Module 4: Contemporary Issues in Communication

Media Laws and Ethics in the Philippines

Lesson 4.2: Communication Media Laws and National Security
Lesson Summary
Communication media laws and national security are essential to both citizens and journalists. They
were crafted to guard against airing speeches, interviews, and other material which will openly
advocate the overthrow of government by force or violence or which serve the purposes of terrorist
groups as well as present public issues free from personal bias, prejudice and inaccurate and
misleading information.

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this lesson, students are expected to:
1. Discuss the significance of national security to communication media laws?
2. Explain relationship between communication media laws & national security.
3. Relate how communication media laws might impact your future profession as a media practitioner.

Discussion
National Security Issues
Sedition
The following circumstances illustrates that could bring about charges to sedition, post martial law.
Perfecto Fernandez, retired law professor, during the Estrada administration, filed a case against the
Philippine Daily Inquirer for allegedly degrading the presidency. His 22-page complaint alleged the PDI
abused its power "under the guise of press freedom by engaging in partisan journalism and had used it
as a weapon of political vendetta and terrorism." Fernandez claimed that the articles PDI circulated
distracted the President from delivering his functions and maligned not only the man but his office.
In 2004 national elections, Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) led by Fernando Poe, Jr. insisted
that Poe won the elections after PGMA emerged as winner. Rumors of a coup aiming at impeding the
proclamation of winners moved PGMA to threaten to file charges of sedition against people plotting to
stop the proclamation.
Rebellion
In 2003, PGMA berated and accused Tina Panganiban-Perez, GMA-7 reporter of "abetting rebellion"
after having an exclusive interview with Sen. Gringo Honasan who went hiding in the midst of the
Proclamation 427 which declared a state of rebellion in the country which was spurred by the
controversial Oakwood Mutiny, where Honasan was allegedly the mastermind.
The Drug Menace
In 2001, a senate inquiry into the alleged involvement of Senator Panfilo Lacson in the drug trafficking,
money laundering, illegal wiretapping and in kidnap for ransom. This elicited various opinions from the
media sector but one thing was certain, these allegations against the senator was a threat to national
security.
Terrorism
The series of kidnappings in the country's southern parts and the media's coverage of the events has
led PGMA to appeal a media block out to these events. PGMA begged the media to stop the giving
coverage to terrorist group, Abu Sayyaf since "that is what makes them braver".
KBP's response was Circular No. 091-00 which presented guidelines in covering news in Sulu and other
conflict areas.
KBP Guidelines for News Coverage of Incidents Invoking Extremist Groups
1. Stations shall not allow themselves to be used for propaganda by extremist groups.
2. Live on-air interviews with representatives of such groups should be avoided in the interest of
responsible journalism.
3. Invitations for on-site coverage by extremist groups should be turned down, except when
government offices are involved.
4. The duty of media is to report the news. Negotiations should be left to proper authorities.
On February 15, 2005, KBP issued Circular No. 05-014 to all members of regarding reporting on terrorist
activities in view of the new round of terrorist bombings:
1. Report the events soberly and factually.
2. Avoid sensationalism and put the events you report in proper perspective. Observe balance in your
reports at all times.
3. Do not unnecessarily create panic and alarm.
Guard against airing speeches, interviews, and other material which will openly advocate the overthrow
of government by force or violence or which serve the purposes of terrorist groups.
Proclamation No. 1017
PGMA declared the country in a state of national emergency. By virtue of Proclamation No. 1017,
Randolf David, Ronald Llamas were arrested without warrant; the dispersal of rally and warrantless
arrest were also served to KMU and NAFLU-KMU members; standards on media or any prior restraint
were also imposed on the press; the Tribune offices were searched without warrant.
David, et al. v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GR No. 171396 may 3, 2006) consolidated seven cases
alleging that in PP 1017, PGMA committed a grave abuse of discretion and therefore petitioned that
PP1017 be void for being unconstitutional. The Court held that PP1017 is constitutional.
