Media Law and Ethics focuses on the legal and ethical framework defining

media freedoms and constraints

Mass media - What did you mean by mass media?

the means of communication that reach large numbers of people in a short time,
such as television, newspapers, magazines, and radio.

Abaya vs. Ebdane - Pacta Sunt Servanda

Based on the Exchange of Notes dated December 27, 1999,[1] the Government of
Japan and the Government of the Philippines, through their respective
representatives, namely, Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Republic of the Philippines, and then Secretary of
Foreign Affairs Domingo L. Siazon, have reached an understanding concerning
Japanese loans to be extended to the Philippines.

Loan : (Y79,861,000,000)

Issue : Whether or not the Loan Agreement No. PH-204 between the JBIC and the
Philippine Government is a kind of a treaty.

HELD:
The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes
dated December 27, 1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine
Government is an executive agreement.
An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine agreement that has many
similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange
of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by
the representative of the other.

The public respondents characterize foreign loan agreements, including Loan

Agreement No. PH-P204, as executive agreements and, as such, should be
observed pursuant to the fundamental principle in international law of pacta sunt
servanda.[33] They cite Section 20 of Article VII of the Constitution as giving the
President the authority to contract foreign loans:

SEC. 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall,
within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the
Congress a complete report of its decisions on applications for loans to be
contracted or guaranteed by the Government or Government-owned and Controlled
Corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and
containing other matters as may be provided by law.

The Constitution, the public respondents emphasize, recognizes the enforceability of

executive agreements in the same way that it recognizes generally accepted
principles of international law as forming part of the law of the land.[34] This
recognition allegedly buttresses the binding effect of executive agreements to which
the Philippine Government is a signatory. It is pointed out by the public
respondents that executive agreements are essentially contracts governing the
rights and obligations of the parties. A contract, being the law between the parties,
must be faithfully adhered to by them. Guided by the fundamental rule of pacta
sunt servanda, the Philippine Government bound itself to perform in good faith its
duties and obligations under Loan Agreement No. PH-P204.

Under the fundamental principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda,[73]

which is, in fact, embodied in Section 4 of RA 9184 as it provides that "[a]ny treaty
or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to
which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed," the DPWH, as
the executing agency of the projects financed by Loan Agreement No. PH-P204,
rightfully awarded the contract for the implementation of civil works for the CP I
project to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation.

Sec 2. Art II
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts
the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.

Doctrine of Incorporation

Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can be part of our domestic law
either by transformation or by incorporation:
 
(a) The transformation method requires that an international law be
transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as
local legislation.

(b) The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional

declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law.

In most countries, the doctrine of incorporation dictates that rules of international law

are given equal standing with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments.
In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Philippines,
both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the
constitution.

Sec of Justice Vs. Lantion

Facts :
In accordance to "Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and
the Government of the United States of America" (RP-US Extradition Treaty), the Department of
Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a
request for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the United States attached with the Grand Jury
Indictment, the warrant of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, and
other supporting documents on June 18, 1999.  Mr. Jimenez was charged with the following:

i.    18 USC 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States; 2 counts; Maximum
Penalty: 5 years/count)
ii.    26 USC 7201 (Attempt to evade or defeat tax;4 counts; Maximum Penalty:5 years/count)
iii.    18 USC 1343 (Fraud by wire, radio, or television; 2 counts; Maximum Penalty: 5 years/count)
iv.    18 USC 1001 (False statement or entries; 6 counts; Maximum Penalty: 5 years/count)
v.    2 USC 441f (Election contributions in name of another; 33 counts; Maximum Penalty: less than
1 year)

Issue :

Ruling : The observance of our country's legal duties under a treaty is also compelled by Section 2,
Article II of the Constitution which provides that "[t]he Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with
nations." Under the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the and
land no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere
(Salonga & Yap, Public International Law, 1992 ed., p. 12).

The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or local courts) are confronted
with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the
provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize
them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with
proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the
observance of the Incorporation Clause in the above-cited constitutional provision

The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law are
given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the
principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect — a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may
repeal a treaty. In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic
of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the
constitution (Ibid.).

UN Declaration of Human Rights

Article I All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit
of brotherhood.

Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of

the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which

a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under
any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution
or by law.

Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Mejoff vs Director of Prisons

Facts:

        The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brought to
this country from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the
latter’s regime in the Philippines. Upon liberation, he was arrested as a Japanese
spy by US Army Counter Intelligence Corps. The People’s Court ordered his release
but the Deportation Board taking his case found that having no travel documents,
Mejoff was an illegal alien in this country and must referred the matter to the
immigration authorities. After corresponding investigation, the Immigration Board
of Commissioners declared that Mejoff entered the Philippine illegally and therefore
must be deported on the first available transportation to Russia. The petitioner was
then under custody. After repeated failures to ship this deportee abroad, the
authorities moved him to Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa where he has been confined
up to the present time. Two years had elapsed but the Government has not found
ways and means of removing the petitioner out of the country although it should be
said in fairness to the deportation authorities that it was through no fault of theirs
that no ship or country would take the petitioner.

Issue:

Whether or not Mejoff should be released from prison pending his deportation.

