Ma. Kara Alexir C.

Calamba Media Laws | Assessment 2

COMM3A Atty. Eugene Kho

Synthesis Paper | Module 2 – Cognate Rights of Freedom of Expression

Freedom of Expression is the backbone of other freedoms that people are currently

enjoying. So, what are these freedoms and how they are connected to one another. Well, it all

begins with the right to express, which allows people to speech freely and to create an assembly

and even build an association. These mentioned freedoms are like dominos that would affect one

another. If one fails, it is impossible to achieve the following freedoms. – that’s how they work.

For now, let’s dig deeper what these mentioned freedoms include.

One of these is the right to assembly and petition. Here in the Philippines, Filipinos really

utilize these rights, especially those who belong to minorities. People gathered because this is their

way to express their opinions and sentiments towards the issue they are concerned with. In fact,

there’s a law that considers the gathering of people as a constitutional guarantee to freedom of

expression – the Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, Public Assembly Act. One example for this is the

annual Metro Manila Pride March event, wherein the LGBT+ community are gathered to celebrate

the historical event in gay movements and at the same time, to protest against the justices and

oppressions they are experiencing in the society (Advincula, 2020). Thus, this law is granted to

each and every individual of this country. Moreover, this also indicates that the issuance of a permit

is not actually required at all places. In choosing the area for assembly, they should identify

whether it is public or private property. For public property, they need to reach out the local

government unit and the mayor for the issuance of permit. The permit will serve as their ticket to

execute their assembly legally in their desired location. While for private property, permit is not
required but they should reach out the respective owner or caretaker of the chosen place for

permission.

However, given the condition of the world right now, the pandemic changes the way of

how assembly is being held. For this one, this doesn’t require permit or asking for permission,

since there’s no actual venue needed for the gatherings. Due to quarantine restrictions, people

come up with an idea to bring their mass movements into social media platforms, which doesn’t

require their physical appearance to engage themselves – called “online activism” (Adorador,

2020). It’s a fact that technology plays a vital role in people’s lives and now even for exercising

their rights to express, speech and assembly in amidst of pandemic. We are now in generation

wherein people unite through a hashtag to speak up and share their sentiments instead of gathering

physically in a venue (Albitos, 2020). In the past, words were spoken through megaphone and

written on placards, now they can be done through a post, in the form of text, image or video –

that’s how the internet changes the people's assembly.

Looking back to the traditional one, there are instances that there are issues involved in

assembly and through these tests or criteria, they can be determined whether it is lawful (but not

necessarily legal) or not. These two tests are auspices test and purpose test. For auspices test, this

considers the identity of the group that will do the assembly – whether they are illegal or not,

before they will be given permit. In the Evangelista vs. Earnshaw case during 1932, Evangelista

requested for permit for his group’s public assembly, however, Mayor Earnshaw denied it. Then,

it turns out that their association, the Communist Party of the Philippines, is considered illegal by

the law, which justified the mayor’s decision to refuse their request. Meanwhile, the purpose test

didn’t necessarily consider the legitimacy of the group, but rather their sole reasons for conducting

such gathering. So, despite being a legitimate group or organization, their request for a permit can
be denied, if the reason of their assembly aims to commit something illegal. One more thing,

Philippine government remained to use and follow this test for their court decisions.

In fact, it was used in Malabanan vs. Ramento (1984) case, which involved the students,

specifically the Supreme Student Council, who held an illegal assembly inside their school

premise, which results for their one academic year of suspension, ordered by the Director of the

NCR Ramento. These student leaders were found guilty for violating what was indicated in their

permit, which caused disturbance of classes and work within the area. However, the court found

the one-year period of suspension out of proportion to their misdeed and had seen no clear and

present danger to their action, which leads to nullification of Ramiento’s decision. So, less penalty

was given to them instead. Thus, these students indeed exercise their right to free speech, but they

shall remember that it’s not absolute.

Meanwhile, the Villar vs. TIP (1985) who almost has a similar case wherein the students

are punished by disallowing them to enroll in the institution in the coming school year. These

students are found to have valid reasons for conducting such assembly, however, their academic

records need to be considered for the final decision. In the end, the court banned the institution

from acts of surveillance, blacklisting, suspending and refusing the students to enroll in one

academic year, excluding the three of the petitioners due to their academic deficiency. Thus, the

institution was not obliged to accept them because after all, they failed to meet the school’s

academic standards.

Another case to relate with is the Miriam College vs. Court of Appeals (1994). Compared

to the first two cases, these students were given disciplinary sanctions, such as suspension for

writing erotic articles published by their school publication, for which they believed to against to
the regulations of Miriam College’s student handbook. However, the lawyer of these student

journalists highlighted the Campus Journalism Act (RA No. 7079,) which provides autonomy to

the editorial board and its members – thus, no students should be suspended or expelled solely “on

the basis of articles he or she has written”. Even the school’s right to discipline its students is

restricted to violate such law. Therefore, this law protects the campus journalists from school’s

restrictions to exhibit their right to speech, which is far different to other mentioned cases. The

court was more convinced that they are not guilty, since there’s no invasion of the right of others

and disruption of class work involved for writing such articles. In the end, Miriam College was

barred from suspending these students and forced to readmit a student.

To sum it up, there are a lot of factors to consider in every case that involve the right to

expressions. The following students from the three cases have different backgrounds and means

to exercise their freedom – through assembly or writing. They may be different to one another but

they shared the same objective – to pursue what they believe is right, regardless of others

criticisms.

References:

Advincula, S. (2020, January 26). SAVE THE DATE: Metro Manila Pride March 2020 To

Happen In June. Retrieved September 9, 2020, from https://www.cosmo.ph/news/metro-

manila-pride-march-2020-a4572-20200126
Albitos, V. (2020, July 31). The New Normal: Online activism during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Retrieved September 10, 2020, from https://wi-tech.org/2020/05/03/the-new-normal-

online-activism-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Adorador, S. (2020, May 1). Defending Human Rights in the Time of Covid-19: Collective

Action Against State Repression in the Philippines. Retrieved September 9, 2020, from

https://shapesea.com/op-ed/covid-19/defending-human-rights-in-the-time-of-covid-19-

collective-action-against-state-repression-in-the-philippines/

EVANGELISTA VS. EARNSHAW - Digest Philippines. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2020,

from https://www.digest.ph/decisions/evangelista-vs-earnshaw