However, the Court also held that the actions imposed on the petitioners are not authorized by the
Constitution, the law and jurisprudence, not even by the valid provisions of PP 1017.
Calibrated Preemptive Response or CPR and the Public Assembly Act (BP 880)
Bayan et.al v. Ermita, et.al. (GR No. 169838, April 25, 2006) consolidated three cases where all the
petitioners assailed Batas Pambansa No. 880 (Public Assembly Act) and the Calibrated Preemptive
Response. They sought to stop violent dispersals of rallies under the "no permit, no rally" policy and the
CPR announced.
BP 880 provides, among others, that a written permit shall be required for any person or persons to
organize and hold a public assembly in a public place. However, no permit is required when the public
assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinance or in private
property. Although the law prohibits law enforcement agencies from interfering with the holding of a
public assembly, a law enforcement contingent under the command of a responsible police officer may
be detailed and stationed at least 100 meters away from the area of activity to ensure public safety.
The law enforcers shall observe "maximum tolerance" in performing their duties. Calibrated Preemptive
Response (CPR) states that unlawful mass actions will be dispersed, which is just a statement that
synonymous to the "maximum tolerance" cited in already existing BP880.
"Maximum Tolerance" means the highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other peace
keeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same. It is for the
benefit of the rallyist and not the government.
In sum, the Court reiterated: "its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of our people,
especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly." The Court held that BP 880 is
constitutionally grounded; however, it ruled the struck down of CPR as it "has no place in our legal
firmament and must be struck down as it confuses our people and is used by some police agents to
justify abuses."
LIBEL
The law recognizes the value of such reputation and imposes upon him who attacks it, by slanderous
words or by libelous publication, the liability to make full compensation for damages done (Worcester
c. Ocampo 22 Phil. 42 [1912]) The purpose of libel laws is to encourage victims to civil suit instead of
taking the law into their own hands (U.S. v Sotto, 33 Phil. 666 [1918]).
Criminal and Civil Aspects of Libel Law
A person prosecuted and found guilty of libel, he or she may suffer imprisonment (criminal liability) or
be required to pay a fine (civil liability), or both. Libel deprives a person of his good reputation.
• Civil Aspect: "Since reputation is a thing of value, truly rather to be chosen rather than great riches, an
impairment of it is a personal wrong. To redress this personal wrong, money damages are awarded to
the injured person". (Hale's law of the Press, 3rd ed. 1948) as cited in Lopez v. Court of Appeals (34
SCRA 122 [1970]).
• Criminal case: in the same case above, "publication of defamatory statements tends strongly to
induce breach of the peace by the person defamed, and hence is of peculiar moment to the state as to
the guardian of the public peace."

Element of Defamation
1. Imputation of a crime, or vice or defect (real or imaginary), or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance
2. Imputation must be made publicly
3. Malicious
4. Directed at a natural juridical person, or one who is dead
5. Tend to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt or the person defamed
People v. Gomez (GR No. 32815, June 25, 1980; 70 OG 2321, May 4, 1981) and Roberto Brillante v.
Court of Appeals et. al. (GR Nos. 118757 & 121571, October 19, 2004) cites the four element that would
establish libel:
1. Defamatory allegation
2. Publication
• "to make public; to make known to people in general; to bring before the public"
• Orfanel v. People (30 SCRA 819[1969]): writing a letter to another person defamed is sufficient to
constitute publication.
• Alonzo v. C.A. (241 SCRA 51 [1995]): if the statement is sent straight to the person whom it is written,
there is no publication of it.
3. identifiability
• Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court (142 SCRA 171 [1986]): "libel can be committed only
against individual reputation"
• Borjal v. CA (301 SCRA 1, 20 [1999]): "a third person can identify him (the person attacked or
defamed) as the object of the libelous publication"; it is not a requisite that the victim be named in a
publication, neither is it sufficient that the offended party recognized himself.
4. Malice
• What is malice? It is the essence of the crime of libel (Rice v. Simmons, Del 2 Har. 309, 310 in Borjal p
28.)
