![]() We need not look further than our own shores. Remulla’s defense, in many unfortunate ways, democracy and Red-tagging have found themselves entwined throughout history. And as one may easily fathom, conduct-more so dangerous conduct-falls within the easy ambit of regulation. Red-tagging, therefore, may be characterized to be more than just critique, but conduct. What makes the practice so dangerous is not solely the expression it evokes, but the action it incites. This leads to our second point: Red-tagging is not part of democracy. Remulla’s view simply overlooks the kinetic facet of Red-tagging. Though it may seem unfair, it is merely the structure of constitutional order deliberately leveling the playing field, we lone individuals share the Goliathan state.īut even if we were to leave technicality to the wayside, still, Hon. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but what’s sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. 2121 of 2021-both providing for the criminalization of Red-tagging-prohibit and punish Red-tagging by state actors alone. Perhaps it is for this reason that both House Bill No. The rules that apply to private individuals differ from the rules binding on state actors. Red-tagging, therefore, cannot just be explained away as the clash of differing opinions between peers, as Hon. With the change from individual to state comes an idiomatic and doctrinal shift from “right” to “authority,” or “duty.” Other than those instances in international law when a state is treated as a subject vis-à-vis other states, rarely do we adopt the language of state “rights” at all. While there is a fundamental right to freedom of expression, there is no such thing as a “sovereign right” to free speech. But state “speech” critical of the critics is received with suspicion. Political speech, such as that critical of the state, are afforded the highest level of protection. Court of Appeals-applies to the state alone. Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution imposes a limitation on the state from “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.” The limits of this provision-indeed, the invocation of any provision in the Bill of Rights, save for the right to privacy pursuant to the outlier case of Zulueta v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |