Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
EN BANC
G.R. No. 203335
problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and
the insulting or "fighting" words those which, by their very utterance, inflict
injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any
exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that
any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the
social interest in order and morality. "Resort to epithets or personal abuse is
not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion
safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would
raise no question under that instrument." (Emphasis supplied)
The constitutional guarantee against prior restraint and subsequent
punishment, the jurisprudential requirement of "actual malice," and the legal
protection afforded by "privilege communications" all ensure that protected
speech remains to be protected and guarded. As long as the expression or
speech falls within the protected sphere, it is the solemn duty of courts to
ensure that the rights of the people are protected.
At bottom, the deepest concerns of the movants seem to be the fact that the
government seeks to regulate activities in the internet at all. For them, the
Internet is a place where a everyone should be free to do and say whatever
he or she wants. But that is anarchical. Any good thing can be converted to
evil use if there are no laws to prohibit such use. Indeed, both the United
States and the Philippines have promulgated laws that regulate the use of
and access to the Internet.10
The movants argue that Section 4(c)(4) is both vague and overbroad. But,
again, online libel is not a new crime. It is essentially the old crime of libel
found in the 1930 Revised Penal Code and transposed to operate in the
cyberspace. Consequently, the mass of jurisprudence that secures the
freedom of expression from its reach applies to online libel. Any
apprehended vagueness in its provisions has long been settled by
precedents.
The parties' other arguments in their respective motions for reconsideration
are mere reiterations that the Court already considered and ruled upon when
it promulgated its earlier Decision.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES with finality the various motions for
reconsideration that both the petitioners and the respondents, represented
by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO
Associate Justice
A.
ABAD
WE CONCUR:
See
MARIA
Chief Justice
Concurring
LOURDES
&
P.
Dissenting
A.
Opinion
SERENO
PRESVITERO J.
JR.*
Associate Justice
VELASCO,
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice
See
my
ARTURO
D.
Associate Justice
Dissent
BRION
DIOSDADO
M.
Associate Justice
LUCAS
P.
Associate Justice
ANTONIO
T.
Associate Justice
CARPIO
PERALTA
BERSAMIN
JOSE
PORTUGAL
Associate Justice
JOSE
CATRAL
Associate Justice
MENDOZA
No
ESTELA
M.
BERNABE*
Associate Justice
part
PERLAS-
BIENVENIDO
L.
Associate Justice
See
MARVIC
Associate Justice
MARIO
PEREZ
REYES
VICTOR
F.
dissent
LEONEN
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
MARIA
Chief Justice
LOURDES
P.
A.
SERENO
Footnotes
* No part.
1
An Act Providing And Use Of Electronic Commercial And NonCommercial Transactions, Penalties For Unlawful Use Thereof, And
Other Purposes, Republic Act 8792, June 14, 2000.
4
People of the Philippine Islands v. Parel, G.R. No. L-18260, January 27,
1923, citing Fiore, Irretroactividad e Interpretacion de las Leyes, pp.
426-428.
8