Held:

          The Philippines adopts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it is a

generally accepted principle of international law. It should be applied also to illegal
aliens like Mejoff so that it would be a violation of the said international law to
detain him for an unreasonable length of time since no vessel from his country is
willing to take him. Considering that the Government desires to expel the alien and
does not relish keeping him at the people’s expense, we must presume it is making
efforts to carry out the decree of exclusion by the highest officer of the land. On top
of the presumption, assurances were made during the oral argument that the
Government is really trying to expedite the expulsion of Mejoff. The petitioner can
be released if there is a record shown that the deportee is being imprisoned under
the pretense of awaiting a chance for deportation or unless the Government admit
that it can not deport him or he is being held for too long a period our courts will
not interfere. Article 2 of the Philippine Constitution states that, “The Philippines
renounces war as instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and except
for crimes committed against the laws of the land, is not limited to Philippine
citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.

What is the right to freedom of opinion and expression?

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless
of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any
other media of his choice.

International Covenant on Civil and political rights

Preamble

The States Parties to the present Covenant,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the

Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity
and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the
human person,

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and
political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be
achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his
civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural
rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United

Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human
rights and freedoms,

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and

to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to
strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in
the present Covenant,
Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless
of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any
other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it
special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain
restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of
public health or morals.

People vs. Purganann 389 SCRA 623 (2002)

Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United States

Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine
Government Note Verbale No. 0522 requesting the extradition of Mark B.
Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo.

Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was
granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the RTC of Manila, Branch
25. The TRO prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from filing with the
RTC a petition for his extradition. The validity of the TRO was, however,
assailed by the SOJ in a Petition before this Court in the said GR No.
139465. Initially, the Court -- by a vote of 9-6 -- dismissed the Petition. The
SOJ was ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition
request and its supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable period
within which to file a comment and supporting evidence.

Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ, this Court issued
its October 17, 2000, Resolution.By an identical vote of 9-6 -- after three
justices changed their votes -- it reconsidered and reversed its earlier
Decision. It held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and
hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. This
Resolution has become final and executory.

Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United States of

America, represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on May 18,
2001, the appropriate Petition for Extradition which was docketed as
Extradition Case No. 01192061.

Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez filed before it
an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion, which prayed that petitioners
application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing.

In its assailed May 23, 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez
and set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001. In that hearing, petitioner
manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court
allowing the accused in an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance
of a warrant of arrest.

After the hearing, the court a quo required the parties to submit their
respective memoranda. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative
prayer: that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the
amount of P100,000.

The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on June 15, 2001.
Thereafter, the court below issued its questioned July 3, 2001 Order,
directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his
temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. After he had surrendered his
passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted
provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July 4, 2001.

ISSUE:

WON an extraditee is entitled to notice and hearing before issuance of

warrant of arrest
WON the right to bail is available in extradition proceedings

HELD:

1. NO. It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069, our Extradition

Law, uses the word ”immediate” to qualify the arrest of the accused.
This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the
issuance of the arrest warrant. Hearing entails sending notices to the
opposing parties, receiving facts and arguments from them, and giving them
time to prepare and present such facts and arguments. Arrest subsequent to
a hearing can no longer be considered immediate.The law could not have
intended the word as a mere superfluity but, on the whole, as a means of
imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the determination of whether
a warrant of arrest should be issued.By using the phrase if it appears,the law
further conveys that accuracy is not as important as speed at such early
stage. The trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination
to ferret out the true and actual situation, immediately upon the filing of the
petition. From the knowledge and the material then available to it, the court
is expected merely to get a good first impression -- a prima facie finding --
sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and
detention of the accused.

Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution, which is invoked by

Jimenez, does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. It provides:

“Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons orthings to be seized.”

To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the

Constitution itself requires only the examination -- under oath or affirmation
-- of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. There is no
requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants
of arrest.

At most, in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence on record, judges merely

further examine complainants and their witnesses. In the present case,
validating the act of the respondent judge and instituting the practice of
hearing the accused and his witnesses at this early stage would be
discordant with the rationale for the entire system. If the accused were
allowed to be heard and necessarily to present evidence during the prima
facie determination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, what would stop
him from presenting his entire plethora of defenses at this stage -- if he so
desires -- in his effort to negate a prima facie finding? Such a procedure
could convert the determination of a prima facie case into a full-blown trial
of the entire proceedings and possibly make trial of the main case
superfluous. This scenario is also anathema to the summary nature of
extraditions.

That the case under consideration is an extradition and not a criminal action
is not sufficient to justify the adoption of a set of procedures more protective
of the accused. If a different procedure were called for at all, a more
restrictive one -- not the opposite -- would be justified in view of
respondent’s demonstrated predisposition to flee.
2. NO. The court agrees with petitioner. As suggested by the use of the word
“conviction,” the constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as
Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has
been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does
not apply to extradition proceedings because extradition courts do not
render judgments of conviction or acquittal.

It is also worth noting that before the US government requested the

extradition of the respondent, proceedings had already been conducted in
that country. But because he left the jurisdiction of the requesting state
before those proceedings could be completed, it was hindered from
continuing with the due processes prescribed under its laws. His invocation
of due process now has thus become hollow. He already had that
opportunity in the requesting state; yet, instead of taking it, he ran away.

World summit on Information Society Declarations