• The fact that the offender is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty,
but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed. (US v. Cañete 38 Phil 253 [1918])
• Implies an intention to do ulterior or justifiable harm (Id., cited in Borjal v. CA 301 SCRA 1 [1999])
• Malice is bad faith or bad motive (Potts v. Dies, 132 Fed. 734, 735)
Malice in fact - shown by proof of ill will, or purpose to injure (U.S. v. Montalvo 29 Phil. 595). Where
malice in fact is present, justifiable motives cannot exist and the imputations become actionable. (Lu
Chu Sing v. Lu Tiong Gui 76 Phils 676 [1946]). The plaintiff must bring home to the defendant the
existence of malice as the true motive of his conduct. (White v. Nicholls [1845], 3 How., 266 in US v.
Bustos (37 Phils. 731 [1918])
Malice in law - Presumed to exist from the defamatory imputation and proof is not required (Art. 345,
1st sentence); it is granted in view of the grossness of the imputation. (People v. Andrada, CA 37 OG
1783).
Presumption of Malice
Art. 345 (RPC) states that "every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be
true...” Simply, this is malice in law; the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove that there was malice on the part
of the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant has to prove that there is no malice, the defamatory
imputation is true, and/or it was published with good intention and that there was justifiable motive for
making it, in order to be acquitted.
In Policarpio v. Manila Time Publishing Co., Inc. (5 SCRA 148 [1962]) the defendants maintained that
their alleged malice in publishing the news item in question had not been established by the plaintiff.
But the Court held Art. 354 in the case and cited that the defendants presented the plaintiff in a far
worse light than she in fact was, claiming that the report is not a fair and true report. Accordingly, the
defamatory imputations contained in the article were "presumed to be malicious".
Malice is not presumed in privilege communications
In instances of privileged communication, malice in fact must be proven to convict the accused on a
charge of libel. Actual libel must be proven, in that, the offended party must show the libelous
statements to "have been written or published with the knowledge that they are false or in reckless
disregard of whether they are false or not" (376 US 254, in Borjal). Privilege destroys presumption. The
onus of proving malice then lies on the plaintiff. Falsehood and probable cause will amount to proof of
malice (White vs. Nicholls [1845], 3 How., 266 cited in U.S. Bustos, 37 Phil 743 [1918]).
Privilege Communication wherein malice is not presumed:
1. Private communication in performance of any legal, moral or social duty;
2. Fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of
• any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature
• any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings
• Any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions
3. "Commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged".
The doctrine of privileged communication rests upon public policy, 'which looks to the free and
unfettered administration of justice, though, as an incidental result, it may in some instances afford an
immunity to the evil-disposed and malignant slanderer." (Abbott v. National Bank of Commerce,
Tacoma [1899], 175 US, 409, 411) Thus, it has to be considered that the fact that a communication is
privileged does not mean it is not actionable; it only does away with the presumption of malice which
has to be proven by the plaintiff. (Lu Chu Sing v. Lu Tiong Gui [76 Phils. 676 [1946]).
There are two types of privilege communication:
1. Absolute privilege - a communication that is not actionable, even if its author acted in bad faith. This
covers a) statements made by members of the Congress in discharge of their official functions, b)
official communications allegations or statements made by parties or their counsel in their pleadings or
motions or during the hearing of judicial proceedings, provided such statements and/or utterances are
relevant and pertinent to the issues and questions at hand.
2. Conditionally or qualified privilege - communications that which although containing defamatory
imputations, would not be actionable unless made with malice and bad faith (US v. Bustos [1918])
Novicio v. Aggabao (GR No. 141332, December 11, 2003) is a clear example of qualified privileged
communication. Novicio, stockholder and treasurer of Philippine International Life Insurance Company
sent a letter to the company's depository banks informing them that several stockholders of the
company had been restrained by the Court of Appeals (CA) from exercising their rights as
shareholders. Aggabao, which was included in Novicio's notice, sued Novicio for libel. Novicio moved to
quash the information alleging that the facts therein did not constitute libel. The trial court denied the
motion. Novicio filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court held that the facts alleged in the information did not constitute libel on the basis
that only one element of libel was justified: identification. But the failure to establish the existence of
malice weighed the greatest since the letter in consideration was viewed as qualified privilege (it was
Novicio's duty to inform the banks in which the company maintained its corporate accounts of the CA's
resolution and corresponding change of bank signatories).
