Newsweek v. IAC

Facts:

·          "An Island of Fear" was published by Newsweek in its  Feb 23, 1981. It allegedly portrayed the island province of Negros Occidental as a place dominated by big landowners or sugarcane planters who not only exploited the impoverished workers, but also brutalized and killed them with impunity. #peachesdiaries

·          Newsweek filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that

o    the printed article sued upon is not actionable in fact and in law;

o    the complaint is bereft of allegations that state, much less support a cause of action.

·          Trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Complaint on its face states a valid cause of action; and the question as to whether the printed article sued upon its actionable or not is a matter of evidence.

·          Petitioner: Complaint failed to state a cause of action because:

o    Complaint made no allegation the article referred specifically to any one of the private respondents;

o    Libel can be committed only against individual reputation;

o    in cases where libel is claimed to have been directed at a group, there is actionable defamation only if the libel can be said to reach beyond the mere collectivity to do damage to a specific, individual group member's reputation.

Issue: WON the complaint must be dismissed? YES.

·          Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr.: 

o    "in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that he be named (19 A.L.R. 116)."

·          Uy Tioco vs. Yang Shu Wen:

o    Defamatory remarks directed at a class or group of persons in general language only, are not actionable by individuals composing the class or group unless the statements are sweeping.

·          The case at bar is not a class suit. It is not a case where one or more may sue for the benefit of all

·          We have here a case where each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct reputation in the community. They do not have a common or general interest in the subject matter of the controversy.

Read More

US v Bustos

Facts:

·          In 1915, numerous citizens of Pampanga assembled, and prepared and signed a petition to the Executive Secretary (privileged communication) through the law office of Crossfield and O'Brien, and five individuals signed affidavits, charging Roman Punsalan, justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol, Pampanga, with malfeasance in office and asking for his removal.

·          The petition transmitted by these attorneys was signed by thirty-four citizens

·          The specific charges:

o    Francisca Polintan asked for money and kept her in the house for four days as a servant and took from her two chickens and twelve "gandus;"

o    Valentin Sunga asked for P50

o    Leoncio Quiambao: Punsalan gave him P30 and his complaint was shelved. 

·          Now, Punsalan alleged that accused published a writing which was false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory, and libelous against him.

Issue: WON accused is entitled to constitutional protection by virtue of his right to free speech and free press.

Held: Yes. The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct. The administration of the law is a matter of vital public concern. Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is, therefore, a fit subject for proper comment. If the people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public officer, public opinion will be effectively suppressed. It is a duty which every one owes to society or to the State to assist in the investigation of any alleged misconduct. It is further the duty of all who know of any official dereliction on the part of a magistrate or the wrongful act of any public officer to bring the facts to the notice of those whose duty it is to inquire into and punish them.

Constitutional Discussion:

·          Freedom of speech was unknown in the Philippine Islands before 1900.

·          Jose Rizal in "Filipinas Despues de Cien Anos" describing "the reforms sine quibus non," which the Filipinos insist upon, said:  "reforms, must begin by declaring the press in the Philippines free and by instituting Filipino delegates."

·          The Malolos Constitution  zealously guarded freedom of speech and press and assembly and petition.

·          President McKinley in the Instruction to the Second Philippine Commission (1900) laying down the inviolable rule "That no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the rights of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."cralaw virtua1aw library

·          The Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, and the Jones Law, the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, in the nature of organic acts for the Philippines, continued this guaranty.

·          The adoption of the US Constitution carries with it all the applicable jurisprudence of great English and American Constitutional cases.

·          “Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts.”

·          The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct. If the people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public officer, public opinion will be effectively muzzled.

·          Justice Gayner: "The people are not obliged to speak of the conduct of their officials in whispers or with bated breath in a free government, but only in a despotism."

·          The particular words set out in the information, if said of a private person, might well be considered libelous per se.

Read More