IS PUTANG INA MO AN ACT OF SLANDER?
Putang ina mo! We often hear these offensive and unpleasant words in arguments and quarrels. Today, I am confronted by the issue as to whether or not “putang ina mo!” constitutes an act of slander.
Slander is the oral imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a person. This is otherwise known as oral defamation (RPC 358). In order to prove slander, there must be an oral defamatory imputation, malice, and an identified or identifiable victim.
Oral defamatory imputation is committed when things are said to a person that will bring shame or humiliate him. It is necessary that there is a malicious intent on the part of the accused. Expressing one’s opinion is actionable, if and when, the intention is to discredit.
Putang ina mo, as a rule, is merely an expression of disgust or displeasure and does not in itself constitute an oral defamation (Reyes v. People, GR L21528-29). The word “putang ina mo” when said in an argument does not connote an imputation of prostitution but merely a turn of phrase to show dislike to the person. Nevertheless, other antecedents like circumstances, time, place and relationship are to be considered. Even if the word putang ina mo is not definitely defamatory, the surrounding circumstances should be taken into account to make the person liable. The act, for instance, of searching the victim in the presence of her other employees were considered as indirect imputations of theft which she said she suspected the victim to have committed (People v De Guzman, GR L19075).
Therefore, putang ina mo, per se, does not consist slander but other surrounding circumstances may prove the crime.
Sunday, February 08, 2004
Can Election Day be changed?
Few months more to go before the election; sooner controversies will pop-up from side to side attesting issues of public concern. It is thus very essential to discuss pertinent legal matters about the election. First and foremost, it must be clear that the Election Day is always on the second Monday of May, in this case, May 10, 2004, every three years from the 1992 election (RA 7166). Nevertheless, the congress may change the date of election in special cases, as when there is a failure of election, but it should be as close as possible to the date of election. Again, the congress, not the COMELEC (without proper delegation of legislative power), through a legislative act may alter the date of the election. In this case, if the COMELEC would pass a resolution changing the day of election, it would be null and void.
Corollary to this, COMELEC has the sole authority to extend the election period. The Constitution clearly specified that “unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period shall commence ninety days before the day of election and shall end thirty days thereafter (1987 Constitution, Art. IX, C, sec. 9).” The Congress, in this point, although entrusted with a plenary power to enact laws, has no authority to alter the election period.
A RIGHT TO VOTE OR A PRIVILEGE TO VOTE?
There is a thin demarcation line between these two concepts that is very essential to note. Against popular opinion, there is no right to vote but only a privilege to vote. A “right” is a claim or a title to, or interest in, anything whatsoever that is enforceable by law. It is clear therefore that a right is that which nothing can constrain or control, and is natural to the person. The Constitution enumerates in Article III, Bill of Rights, all the natural rights endowed upon the person. It includes the right to life, liberty, and property and obviously suffrage, or vote, is not included in the enumeration. Suffrage rather is covered by another article in the Constitution.
Suffrage is a privilege given to individuals, who have reached the age of eighteen and duly registered to the List of Voters by the Commission on Election, and who have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and, in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the election. Definitely, with the qualifications given, suffrage is acquired if and when you have the qualifications and non of the disqualifications. Furthermore, being a privilege, it may be enlarged, restricted, granted, or withheld by the state. This is the reason why some convicted criminals are restricted to vote and cannot exercise such privilege. In addition, no person can be imprisoned for not exercising the privilege to vote.
Few months more to go before the election; sooner controversies will pop-up from side to side attesting issues of public concern. It is thus very essential to discuss pertinent legal matters about the election. First and foremost, it must be clear that the Election Day is always on the second Monday of May, in this case, May 10, 2004, every three years from the 1992 election (RA 7166). Nevertheless, the congress may change the date of election in special cases, as when there is a failure of election, but it should be as close as possible to the date of election. Again, the congress, not the COMELEC (without proper delegation of legislative power), through a legislative act may alter the date of the election. In this case, if the COMELEC would pass a resolution changing the day of election, it would be null and void.
Corollary to this, COMELEC has the sole authority to extend the election period. The Constitution clearly specified that “unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period shall commence ninety days before the day of election and shall end thirty days thereafter (1987 Constitution, Art. IX, C, sec. 9).” The Congress, in this point, although entrusted with a plenary power to enact laws, has no authority to alter the election period.
A RIGHT TO VOTE OR A PRIVILEGE TO VOTE?
There is a thin demarcation line between these two concepts that is very essential to note. Against popular opinion, there is no right to vote but only a privilege to vote. A “right” is a claim or a title to, or interest in, anything whatsoever that is enforceable by law. It is clear therefore that a right is that which nothing can constrain or control, and is natural to the person. The Constitution enumerates in Article III, Bill of Rights, all the natural rights endowed upon the person. It includes the right to life, liberty, and property and obviously suffrage, or vote, is not included in the enumeration. Suffrage rather is covered by another article in the Constitution.
Suffrage is a privilege given to individuals, who have reached the age of eighteen and duly registered to the List of Voters by the Commission on Election, and who have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and, in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the election. Definitely, with the qualifications given, suffrage is acquired if and when you have the qualifications and non of the disqualifications. Furthermore, being a privilege, it may be enlarged, restricted, granted, or withheld by the state. This is the reason why some convicted criminals are restricted to vote and cannot exercise such privilege. In addition, no person can be imprisoned for not exercising the privilege to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)