04 – 14 - 20
Philippine Government & New Constitution
Assignment
Submitted by: Cabudsan, Solah Fatima C.
Submitted to: Mr. Estrada, Rafael Julius
Article III Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines specifies that no law shall be
passed abridging the freedom of speech or of expression. However, some laws limit this
freedom, for example:
Certain sections of the Flag and Heraldic Code require particular expressions and
prohibit other expressions.
Title thirteen of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines criminalizes libel and slander
by act or deed (slander by deed is defined as "any act ... which shall cast dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon another person."), providing penalties of fine or
imprisonment. In 2012, acting on a complaint by an imprisoned broadcaster who
dramatised a newspaper account reporting that a particular politician was seen running
naked in a hotel when caught in bed by the husband of the woman with whom he was
said to have spent the night, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled
that the criminalization of libel violates freedom of expression and is inconsistent with
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, commenting that
"Defamations laws should not ... stifle freedom of expression" and that "Penal
defamation laws should include defense of truth."
Blasphemy against decency and good customs is an offense which is punishable by a
prison term, a fine, or both. Other offenses against decency and good customs include:
public displays or exhibitions which glorify criminals or condone crimes, serve no other
purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography, offend any race or
religion, tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs, and are contrary to law,
public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and
edicts; publishing or selling obscene literature; selling, giving away, or exhibiting films,
prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals; publicly
expounding or proclaiming doctrines openly contrary to public morals; and highly
scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any other article of the code.
Examples of Filipino movies that violated the freedom of speech
Ang Batang Tulisan (1938), the black and white film was withdrawn from exhibition
by the BCMP for depicting a holy man in an evil role and the apparent use of a
hypodermic needle as a weapon for murder. Apparently, vilifying the church wasn’t
all the rage back in the day.
Iginuhit ng Tadhana (1965), then President Diosdado Macapagal banned the political
film for glorifying the exploits of then senator Ferdinand Marcos, who was his
primary political opponent. This was before Martial Law began, and Marcos would
follow in his predecessor’s footsteps in banning films that were aligned against him.
Hubad na Bayani (1977), UP students will recognize the title as the film that
triggered the start of UP Diliman’s Oblation Run. Hubad na Bayani was a film
released at the height of Martial Law that depicted the human rights violations
during the Marcos Regime. President Ferdinand Marcos banned the film from being
screened, thus sparking the beginning of a naked heroes protest, which is now
known as the Oblation Run.
Ang Mabuhay Para sa Masa (2006). Produced, directed, and starring former
President Joseph Estrada, the documentary is all about, you guessed it, Joseph
Estrada. It’s a PR piece made about Estrada by Estrada while he was detained for
one of his many plunder cases. It was banned for challenging the rule of President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who succeeded him after he was ousted in the second
EDSA Revolution. Like many of banned films in the Philippines, it was all politics in
the end.
Examples of Filipino advertisements that violated the freedom of speech
KFC’s “#ChickenSad” Hashtag Ad (2014)
Remember the “chicken crisis” that hit fast-food giant Jollibee back in August
2014? Customers everywhere were shocked and disappointed after they couldn’t
order Chickenjoy and other items on the menu for weeks. Even as Jollibee
management explained that their systems were undergoing an “upgrade,” its fast-
food rival KFC couldn’t resist capitalizing on its competitor’s moment of weakness.
Riding on the lack of Chickenjoy, KFC slapped the hashtag #ChickenSad on its own
poster and reminded customers Jollibee wasn’t the only one with “Finger lickin’
good” chicken.
Of course, the poster quickly set off a firestorm among fast-food patrons online.
While some praised KFC’s ingenuity, others condemned the chain for being
opportunistic. In a gracious move, KFC later removed its poster from its social media
accounts.
Colt 45’s “Vava-Vroom Real Man Promo” (2010)
It was not only men who took notice of Colt 45’s steamy 2010 commercial
featuring sexy actress Cristine Reyes in a white bikini being massaged by a guy on a
beach. The ad was supposed to be a promo wherein a lucky winner would get the
chance to spend a weekend getaway with Reyes.
The Philippine Commission on Women (PCW) blasted Asia Brewery Incorporated
for the steamy ad, saying it reduces women to mere commodities. Although the
company defended its actions and said the concept of winning a date with a
celebrity is nothing new, it later withdrew the commercial and edited an earlier one
showing Reyes showering and getting ready for a date.
Napoleon Quince’s “Nakatikim Ka Na Ba Ng Kinse Anyos?” (2004)
Destileria Limtuaco, the maker of Napoleon Quince, ignited a public firestorm in
2004 when it posted billboards of its brandy along with the tagline “Nakatikim ka na
ba ng kinse anyos”? (Have you tasted a 15-year-old?).
Protesters slammed the company for the apparent innuendo and successfully
petitioned the Advertising Board of the Philippines to have the billboards removed.
Instead of letting the controversy die, however, the company fought back with
lawsuits against the Advertising Board which went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately for them, the high tribunal threw out their case in 2008.
Bayantel’s “Satisfaction Guarantee” Ad (2006)
In its bid to secure more subscribers, telecommunications firm Bayantel
committed a major faux pas in 2006 when it posted a billboard of a semi-naked
woman with a satisfied expression along with the words “Satisfaction Guarantee”.
To the company’s credit, however, they took down the sexually-implicit billboard
before any major protests could form and replaced the image with that of a happy
kid eating ice cream.
McDonald’s “BF-GF” Commercial (2011)
“It was shallow and cheapened human relationships.” Those were the words
used by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) after it objected
to a McDonald’s ad in 2011 showcasing two young children, a boy and a girl.
In the commercial, the girl asks the boy if she can be his girlfriend. The boy at
firsts says no because girlfriends can be demanding but apparently changes his mind
after the girl says all she wants is French fries. While the fast-food chain acquiesced
to the CBCP’s demands and pulled out the ad, many Filipinos, in turn, criticized the
CBCP for putting malice in an otherwise harmless ad.
Examples of Filipino songs that violated the freedom of speech
PDEA Director General Aaron Aquino wrote a letter to several large media entities in
the Philippines lobbying to ban “Amatz,” a rap song that allegedly glorifies drug use.
The letter declares: “This kind of music should not be allowed and we shouldn’t
patronize these kinds of artists.” PDEA was concerned with the chorus of the song,
which has the lines “Lakas ng amats ko, sobrang natural, walang halong kemikal,”
which roughly translates to “I’m so high, it’s so natural, and with no chemicals.”
Aquino also mentioned another line in the song that, according to him, directly
references marijuana.
While Shanti Dope’s management has denied PDEA’s interpretation and
attempted to clarify the song’s meaning –while calling out PDEA for setting a
dangerous precedent for artists in the process– PDEA might have finally gotten its
way with the help of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC). The song
is now banned in TV and radio stations under the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng
Pilipinas (KBP), or Association of Philippine Broadcasters, an organization that
currently has 121 members. The organization encompasses a large number of the
country’s radio and television stations.
While the fight may be lost in traditional media, “Amatz” continues to live on in
digital platforms like Spotify and YouTube. Shanti Dope and “Amatz” has benefited
from the Streisand Effect, wherein any attempt to censor or debase something has
the unintended consequence of publicizing it further.
References:
https://www.esquiremag.ph/culture/movies-and-tv/15-most-controversial-and-
banned-films-in-the-philippines-that-you-have-to-watch-a1926-20191002-lfrm
https://filipiknow.net/controversial-advertisements-in-the-philippines/
https://www.vice.com/en_asia/article/ywyey7/pdea-bans-rap-song-shanti-dope
