of Ta)abas6, and especiall) the northern end of it> it is said that it is impossible to secure the conviction of lawbrea+ers and outlaws b) the native 4ustices, or a prosecution b) the native fiscals. *** *** *** The long and short of it is that "mericans will not stand for an arbitrar) government, especiall) when evidences of carpetbagging and rumors of graft are too thic+ to be pleasant. 3e do not understand that it is claimed that the defendants succeeded in establishing at the trial the truth of an) of the foregoing statements. The onl) ?uestion which we have considered is whether their publication constitutes an offense under section ! of "ct #o. $%$, above cited. Several allied offenses or modes of committing the same offense are defined in that section, viz' </= The uttering of seditious words or speeches> <$= the writing, publishing, or circulating of scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the nsular Government of the Philippine slands> <@= the writing, publishing, or circulating of libels which tend to disturb or obstruct an) lawful officer in e*ecuting his office> <A= or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes> <B= or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots> <.= or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the communit), the safet) and order of the Government> <C= +nowingl) concealing such evil practices. The complaint appears to be framed upon the theor) that a writing, in order to be punishable as a libel under this section, must be of a scurrilous nature and directed against the Government of the United States or the nsular Government of the Philippine slands, and must, in addition, tend to some one of the results enumerated in the section. The article in ?uestion is described in the complaint as ,a scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and the nsular

Government of the Philippine slands, which tends to obstruct the lawful officers of the United States and the nsular Government of the Philippine slands in the e*ecution of their offices, and which tends to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, and which suggests and incites rebellious conspiracies, and which tends to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, and which disturbs the safet) and order of the Government of the United States and the nsular Government of the Philippine slands., Dut it is ,a well-settled rule in considering indictments that where an offense ma) be committed in an) of several different modes, and the offense, in an) particular instance, is alleged to have been committed in two or more modes specified, it is sufficient to prove the offense committed in an) one of them, provided that it be such as to constitute the substantive offense, <&om. vs. Eneeland, $0 Pic+., Mass., $0., $/B=, and the defendants ma), therefore, be convicted if an) one of the substantive charges into which the complaint ma) be separated has been made out. 3e are all, however, agreed upon the proposition that the article in ?uestion has no appreciable tendenc) to ,disturb or obstruct an) lawful officer in e*ecuting his office,, or to ,instigate, an) person or class of persons ,to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes,, or to ,suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots,, or to ,stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the communit), the safet) and order of the Government., "ll these various tendencies, which are described in section ! of "ct #o. $%$, each one of which is made an element of a certain form of libel, ma) be characteri8ed in general terms as seditious tendencies. This is recogni8ed in the description of the offenses punished b) this section, which is found in the title of the act, where the) are defined as the crimes of the ,seditious utterances, whether written or spo+en., (*cluding from consideration the offense of publishing ,scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the nsular Government of the Philippine slands,, which ma) conceivabl) stand on a somewhat different footing, the offenses punished b) this section all consist in inciting, orall) or in writing, to acts of dislo)alt) or disobedience to the lawfull) constituted authorities in these slands. "nd while the article in ?uestion, which is, in the main, a virulent attac+ against the polic) of the &ivil &ommission in appointing natives to office, ma) have had the effect of e*citing among certain classes dissatisfaction with the &ommission and its measures, we are unable to discover an)thing in it which can be regarded as having a tendenc) to produce an)thing li+e what ma) be called disaffection, or, in other words, a state of feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain lo)al to the Government and obedient to the laws. There can be no conviction, therefore, for an) of the offenses described in the section on which the complaint is based, unless it is for the offense of publishing a scurrilous libel against the Government of the of the United States or the nsular Government of the Philippine slands. &an the article be regarded as embraced within the description of ,scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the nsular Government of the Philippine slands;, n the determination of this ?uestion we have encountered great difficult), b) reason of the almost entire lac+ of "merican precedents which might serve as a guide in the construction of the law. There are, indeed, numerous (nglish decisions, most of them of the eighteenth centur), on the sub4ect of libelous attac+s upon the ,Government, the constitution, or the law generall),, attac+s upon the :ouses of Parliament, the &abinet, the (stablished &hurch, and other governmental organisms, but these decisions are not now accessible to us, and, if the) were, the) were made under such different conditions from those which prevail at the present da), and are founded upon theories of government so foreign to those which have inspired the legislation of which the enactment in ?uestion forms a part, that the) would probabl) afford but little light in the present in?uir). n (ngland, in the latter part of the eighteenth centur), an) ,written censure upon public men for their conduct as such,, as well as an) written censure ,upon the laws or upon the institutions of the countr),, would probabl) have been regarded as a libel upon the Government. <$ Stephen, :istor) of the &riminal 1aw of (ngland, @A!.