Distortion of historical facts

Last Thursday, NPC President Tony Antonio said that the Con-Com’s draft on the Bill of Rights carries one ADJECTIVE that can change the historical meaning of the clause on "freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press…"

He disclosed that as crafted by an unknown "genius" in the Con-Com the once classic phrase now reads: "No law shall be passed abridging the RESPONSIBLE exercise of the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press …"

The adjective RESPONSIBLE is not found in James Madison’s first ten amendments submitted on Sept. 25, 1789 by the US Congress to the 13 states for ratification. The states ratified the ten amendments without revision on Dec. 15, 1791.

Rights not based on inference

Before the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Madison: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

Madison pressed the case for a bill of rights. He believed that even a popularly elected government needed to be interdicted from infringing on personal liberty.

Fencing power out

The principles of freedom of speech and association were meant to fence the government out of the people’s discussions of personal beliefs, political questions, scientific research, and communication.

Albert Einstein considered indispensable to all scientific progress "freedom of expression in all realms of intellectual endeavor."

Based on political thought

A former US senator once wrote: "The founders of our country have familiarized themselves with the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Montesquieu. It was their grasp of history and their knowledge of political thought that enabled them to transcend the moment and write a document which was, as the Preamble states … for ourselves and our posterity."

Historical lessons

To frame the constitution, it is necessary to involve NOT mere invention but the application of historical lessons in a rational, coordinated, and successful system.

There are old documents that cannot be copied and edited like the Declaration of Independence or Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. This limitation applies with equal grace and effect to the clause on "due process or freedom of speech and of the press."

Like revising the Ten Commandments

It’s impossible to give a new meaning to judicial decisions written by great judicial statesmen like Marshall, Story, Holmes, Brandeis, Jackson, Warren, etc. According to one veteran analyst: "It’s like revising the Ten Commandments. We are not dealing with a Constitution and Bylaws subject to approval by SEC."

Same clause from 1902 to 1987

The free speech clause of the Bill of Rights of 1787 first reached PI as Section 5, Paragraph 13 of the Philippine Bill passed by the US Congress on July 1, 1902.

This was an organic act — a Constitution — that formally installed civil government in the islands. The Jones Law of August 29, 1916 was the second organic act that carried the free speech provision (Section 3, paragraph 13) without revision.

In 1935 the "Seven Wise Men" — Manuel A. Roxas, Conrado Benitez, Manuel C. Briones, Miguel Cuaderno, Filemon Sotto, Vicente Singson Encarnacion and Norberto Romualdez — made the final draft of the Constitution by reproducing the free speech provision as written in 1787.

From English soil

As Justice Holmes viewed the Constitution: "…The provisions are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil …it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth."

The free speech clause could trace its origin to the immutable lines that antedated the US Constitution of 1787. And in our time it has enjoyed centuries of wisdom, clarity of language, and classic definition.

Even a proclaimed "genius" in the Con-Com cannot simply revise the free speech clause without laying to rest centuries of fine principles, judicial decisions and the wisdom of great men and women. (Comments are welcome at rvp@fastmail.ph.inter.net.