By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M
Our sovereignty is under threat. A foreign invader is getting more aggressive in the West Philippine Sea. It is so inspiring to see patriots rise to the occasion. But lamentably, we are also witnessing compatriots blatantly betraying our cause.
An article reporting on Chinese vessels removing the payao installed by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for Filipino fishermen at Panatag Shoal included an interesting angle about a lawmaker questioning the government’s resolve to defend our territory, to wit:
“Meanwhile, former House speaker Pantaleon Alvarez gave President Marcos unsolicited advice on Wednesday, saying that it would be in the best interest of the Philippines to re-pivot its foreign policy direction toward aggressor China than keep a “delicate” US as an ally.”
The piece mentions the lawmaker justifying his pivot proposal this way: “Let’s look at the long-term perspective. China enjoys continuity in terms of leadership, while the US doesn’t. By November, Americans will have to choose – will they vote for the senile and forgetful or the crazy deranged guy?”
Then, the representative of the 1st District of Davao del Norte is cited in the news report with this grim warning: “The century of US global dominance is about to end, and yet we want to place our bets on them? We should think very hard on this.”
Whether or not the poor lawmaker deserves the pillorying in social media is irrelevant here. But this is a prime opportunity to learn more about free speech. For guidance, we refer to the case of ABS-CBN vs. Comelec where the Supreme Court discussed the limitation to this constitutional right.
The Court ruled that, “The freedom of expression is a fundamental principle of our democratic government.” And that it is “a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment, of attaining the truth, of securing participation by the people in social and political decision-making, and of maintaining the balance between stability and change.”
The Supreme Court further explained that free speech “means more than the right to approve existing political beliefs or economic arrangements, to lend support to official measures, or to take refuge in the existing climate of opinion on any of public consequence.” In fact, if we truly respect our free speech regime, then we must accept that its protection also “encompasses the thought we hate”.
And so, an important lesson about free speech is that it abhors the holier-than-thou mentality. The marketplace of ideas has room for everyone. Any effort to block off other views from the public sphere will eventually lead to the fortification of echo chambers. This is the very moment when free speech dies.
Lastly, the Supreme Court ruled that, “While the liberty to think is absolute, the power to express such thought in words and deeds has limitations.” Correspondingly, “A limitation on the freedom of expression may be justified only by a danger of such substantive character that the state has a right to prevent.”
This ruling primarily applies to the government. All state officials are obligated to meet the Clear and Present Danger test when intending to regulate speech and other forms of expression. The government must show that the speech in question can cause grave and imminent harm to the public. The failure to do this means the exercise of this constitutional right must continue unimpeded.
Obviously, the fate of Congressman Alvarez is now in the hands of law enforcement agencies and his colleagues in the House of Representatives. But his case offers a valuable free speech lesson for civil society. That it is media’s responsibility to refer to the Clear and Present Danger standard when assessing similar expressions of grievances against the government.
Reference to the Clear and Present Danger principle will help the public distinguish between attention-hungry crackpots, genuine dissenting voices, and traitors undermining our government. Thus, ensuring both the stability of the state and the sanctity of free speech.
