Private reputation is precious

I represented Aklan Gov. Carlito S. Marquez in two media inductions in a span of four months. The first was in the January 18, 2008 induction of the Aklan Press Club at the Sampaguita Gardens, New Washington, Aklan. The second was in the Aklan United Media Association Inc. (AUMA) at Hernani’s Mix N’ Match, Kalibo, Aklan.
In the AUMA induction, Gov. Marquez had the occasion to quote three Supreme Court decisions on freedom of the press. He stressed that in the Salumbides and Rianzares doctrine, the Supreme Court succinctly stated that private reputation is as precious as any constitutional right, and is protected by the Constitution and specific laws.
I take liberty at quoting Gov. Marquez’s April 24, 2008 speech in toto as follows:

***
My warmest congratulations to the new set of officers and directors of Aklan United Media Association Inc. and to all the members of this active and prestigious media organization.
Time management is an essential part of my provincial administration. The importance of time management, or if you will, time budgeting, needs no further elucidation.
Frankly, I did study all my appointments thinking all along that I shall have the necessary time to be with you, aware of as I am of the solemnity and vital import of your induction of officers.
Since the Province of Aklan shall celebrate its 52nd anniversary as a separate and distinct political entity, I had requested Atty. Tolentino, a lawyer-journalist and former vice-governor of Aklan, to act in my stead and represent me in your affair.
Aklan, as a separate province and distinct political entity, is 52 years old. It became a province on April 25, 1956.
The Aklan separation movement, which started on 1901, reached its climax when republic act 1414, introduced by the late Honorable Godofredo P. Ramos, was signed into law on April 25, 1956.
Fifty-two years of Aklan existence should be re-assessed in terms of the gains achieved. And the re-assessment must be made vis-à-vis the Aklanons’ needs, dreams, hopes and aspirations.
As your provincial governor, I continue to make an inventory and stock of developments since the inceptions of Aklan as a province. In so doing, Aklan may
Yet encounter a certain areas that may demand priority and proffer immediate solution to them.
True it is that Aklan has made monumental strides in the process of development. But the achievements dramatically changing the province should not be considered as a barometer of contentment. I do not necessarily take our various developments as the conclusion of a dream put to reality. Development and the thought of it should be in sustaining basis. To rests on laurels achieved may yet provide an atmosphere of self complacency and climate of slumber.
With your indulgence, permit me to present some views on freedom of the press.
The term Fourth State refers to the press, both in its explicit capacity of advocacy and its implicit ability to frame political issues. The term goes back to Thomas Carlyle in the first half of the 19th century.
Novelist Jeffrey Archer, in his work, the Fourth Estate made the observation:
In May 1879, Louis XVI summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the Estate General. The first Estate consisted of 300 clergy. The second estate 300 nobles. The Third Estate, 600 commoners. Some years later, after the French revolution, Edmund Burke, looking up the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, said: “Yonder set the Fourth Estate, and they are more important of them all”.
Although a cherished right of the people, freedom of the press is different from other liberties of the people in that it is both individual and institutional. It applies not just to a single person’s right to publish ideas, but also to the right of print and broadcast media to express political views and to cover and publish news.
A free press is, therefore, one of the foundation of a democratic society, and as Walter Lippmann, the 20th century American columnist, wrote, “A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society”.
Indeed, as society has grown increasingly complex, people rely more and more on newspapers, radio and television to keep abreast with world news, opinions and political ideas. One sign on the importance of a free press is that when anti democratic forces take over a country, their first act is to muzzle the press.
The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and was it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspaper, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter, “(Thomas Jefferson, on a necessity of a free press (1878)).”
The origin of freedom of speech and press are nearly alike because literal utterances about the government, either written or spoken, were subject to punishment under English laws. It did not matter whether what had been printed was true; government saw the very fact of the criticism as evil, since it casts doubt on the integrity and reliability of public officers. Progress toward truly free press, that is, one in which people could publish their views without fear of government reprisal, was halting. In mid 18th century, the great English legal commentator, Sir William Blackstone, declared that although liberty of the press was essential to the nature of a free state, it could and should be bounded.
The freedom of the press consist the right to print and publish statements without subjection to the previous censorship of the government. It does not mean immunity from willful abuses of the freedom which, if permitted to go unrebuked, would soon make the license of an unrestrained press even more odious to the people than the interference of the government with the expression of the opinion. Certainly, a moment’s reflection will convince anyone approaching the subject with an open mind that no public service is rendered by the publication in the newspaper of defamatory of statements which are false and were publish, not from a sense of duty, but to gratify a personal spite and animosity of the writer against the person defamed. (US vs Sotto, 38 Phil. 666, 674-675)
The freedom of the press, just like any other, cannot but have its limitations. It may be enjoyed and used only to the extent that its enjoyment or use will not cause injury to another. Private reputation is as precious as any constitutional right, and it is protected by the Constitution and specific laws. Whoever assails somebody else’s virtue, morality or private reputation in general must naturally be held responsible unless the attack was made under circumstances that exempt him from both civil and criminal liability. (People vs Salumbides and Rianzares, 55 O.G. 2638, 2640)
The interest society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Man in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation. The wound can only be assuaged with a balm of clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comments on his official acts. Only thus the intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted. Of course, criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as the individual is less than the State, expected criticism may be born for the common good. Rising superior to any officials, to the Chief Executive, to the Legislature or to the Judiciary – to any or all the agencies of Government – public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and democracy.(US vs. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731, 740-741).