= This has ceased to be the law in (ngland, and it is doubtful whether it was ever the common law of an) "merican State. , t is true that there are ancient dicta to the effect that an) publication tending to ,possess the people with an ill opinion of the Government, is a seditious libel < per :olt, &. F., in R. vs. Tuchin, /C0A, B St. Tr., B@$, and (llenborough, &. F., in R. vs. &obbett, /!0A, $% :ow. St. Tr., A%=, but no one would

accept that doctrine now. Unless the words used directl) tend to foment riot or rebellion or otherwise to disturb the peace and tran?uilit) of the Eingdom, the utmost latitude is allowed in the discussion of all public affairs., <// (nc. of the 1aws of (ngland, AB0.= Fudge &oole) sa)s <&onst. 1im., B$!=' ,The (nglish common law rule which made libels on the constitution or the government indictable, as it was administered b) the courts, seems to us unsuited to the condition and circumstances of the people of "merica, and therefore never to have been adopted in the several States., 3e find no decisions construing the Tennessee statute <&ode, sec. ...@=, which is apparentl) the onl) e*isting "merican statute of a similar character to that in ?uestion, and from which much of the phraseolog) of then latter appears to have been ta+en, though with some essential modifications. The important ?uestion is to determine what is meant in section ! of "ct #o. $%$ b) the e*pression ,the nsular Government of the Philippine slands., Goes it mean in a general and abstract sense the e*isting laws and institutions of the slands, or does it mean the aggregate of the individuals b) whom the government of the slands is, for the time being, administered; (ither sense would doubtless be admissible. 3e understand, in modern political science, . . . b) the term government, that institution or aggregate of institutions b) which an independent societ) ma+es and carries out those rules of action which are unnecessar) to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that societ) b) those who possess the power or authorit) of prescribing them. Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule a societ). D) ,dministration, again, we understand in modern times, and especiall) in more or less free countries, the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being <the chief ministers or heads of departments=., <Douvier, 1aw Gictionar), !%/.= Dut the writer adds that the terms ,government, and ,administration, are not alwa)s used in their strictness, and that ,government, is often used for ,administration., n the act of &ongress of Ful) /A, /C%!, commonl) +nown as the ,Sedition "ct,, it is made an offense to ,write, print, utter, or published,, or to ,+nowingl) and willingl) assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing an) false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the Government of the United States, or either :ouse of the &ongress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said Government, or either :ouse of the said &ongress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute, or to e*cite against them or either or an) of them the hatred of the good people of the United States,, etc. The term ,government, would appear to be used here in the abstract sense of the e*isting political s)stem, as distinguished from the concrete organisms of the Government 9 the :ouses of &ongress and the (*ecutive 9 which are also speciall) mentioned. Upon the whole, we are of the opinion that this is the sense in which the term is used in the enactment under consideration. t ma) be said that there can be no such thing as a scurrilous libel, or an) sort of a libel, upon an abstraction li+e the Government in the sense of the laws and institutions of a countr), but we thin+ an answer to this suggestion is that the e*pression ,scurrilous libel, is not used in section ! of "ct #o. $%$ in the sense in which it is used in the general libel law <"ct #o. $CC= 9 that is, in the sense of written defamation of individuals 9 but in the wider sense, in which it is applied in the common law to blasphemous, obscene, or seditious publications in which there ma) be no element of defamation whatever. ,The word 2libel2 as popularl) used, seems to mean onl) defamator) words> but words written, if obscene, blasphemous, or seditious, are technicall) called libels, and the publication of them is, b) the law of (ngland, an indictable offense., <Dradlaugh vs. The Hueen, @ H. D. G., .0C, .$C, per Dramwell 1. F. See &om. vs. Eneeland, $0 Pic+., $0., $//.=

