Mr.

Chief Justice, and may it please the court, my name is Stevenson Yu representing the Civil
Liberties Club of the Philippines / the Free Thinkers Network of the Philippines / Philippine Media
Association, one of the petitioners in this case. I will be addressing the third issue, whether sections
2,3,5 and 6 of Republic Act XAYZ violate the Bill of Rights. With the courts permission, I would like to
reserve 20 minutes of our time for my arguments.
From the words of our national hero, Jose Rizal, while a people preserve its language, it
preserves the mark of liberty. One of the greatest stories of the importance of freedom of speech is
the story of Jose Rizal and the story of our independence. Would we experience everything we have
right now if not for the works of Jose Rizal? By the very definition of hate speech, Jose Rizals novels
Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo would have checked all the marks of hate speech during that
time, this the very reason why speech should not be regulated just because it may be offensive.
Enshrined in Article III of our Constitution is the Bill of Rights. In Philippine Blooming Mills
Employment Organization vs Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.,1 the Supreme Court stated: The Bill
of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of
opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn
and derision of those who have no patience with general principles." Moreover, The rights of free
expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also political rights essential to
man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment. 2
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against arbitrary and discriminatory
use of political power. This bundle of rights guarantees the preservation of our natural rights which
include personal liberty and security against invasion by the government or any of its branches or
instrumentalities.3
Noting such, we are of the opinion that Sections 2,3,5, and 6 of Republic Act XAYZ violate the
Bill of Rights and thus should be stricken down for being unconstitutional.
The sections of Republic Act XAYZ specifically violate Section 4 of the Bill of Rights, which
protects the freedom of speech.
Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Enshrined in Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution is our freedom of speech. Just as all
other freedoms, it is not absolute; the Government may regulate such through its police power. Police
power has been defined as the fundamental power of the state, which enables it to prohibit all that is
hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.4
Speech in itself is regulated. However, hate speech per se is not within those that are
regulated by the State. What the State may regulate are those that will result to a danger of
substantive evil. The ponencia of then Chief Justice Puno in Chavez vs Gonzales5 citing Gonzales vs
Commission on Elections6 pertaining to freedom of speech is instructive:

1 G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1973.

2 Id.
3 Allado and Mendoza vs Diokno, G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994.
4 G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967.
5 G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008.
6 137 Phil. 471, 492 (1969)

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 and
punishment. There is to be 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.
Moreover, speech by itself is harmless unless coupled upon with action. There is no evidence
that may be brought upon that the mere utterances of the views of a person, even traversing the seas
of anger, may result in a disastrous event. The government cannot, in all its power, limit the
constitutionally begotten liberty of speech. If the opposite would happen, then the government itself is
destroying its very foundation, the Constitution.
Generally, restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by either or a
combination of three tests, i.e., (a) the dangerous tendency doctrine which permits limitations on
speech once a rational connection has been established between the speech restrained and the
danger contemplated; (b) the balancing of interests tests, used as a standard when courts need to
balance conflicting social values and individual interests, and requires a conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation of type of situation; and (c)
the clear and present danger rule which rests on the premise that speech may be restrained because
there is substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a right to
prevent. This rule requires that the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive,
extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high. 7
The Supreme Court further held that not every violation of a law will justify straitjacketing the
exercise of freedom of speech and of the press. Our laws are of different kinds and doubtless, some
of them provide norms of conduct which even if violated have only an adverse effect on a persons
private comfort but does not endanger national security. There are laws of great significance but their
violation, by itself and without more, cannot support suppression of free speech and free press. 8
Just because it can and may hurt or offend someone does not warrant the suppression of the
freedom of speech. It is necessary that it posses a threat to endanger national security. Thus, in a
way, it can be said that, there is a fundamental right to free speech but there is no such a thing as a
fundamental right not to be offended.
Our Bill of Rights is based on American Bill of Rights, therefore, it is just right to site American
Jurisprudence on the same issue at hand. The United States Supreme Court has defined hate
speech as any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some
characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other
characteristic. This is not far from the definition of hate speech in Republic Act XAYZ. In the United
States, most forms of hate speech are protected by the U.S. Constitution, and laws prohibiting such
speech have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, with the exception of hate speech
deemed to fall into various categories such as obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting
words. Using principles set forth by the Supreme Court, even in cases where speech would arguably
encourage violence, the speech is rendered unlawful only if the threat of violence is imminent and the
speech is likely to produce such violence.
This is seen in the case of R.A.V. vs City of St. Paul, where the United States Supreme Court
declared a Minnesota Law aimed to punish persons who will arouse anger, alarms and the like based
upon race, culture, religion, and the like as unconstitutional for infringing the freedom of speech
guaranteed by their First Amendment. Such law was focused on the motivation for the thinking that
7 Supra, note 6.
8 Supra, note 6.

results in criminal behavior rather than on the criminal behavior itself, and thus was properly declared
unconstitutional for infringing the freedom of speech.
The way the United States regulates freedom of speech is thus similar to the way the Philippines has
regulated such in various jurisprudence, and that is using the tests to determine whether such speech
can arouse violence threatening national security worthy of the States police power.
In the case of MVRS Inc. vs Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc., the Supreme
Court did nothing but follow suit with what American Jurisprudence has already laid down, they
recognized American Jurisprudence stating that in as much as some speech are lewd, profane,
insulting, or otherwise vulgar or offensive, they are nevertheless protected by the freedom of speech.
So long as they do not incite or produce imminent or lawless action then they are not punishable.
Even quoting Justice Harlan of the United States Supreme Court, "[O]ne man's vulgarity is another
man's lyric x x x words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force."
In sum, I close my arguments by quoting renowned poet Voltaire, I may utterly detest what
you write, but I shall fight to the death to make it possible for you to continue writing it. Just because
we are against the Anti-Hate Speech Law doesnt make us Pro Hate Speech. What we are, is pro the
freedom of speech. President Barack Obama was even quoted saying:
Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of
all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree
with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because
our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of
each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith
may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to
restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress
minorities.
We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion
that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against
hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of
tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of
understanding and mutual respect.
I pray the court declares RA XAYZ unconstitutional. Thank you.