Fact-free opinions

By Jose Mari BFU Tirol

 

(The author is the dean of the University of San Agustin College of Law)

The Bill of Rights (Philippine Constitution, Article III) provides in part that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press. But this does not mean that the entitlement to an opinion is an absolute constitutional right. “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts,” said the multi-hyphenate Daniel Patrick Moynihan. And so an opinion, to be constitutionally protected, must be based on facts.

The necessity of having factual bases for opinions apply to us all. It is our duty to ensure that our written and spoken words will not constitute the crimes of libel and slander, respectively. It applies with greater intensity to the members of our society that are engaged in public service. For example:

1. Lawyers are frequently called upon to provide their opinions on various social and legal issues. But “(w)ithout legal competence, a lawyer’s advice is mere conversation. Competence requires a lawyer’s full understanding of the factual bases on which his advice will be provided, the legal principles applied to those facts and an ability to articulate for the client how the facts and the law relate to one another.” (Peter D. Ehrenhaft, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility in a Global Context [2005])
2. The media must report the news accurately, which they can only do if their reports are based on facts.
3. Government officials are constitutionally obligated by the Bill of Rights to inform the people on matters of public concern, which they can do only if they rely on facts.

An interesting example of the power of the words and opinions of a government official concerns that of a military officer, a general who is one of the spokespersons of the NTF-ELCAC. One of the arguments raised by the Office of the Solicitor General in the ongoing Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act is that the general is merely stating his personal opinion and exercising his freedom of expression when he red-tags certain persons and organizations. But these arguments ignore the fact the general, along with the other members of the armed forces, are required to obey and defer to their chain of command.  They cannot freely invoke the Bill of Rights the way civilians do.

These arguments also disregard Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) which, among others, requires persons in government service to:

–     always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest;

–     perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill, enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty, endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage;

–     remain true to the people at all times, act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged, at all times respect the rights of others, refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest;

–     provide service to everyone without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or preference;

–     extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public;

–     all times uphold the Constitution and put loyalty to country above loyalty to persons or party.

It is therefore clear that the good general cannot separate his personal from his public personae. Which begs the question: as a military man who serves as a spokesperson of a government agency, who in the chain of command authorized him to use his office to articulate his allegedly personal views?

In closing, our constitutional right to express ourselves must be exercised with due regard to the rights of others. The right must be exercised responsibly, in order to constructively contribute to the discourse. To understand and resolve issues, not to muddle them. Our words and opinions are powerful, and have legal, real-life, and sometimes fatal consequences. Especially when we are government officials whose subordinates may interpret our statements as marching orders.