In case of Filipinas Broadcasting Network (FBNI) v. Ago Medical and Educ. Center-Bicol Christian
College of Medicine (AMEC), et. al. (GR No. 141994, January 17, 20050 the court debunked the appeal
of the petitioners of qualified privilege communication. The Supreme Court held that defamatory
imputation is presumed malicious and that Rima and Alegre, commentators of radio morning radio
program aired under DZRC-AM under FBNI, after commenting on student gripes against AMEC, failed to
show adequately their good intention and justifiable motive in airing such commentaries.
The commentators relied on the words of the students "because they were many and not because there
is proof that what they were saying is true" where they could have had leveraged the veracity of the
facts of the information, they broadcasted to prove that they acted in good faith. The Court maintained
that the broadcasts are not privilege and they were libelous per se.
The Court, cognizant of the Radio Code of the KBP, annotated some of its provisions in said case:
• Public affairs program shall present public issues free from personal bias, prejudice and inaccurate
and misleading information…Furthermore, the station shall strive to present balanced discussion of
issues…
• The stations shall be responsible at all times in the supervision of public affairs, public issues and
commentary programs so that they conform to the provisions and standards of this code.
• It shall be the responsibility of the newscaster, commentator, host and announcer to protect public
interests, general welfare and good order in the presentation of public affairs and public issues.
Doctrines related to Privileged Communication
Doctrine of fair comment
A comment which is true, or which, if false, express the real opinion of the author, such opinion having
been formed with a reasonable degree of care and on reasonable grounds (Steph. Dig. Cr. Law, Art.
274)
"If a comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the
opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it may be inferred from the facts." (Borjal v. CA (301 SCRA
21 [1999], citing People v. Velasco, 40 OG, No. 18, p3694)
Baguio Midland Courier (BMC) v. Court of Appeals and Ramon Labo, Jr. (GR No. 107566. November 25,
2004) invoked the petitioner's claim to this doctrine. Mayoralty candidate, Labo filed a civil action for
libel against BMC which published a series of article that dealt with the candidates for the various
elective positions in Baguio city in a column. One of the articles featured Labo's inability to pay his
debts to doctors and BMC.
Thus, applying the principle of privilege communication, which the petitioners claimed, the presumption
that the article was of malicious character was lifted. The burden of proving actual malice rested on
Labo. Labo wasn't able to prove actual malice in the articles in question. The records showed proof that
Labo incurred a debt until the time the questioned article was published.
The Court held: The effect would be have been adverse to the private respondent but public interest in
this case far outweighs the interest of private respondent Labo, who promised to donate millions of his
own money to his would be constituents. By virtue of fair comment, BMC just provided the public
information as regards to his financial status, with respect of Labo's indebtedness.
1. Privilege of fair criticism
Fair criticism supposes that everyone is entitled to his own opinion on matters of public interest; but it
must not be expedient to allow false and unfounded allegations of fact.
"The interests of society require that immunity should be granted to the discussion of public affairs,
and that all acts and matters of a public nature maybe freely published with fitting comments and
strictures," (US v. Sedano [GR No L-4998, October 25, 1909])
2. Neutral reportage.
"A republisher who accurately and disinterestedly reports certain defamatory statements made against
public figures is shielded from liability, regardless of the republisher's subjective awareness of the truth
or falsity of the accusation" (Filipinas Broadcasting Network v. Ago Medical and Educ. Center-Bicol
Christian College of Medicine, et.al. [GR No. 141994, January 17, 2005])
"The privilege of neutral reportage applies where the defamed person is a public figure who is involved
in an existing controversy, and a party to that controversy makes the defamatory statement." (50 Am
Jur. 2d, Libel and Slander § 313)
It is to community standards -- not personal or family standards -- that a court must refer in evaluating a
publication claimed to be defamatory. (Bulletin Publishing Corp. v Noel [167 SCRA 255, (1988)])
PROOF OF TRUTH
Truth is not an element in libel. In general, truth of an information, as long as it blackens someone's
reputation, is not a defense. In cases of privilege communication, truth is neither a defense.
