S.A 2020/21 B.E POLITICAL LAW | Question #2
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2020/21 BAR EXAMINATIONS IN POLITICAL LAW
#PoliticalLaw #PreviousBarQuestions
A law is passed penalizing any criticism of any sitting Member of the Supreme Court on any media platform. The penalty is higher when the criticism is made through social media.
Is this law constitutional? Explain briefly.
Ads.
 |
| Bar Q&A (2023 Ed.) - Political Law - Carlo Cruz - Questions and Answers |
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the law is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution on two grounds. First, it violates freedom of expression since it is overbroad, as the phrase “criticism of any sitting Member of the SC” includes judicial opinions which become a matter subject to debate of any sitting Justice.
Second, it violates the equal protection clause since the classification of Supreme Court justices against other impeachable constitutional officers is clearly irrational and is not germane to the ends sought to be achieved by the legislature.
RELATED
Constructive vs. Destructive Criticism
"One of man's most prized possessions is his integrity. There lies a thin line between [c]riticism and outright [d]efamation. When one makes commentaries about the other's performance of official duties, the criticism is considered [constructive], then aimed for the betterment of his or her service to the public.
It is thus, a continuing duty on the part of the public officer to make room for improvement on the basis of this [c]onstructive criticism in as much as it is [imperative] on the part of the general public to make the necessary commentaries should they see any lapses on the part of the public officer.
In [t]his case,(G.R. No. 212623) however, the criticism was more (destructive) than [c]onstructive and, worse, it was directed towards the personal relations of the parties."
"It has been held that a public officer should not be too onion-skinned and should be tolerant of criticism. The doctrine, nevertheless, would [only apply if] the defamatory statement was uttered in connection with the public officer’s duty.(G.R. No. 212623 January 11, 2016)" (Emphasis ours)
✍️⚖️JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Comments
Post a Comment