People v. Perez, G.R. No. 21049, December 22, 1923


SEDITIOUS SPEECH


People v. Perez, G.R. No. 21049, December 22, 1923.
Perez was convicted of the crime of contempt of the ministers of the Crown for stating that “The Filipinos, like myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood’s head for having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed our independence.”
It is of course fundamentally true that the provisions of Act No. 292 must not be interpreted so as to abridge the freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. Criticism is permitted to penetrate even to the foundations of Government. Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect be seditious. But when the intention and effect of the act is seditious, the constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of assembly and petition must yield to punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted authority, the supremacy of the constitution and the laws, and the existence of the State.
Here, the person maligned by the accused is the Chief Executive of the Philippine Islands. His official position, like the Presidency of the United States and other high offices, under a democratic form of government, instead, of affording immunity from promiscuous comment, seems rather to invite abusive attacks. But in this instance, the attack on the Governor-General passes the furthest bounds of free speech was intended. There is a seditious tendency in the words used, which could easily produce disaffection among the people and a state of feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and obedient to the laws.
The Governor-General is an executive official appointed by the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, and holds in his office at the pleasure of the President. The Organic Act vests supreme executive power in the Governor-General to be exercised in accordance with law. The Governor-General is the representative of executive civil authority in the Philippines and of the sovereign power. A seditious attack on the Governor-General is an attack on the rights of the Filipino people and on American sovereignty. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gadia v. Sykes Asia, Inc., G.R. No. 209499, January 28, 2015

Gadia v. Sykes Asia, Inc., G.R. No. 209499, January 28, 2015   Sykes Asia is a corporation engaged in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) which provides support to its international clients from various sectors (e.g., technology, telecommunications, retail services) by carrying on some of their operations, governed by service contracts that it enters with them. On September 2, 2003, 12  Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel), a United States-based telecommunications firm, contracted Sykes Asia’s services to accommodate the needs and demands of Alltel clients for its postpaid and prepaid services (Alltel Project). Thus, on different dates, Sykes Asia hired petitioners as customer service representatives, team leaders, and trainers for the Alltel Project. Sometime in 2009, Alltel informed Sykes that it is terminating its contract with Sykes. As a result, Sykes sent each of the petitioners end-of-life notices informing them of their dismissal from service due to the term...
Read more

Evangelista v. Earnshaw, G.R. No. 36453, September 28, 1932

SEDITIOUS SPEECH Evangelista v. Earnshaw, G.R. No. 36453, September 28, 1932 Evangelista, the President of the Communist Party of the Philippines, applied for a permit to hold a rally, before the Office of Mayor of Manila. This was refused by the Mayor, which prompted Evangelista to file a petition for mandamus before the Court. Instead of being condemned or criticised, the respondent mayor should be praised and commended for having taken a prompt, courageous, and firm stand towards the said Communist Party of the Philippines before the latter could do more damage by its revolutionary propaganda, and by the seditious speeches and utterances of its members. In the case of Gitlow vs. New York (268 U. S., 652), the Supreme Court of the United States said: Such utterances, by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state. They threaten breaches of the peace and ultimate revolution. And the immediate danger is none...
Read more

Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835, G.R. No. 27833, April 18, 1969

Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835, G.R. No. 27833, April 18, 1969 Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 4880 prohibiting the too early nomination of candidates and limiting the period of electoral campaign. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST & DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST At the very least, free speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment. There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings   unless there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. This Court spoke, in Cabansag v. Fernandez ; of two tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for permissible restriction. Thus: "These are the 'clear and present danger' rule and the 'dangero...
Read more