In cases where truth may be given in evidence, it should be supported that such was published with
good motives and for justifiable ends, for the defendants to be acquitted. Truth can also only be
admissible when an imputation is directed against a government employee with respect to facts
related to the discharge of their official duties.
In Vasquez v. Court of Appeals (314 SCRA 460 GR No. 118971 [1991]) the issue was the liability of a
citizen who denounced Olmendo, a Barangay Chairman for misconduct in office. The Court held the
acquittal of Vasquez, who wrote an article denouncing Olmendo for allegedly conniving with some
officials of the National Housing Authority to effect illegal transfer of title of land, on the basis that
Vasquez acted with the right and duty of every citizen to see to it that public duty is discharged fully
and well; thus Vasquez did not have to prove that he acted with good faith and for justifiable ends.
Citing Sullivan, the Court held that actual malice must be shown by the public official, which he failed to
do so.

DEFENSES
• If it is defamatory it is still not actionable if it was published with good motives (Art 361 applied in
Alonzo vs. CA)
• Privilege communication is a defense, but it is qualified and may be lost by proof of malice (Mercado
v. CFI, 116 SCRA 93 [1982])
• A retraction published to correct a mistake does not wipe out the responsibility arising from the
defamatory publication but it mitigates amount of damages (Lopez v. CA)
• Fair comment affords legal immunity for the honest expression of opinion on matters of legitimate
public interest. Its emphasis is opinion based on fact. But malice would negate the defense of fair
comment (N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254).
LAWS AND REGULATIONS ON OBSCENITY
While there may be laws that exists to protect the stakeholders of the State from the corrupting and
degrading effects of obscenity, proving obscenity in actual cases proved to be taxing since there is not
clear-cut definition of "obscenity" itself, where "one person's obscenity is another person's art."
In the case of Jacobellis v. US (1964), US Supreme Court Justice Stewart said "I can't define it, but I
know when I see it."
Vaguely defined, obscenity is described as "utterly without redeeming social importance" (Roth v. US
476 [1957]). This inexact definition is compounded by the divergent and highly relative perceptions of
men and women (Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362 at 373 [1989]).
The Revised Penal Code punishes but does not define obscenity; thus, Philippine jurisprudence use
"tests" in the determining whether something is obscene or not.
1. Hicklin test or "Isolated Pages" test. [Regina v. Hicklin (LR 3 QB 360 [1868]) in People v. Kottinger 45
Phil. 352 (1923)]
Suspect material to be judged by the effect of isolated pages upon persons particularly susceptible to
prurient appeal or lustful thoughts, without regard to the total effect of the entire work.
Stirring up a sizzling debate between what is art and what is obscene is the case of People v. Pandan y
Alova (101 Phil. 749 [1957]) where the defendants were prosecuted for performing carnal intercourse
for the benefit of paying viewers. The Court held that the act was obscene. In it there was no room for
art and it can have no "redeeming" feature. The "redeeming element" was first introduced to Philippine
jurisprudence in this case.
Using the Hicklin test, the Court furthermore viewed the movie as "nothing but lust and lewdness, and
exerting a corrupting influence especially on the youth of the land".
2. Roth Test. [Roth vs. US 354 US 589 (1957)]
This test works on the dictum: "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeal to prurient interests."
"Prurient" using standards meant "itching, longing, uneasy with desire or longing; of persons having
itching, morbid, or lascivious longings; of desire, curiosity, or propensity or lewd."
