Facts:
In the legal case of The United States vs. Fred L. Dorr et al., Fred L. Dorr, the proprietor of the “Manila Freedom” newspaper, and Edward F. O’Brien, the editor, were charged with libel against Señor Benito Legarda, a United States Philippine Commissioner. They were accused of publishing a malicious headline over an article in their newspaper, which read: “Traitor, seducer and perjurer. Sensational allegations against Commissioner Legarda. Made of record and read in English. Spanish reading waived. Wife would have killed him. Legarda pale and nervous.”
The article pertained to judicial proceedings in the libel case of The United States vs. Valdez, where Legarda acted as the complainant. Attorney for Valdez sought to prove allegations against Legarda published in “Miau,” a newspaper where Valdez was editor. These facts were excluded from evidence but were filed in the case, and Dorr’s paper published them with the aforementioned captions written by O’Brien.
The trial proceeded in Manila’s Court of First Instance where Dorr and O’Brien were found guilty, sentenced to six months’ imprisonment at hard labor, and each fined $1,000 USD. They appealed, contending the headlines were fair deductions from a privileged report of a public judicial proceeding. The appeal included a demurrer stating the facts did not constitute a public offense and a motion for a jury trial, drawing from the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees. This motion was denied, and they were ultimately convicted of libel.
Issues:
1. Whether the Philippine Islands, being ceded by Spain to the United States, were subject to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, particularly the guarantee of trial by jury.
2. Whether Congress can exercise authority beyond the powers conferred by the Constitution or deny any rights guaranteed by it.
3. Whether the headlines written by O’Brien constituted libel as defined by the applicable Philippine law.
4. Whether the provisions of the U.S. Constitution regarding trial by jury extend to the Philippine Islands following cession.
5. Whether Congress lawfully authorized the Philippine Commission to enact the libel law under which the defendants were convicted.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the convictions of Dorr and O’Brien. The key findings were:
1. The Constitution did not extend to the Philippines purely by the act of cession, except for general principles of fundamental limitations on personal rights. The Constitution’s provisions on jury trials were not among these exceptions. Thus, there was no Constitutional guarantee of a jury trial in the Philippines at that time.
2. The libel law enacted by the Philippine Commission was within the authority given by Congress. Therefore, the Philippine Commission had the power to pass such legislation.
3. The headlines were deemed not to be a fair and true report of the judicial proceedings but rather libelous comments on the privileged matter. Malice in the publication was presumed by law due to the absence of justifiable motive or truth, which the defendants failed to show.
Doctrine:
The Supreme Court elucidated the doctrine that the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, in particular the right to trial by jury, do not automatically extend to territories which are not incorporated into the United States. It also established the principle that there is a clear demarcation between privileged reports of judicial proceedings and libelous comments or remarks made about such reports.
Class Notes:
1. Libel (Act No. 277, Philippine Commission): Defined as a malicious defamation tending to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation of a person, exposing them to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule without justifiable motive or truth shown.
2. Privilege (Section 7 of the Libel Act): A fair and true report of any judicial, legislative, or other public official proceedings is privileged unless malice is proven.
3. Remarks and Comments: Any additional significant language or commentary attached to a privileged report, if libelous in nature, removes the protection of privilege regardless of malicious intent.
4. Malicious Presumption: Absent proof of justifiable motive and the truth, the publication is presumed malicious.
Historical Background:
The case arose within the context of the early American colonial period in the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. The U.S. acquired the Philippines from Spain via the Treaty of Paris in 1898. Political and legal systems were transitioning, and this case exemplifies the complexities of integrating American constitutional law into the Philippine legal system. The decision reflects the Supreme Court grappling with the colonial status of the Philippines and aligning local statutes with principles derived from American jurisprudence amidst the absence of an automatically extended American constitutional guarantee.
Leave a Reply