3hile libels upon forms of government, unconnected with defamation of individuals, must in the nature of things be of uncommon occurrence, the offense is b) no means an imaginar) one. "n instance of a prosecution for an offense essentiall) of this nature is Republica vs. Gennie, A Ieates <Pa.=, $.C, where the defendant was indicted ,as a factious and seditious person of a wic+ed mind and un?uiet and turbulent disposition and conversation, seditiousl), maliciousl), and willfull) intending, as much as in him la), to bring into contempt and hatred the independence of the United States, the constitution of this &ommonwealth and of the United States, to e*cite popular discontent and dissatisfaction against the scheme of polit) instituted, and upon trial in the said United States and in the said &ommonwealth, to molest, disturb, and destro) the peace and tran?uilit) of the said United States and of the said &ommonwealth, to condemn the principles of the Revolution, and revile, depreciate, and scandali8e the characters of the Revolutionar) patriots and statesmen, to endanger, subvert, and totall) destro) the republican constitutions and free governments of the said United States and this &ommonwealth, to involve the said United States and this &ommonwealth in civil war, desolation, and anarch), and to procure b) art and force a radical change and alteration in the principles and forms of the said constitutions and governments, without the free will, wish, and concurrence of the people of the said United States and this &ommonwealth, respectivel),, the charge being that ,to fulfill, perfect, and bring to effect his wic+ed, seditious, and detestable intentions aforesaid he . . . falsel), maliciousl), factiousl), and seditiousl) did ma+e, compose, write, and publish the following libel, to wit> 2" democrac) is scarcel) tolerable at an) period of national histor). ts omens are alwa)s sinister and its powers are unpropitious. 3ith all the lights or e*perience bla8ing before our e)es, it is impossible not to discover the futilit) of this form of government. t was wea+ and wic+ed at "thens, it was bad in Sparta, and worse in Rome. t has been tried in -rance and terminated in despotism. it was tried in (ngland and re4ected with the utmost loathing and abhorrence. t is on its trial here and its issue will be civil war, desolation, and anarch). #o wise man but discerns its imperfections> no good man but shudders at its miseries> no honest man but proclaims its fraud, and no brave man but draws his sword against its force. The institution of a scheme of polit) so radicall) contemptible and vicious is a memorable e*ample of what the villain) of some men can devise, the foll) of others receive, and both establish, in despite of reason, reflection, and sensation.2, "n attac+ upon the lawfull) established s)stem of civil government in the Philippine slands, li+e that which Gennie was accused of ma+ing upon the republican form of government lawfull) established in the United States and in the State of Penns)lvania would, we thin+, if couched in scandalous language, constitute the precise offense described in section ! of "ct #o. $%$ as a scurrilous libel against the nsular Government of the Philippine slands. Gefamation of individuals, whether holding official positions or not, and whether directed to their public conduct or to their private life, ma) alwa)s be ade?uatel) punished under the general libel law. Gefamation of the &ivil &ommission as an aggregation, it being ,a bod) of persons definite and small enough for its individual members to be recogni8ed as such, <Stephen, Gigest of the &riminal 1aw, art. $CC=, as well as defamation of an) of the individual members of the &ommission or of the &ivil Governor, either in his public capacit) or as a private individual, ma) be so punished. The general libel law enacted b) the &ommission was in force when "ct #o. $%$, was passed. There was no occasion for an) further legislation on the sub4ect of libels against the individuals b) whom the nsular Government is administered 9 against the nsular Government in the sense of the aggregate of such individuals. There was occasion for stringent legislation against seditious words or libels, and that is the main if not the sole purpose of the section under consideration. t is not unreasonable to suppose that the &ommission, in enacting this section, ma) have conceived of attac+s of a malignant or scurrilous nature upon the e*isting political s)stem of the United States, or the political s)stem established in these slands b) the authorit) of the United States, as necessaril) of a seditious tendenc), but it is not so reasonable to suppose that the) conceived of attac+s upon the personnel of the government as necessaril) tending to sedition. :ad this been their view it seems probable that the) would, li+e the framers of the Sedition "ct of /C%!, have e*pressl) and specificall) mentioned the various public officials and collegiate governmental bodies defamation of which the) meant to punish as sedition.

The article in ?uestion contains no attac+ upon the governmental s)stem of the United States, and it is ?uite apparent that, though grossl) abusive as respects both the &ommission as a bod) and some of its individual members, it contains no attac+ upon the governmental s)stem b) which the authorit) of the United States is enforced in these slands. The form of government b) a &ivil &ommission and a &ivil Governor is not assailed. t is the character of the men who are intrusted with the administration of the government that the writer is see+ing to bring into disrepute b) impugning the purit) of their motives, their public integrit), and their private morals, and the wisdom of their polic). The publication of the article, therefore, no seditious tendenc) being apparent, constitutes no offense under "ct #o. $%$, section !. The 4udgment of conviction is reversed and the defendants are ac?uitted, with costs de oficio. Arellano, C.J. Torres, Willard and Mapa, JJ., concur.