Roth test was used in the case of Gonzales v. Katigbak (137 SCRA 717 [1985]) where producers of the
film Kapit sa Patalim filed to the Supreme Court an action against the MTRCB for classifying the film as
"For Adults Only", which in view of the producer is an impermissible restraint of artistic expression and
a grave abuse of discretion on the part of Maria Kalaw Katigbak, MTRCB chairperson during that time
being.
MTRCB thru EO 816 uses "contemporary Filipino cultural values" as standard in rating films, which is
analogous to the Roth test.
The court concluded that there was an abuse in discretion on the part of MTRCB, but such abuse was
not grave enough to grant the petitioner his pleading. This decision was bolstered by the explanation of
the Board why the film was rated as such: "scenes were taken in theatre clubs and a good portion of the
shots concentrated on some women erotically dancing unclad on stage. Another scene on stage
depicted the women kissing and caressing as lesbians. “Obviously, these scenes were unfit for young
viewers.
3. Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
1. Statement of Roth Standard
2. A test that the material be patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community
standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters
3. A test that the material be utterly without redeeming social value 4. Miller's test. (Miller v.
California [413 US 15 (1973)]). Being the latest test used, this test overthrown Memoirs.
President Ramos gave a directive to the Board of the MTRCB to use the test in reviewing and
classifying materials submitted to it.

1. Roth test. (see above)

2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable state law;
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
MTRCB has the power to review and censor, subject to review by the courts. The genesis of this
agency's power and function is promulgated by Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code and Presidential
Decree 1986 -- where Art. 201 of the RPC asserts punishments and penalties for immoral doctrines,
obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows, while PD 1986 created the board.
To have a clearer definition of obscenity, Teodoro and Kabatay asserted that it is tantamount to
pornography. Furthermore, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2354,
pornography:
 consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of partners, in order to
display them deliberately to third parties
 offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to
each other
 gravely injures the dignity of its participants, since each one becomes an object of base
pleasure and illicit profit for others
Fr. Gaston clarified that pornography is not a purely personal affair. "Other people are always affected
and hurt." Fr. Gaston explained the progress of pornography into the commission of sexual crimes. His
assertions were akin to Victor Cline, Ph. D. who postulated a "near universal four factor syndrome"
among users of pornography:
1. Addition effect - wanting and coming back for more.
2. Escalation effect - more explicit, rougher and more deviant kinds of sexual material to get "high"
3. Desensitization - the material which was initially regarded as shocking, repulsive and immoral
passes with time as acceptable and commonplace
4. Increasing tendency to act out.
Other studies have shown that there is a correlation between pornography and deviant sexual and
antisocial behaviors. Ted Bundy, a convicted rapist and serial killer, gave a face to these researches
when he confessed that pornography and violence in media brought him to face his death in the
electric chair. His last words "There are many Ted Bundies out there" gives a staunch caveat to law
makers and officers to act on obscenity and pornography.
Thus, in response to this pressing and alarming circumstances, spurs the role of the State to protect its
stakeholders against these threats in the pursuit and right to maintain a decent society.
This police power is vested in the MTRCB which disposes its parents patriae function (called upon to
manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young) and in some instances disallows the public
showing or requires deletion of some parts of some films, prior to public exhibition, without necessarily
curtailing the freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression may be limited only when it passes the clear and present danger test.
Censorship is allowable only under the clearest proof of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil
to public safety, public morals, public health or any other public health or any other legitimate public
interest.
Presently, MTRCB's power is limited to merely a classifying Board, whereas the classification shall be
based on the treatment of theme, violence, language, nudity, drug abuse, and other similar elements.
The Board also is directed to evaluate films on the basis of its entirety and base their decisions on what
is heard or seen, not on what is imagined.
The deletion of scenes was transferred to the applicant thru the mandate of PD 1986, so as not to
dictate to the applicant particular scenes, shots, or dialogue for deletion or cuts in order for the
applicant to avail himself a desired classification.