Why freedom of speech is vital to democracy

In recent weeks, congressional hearings targeting bloggers and social media personalities have raised deep concerns – not just about decorum, but about democracy itself.

While some may find the language of these online critics insulting, exaggerated or even profane, one thing must remain clear: Political expression, especially when aimed at public officials, is protected under the 1987 Philippine Constitution and under international human rights law.

You don’t have to be polite to be protected

Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution states: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press…”  This guarantee isn’t reserved for the eloquent or respectful. In fact, the most vigorous protection has always been afforded to political speech – especially when it’s inconvenient, emotional or scathing.

The Supreme Court, time and again, has affirmed this. In Chavez v. Gonzales, the Court emphasized that speech critical of government actions, no matter how harsh, is part of our democratic life. Even “vulgar or offensive” protest speech, as ruled in Philippine Blooming Mills v. NLRC, retains constitutional protection when used as political expression.

Not all outrage is sedition

The recent trend of labeling fiery rhetoric as “seditious” misrepresents the law. Sedition under the Revised Penal Code requires not just speech, but a public and tumultuous uprising with intent to subvert lawful authority. Criticism, sarcasm and even angry tirades simply don’t meet that threshold.

As early as 1918, in United States v. Bustos, our courts held that public officials, like it or not, are “public property”— and harsh commentary, even personal abuse, is a price of their position.

Global standards agree

The Philippines is bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 19 is crystal clear: Everyone has the right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.”

UN experts have stressed that political commentary – no matter how biting – must be allowed. Even criminal defamation laws are viewed with skepticism when used to silence dissenters.

UN Resolution 12/16 further warns governments: Don’t criminalize political commentary or criticism of public officials. Doing so undermines the very fabric of open societies.

Culture counts, too

Let’s not ignore our context. Filipino political culture is passionate, expressive, and – yes – sometimes profane. This is not a flaw. It is the mark of an engaged citizenry. Suppressing this language doesn’t make society more civil. It only makes it more afraid.

We’ve seen it before: vague charges and public shaming used to discredit critics. The danger lies not just in punishing a few individuals – but in the chilling effect on millions of others who might self-censor rather than risk retaliation.

Congress has limits, too

Congressional hearings are powerful tools – but not infinite in power. The Constitution bars Congress from conducting proceedings that infringe on free speech. In Senate v. Ermita, the Court warned that even inquiries “in aid of legislation” must respect fundamental rights. Contempt powers, as noted in Arnault v. Nazareno, cannot be used to punish dissent outside official proceedings.

When bloggers and commentators are summoned, accused and vilified, the message is clear: Speak up at your peril. That message violates both the letter and spirit of our laws.

Free speech is easy when it’s polite – Its true test is when it’s provocative

Let me be clear: I am not glorifying incivility. But I am defending the right to be uncivil when confronting those in power. Our democracy needs more truth-tellers, not fewer. More critical voices, not more criminal complaints.

The best response to offensive speech isn’t prosecution – it’s persuasion. If we want a better tone in public discourse, let’s lead by example, not by legal intimidation.

In closing, let us remember: The strength of our democracy isn’t measured by how well we protect popular ideas – but how courageously we protect those that offend us.

Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is the executive director of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and managing attorney at Valera & Associates, a US immigration and anti-discrimination law firm for over 32 years. He holds a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University and was trained at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University. He is a professor at San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances.