freedom essay tagalog

December 21, 2017

Norman Rockwell

Carlos Bulosan’s ‘Freedom from Want’

In 1943, the Post commissioned Filipino novelist and poet Carlos Bulosan to craft this essay to accompany Norman Rockwell’s ‘Freedom from Want.’

Carlos Bulosan

Share on Facebook (opens new window)
Share on Twitter (opens new window)
Share on Pinterest (opens new window)

Weekly Newsletter

The best of The Saturday Evening Post in your inbox!

In 1943, the Post commissioned four writers to craft an essay to accompany each of Norman Rockwell’s Four Freedoms paintings, which had quickly come to represent America’s moral imperative during World War II. You can read the other three essays here .

Freedom from Want

Originally published March 6, 1943

Subscribe and get unlimited access to our online magazine archive.

If you want to know what we are, look upon the farms or upon the hard pavements of the city. You usually see us working or waiting for work, and you think you know us, but our outward guise is more deceptive than our history.

Our history has many strands of fear and hope, that snarl and converge at several points in time and space. We clear the forest and the mountains of the land. We cross the river and the wind. We harness wild beast and living steel. We celebrate labor, wisdom, peace of the soul.

When our crops are burned or plowed under, we are angry and confused. Sometimes we ask if this is the real America. Sometimes we watch our long shadows and doubt the future. But we have learned to emulate our ideals from these trials. We know there were men who came and stayed to build America. We know they came because there is something in America that they needed, and which needed them.

We march on, though sometimes strange moods fill our children. Our march toward security and peace is the march of freedom — the freedom that we should like to become a living part of. It is the dignity of the individual to live in a society of free men, where the spirit of understanding and belief exist; of understanding that all men are equal; that all men, whatever their color, race, religion or estate, should be given equal opportunity to serve themselves and each other according to their needs and abilities.

But we are not really free unless we use what we produce. So long as the fruit of our labor is denied us, so long will want manifest itself in a world of slaves. It is only when we have plenty to eat — plenty of everything — that we begin to understand what freedom means. To us, freedom is not an intangible thing. When we have enough to eat, then we are healthy enough to enjoy what we eat. Then we have the time and ability to read and think and discuss things. Then we are not merely living but also becoming a creative part of life. It is only then that we become a growing part of democracy.

We do not take democracy for granted. We feel it grow in our working together — many millions of us working toward a common purpose. If it took us several decades of sacrifices to arrive at this faith, it is because it took us that long to know what part of America is ours.

Our faith has been shaken many times, and now it is put to question. Our faith is a living thing, and it can be crippled or chained. It can be killed by denying us enough food or clothing, by blasting away our personalities and keeping us in constant fear. Unless we are properly prepared, the powers of darkness will have good reason to catch us unaware and trample our lives.

The totalitarian nations hate democracy. They hate us because we ask for a definite guaranty of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom from fear and want. Our challenge to tyranny is the depth of our faith in a democracy worth defending. Although they spread lies about us, the way of life we cherish is not dead. The American Dream is only hidden away, and it will push its way up and grow again.

We have moved down the years steadily toward the practice of democracy. We become animate in the growth of Kansas wheat or in the ring of Mississippi rain. We tremble in the strong winds of the Great Lakes. We cut timbers in Oregon just as the wild flowers blossom in Maine. We are multitudes in Pennsylvania mines, in Alaskan canneries. We are millions from Puget Sound to Florida. In violent factories, crowded tenements, teeming cities. Our numbers increase as the war revolves into years and increases hunger, disease, death, and fear.

But sometimes we wonder if we are really a part of America. We recognize the mainsprings of American democracy in our right to form unions and bargain through them collectively, our opportunity to sell our products at reasonable prices, and the privilege of our children to attend schools where they learn the truth about the world in which they live. We also recognize the forces which have been trying to falsify American history — the forces which drive many Americans to a corner of compromise with those who would distort the ideals of men that died for freedom.

Sometimes we walk across the land looking for something to hold on to. We cannot believe that the resources of this country are exhausted. Even when we see our children suffer humiliations, we cannot believe that America has no more place for us. We realize that what is wrong is not in our system of government, but in the ideals which were blasted away by a materialistic age. We know that we can truly find and identify ourselves with a living tradition if we walk proudly in familiar streets. It is a great honor to walk on the American earth.

If you want to know what we are, look at the men reading books, searching in the dark pages of history for the lost word, the key to the mystery of living peace. We are factory hands, field hands, mill hands, searching, building, and molding structures. We are doctors, scientists, chemists, discovering and eliminating disease, hunger, and antagonism. We are soldiers, Navy men, citizens, guarding the imperishable dream of our fathers to live in freedom. We are the living dream of dead men. We are the living spirit of free men.

Everywhere we are on the march, passing through darkness into a sphere of economic peace. When we have the freedom to think and discuss things without fear, when peace and security are assured, when the futures of our children are ensured — then we have resurrected and cultivated the early beginnings of democracy. And America lives and becomes a growing part of our aspirations again.

We have been marching for the last 150 years. We sacrifice our individual liberties, and sometimes we fail and suffer. Sometimes we divide into separate groups and our methods conflict, though we all aim at one common goal. The significant thing is that we march on without turning back. What we want is peace, not violence. We know that we thrive and prosper only in peace.

We are bleeding where clubs are smashing heads, where bayonets are gleaming. We are fighting where the bullet is crashing upon armorless citizens, where the tear gas is choking unprotected children. Under the lynch trees, amidst hysterical mobs. Where the prisoner is beaten to confess a crime he did not commit. Where the honest man is hanged because he told the truth.

We are the sufferers who suffer for natural love of man for another man, who commemorate the humanities of every man. We are the creators of abundance.

We are the desires of anonymous men. We are the subways of suffering, the well of dignities. We are the living testament of a flowering race.

But our march to freedom is not complete unless want is annihilated. The America we hope to see is not merely a physical but also a spiritual and an intellectual world. We are the mirror of what America is. If America wants us to be living and free, then we must be living and free. If we fail, then America fails.

What do we want? We want complete security and peace. We want to share the promises and fruits of American life. We want to be free from fear and hunger.

If you want to know what we are — we are marching!

Become a Saturday Evening Post member and enjoy unlimited access. Subscribe now

Rockwell Files: At the Optometrist

Jeff Nilsson

Apr 25, 2024

Art , Cover Art , Norman Rockwell

Rockwell Files: A Sporting Chance

Apr 15, 2024

Archives , Art , Cover Art , Norman Rockwell

Rockwell Files: In Search of the Lost Deduction

it was kind of back then because nobody writtes like that today.

How much is the ” Freedom from want” year published 1992 off set Lithograph 281 / 1000 arenworth now?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

15 Sep Rizal’s Stand on Freedom

While awaiting trial in 1896, Rizal wrote a manifesto that expressed his disapproval of the armed revolution against Spain. He cleared his name, which he said was being used by some revolutionaries to espouse certain ideals. He said that he has always opposed, fought, and made clear that armed revolution was impossible, absurd, and disastrous. He explained that reforms must “also come from above,” because reforms that “come from below are upheavals both violent and transitory.”

He emphasized, however, that like any Filipino, he desired our country’s freedom; and that education and hard work might make the Filipino people worthy of that freedom. Elsewhere, Rizal wrote: “What is the use of independence if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And no doubt they will, because whoever submits to tyranny loves it!” For Rizal, “The gift of reason with which we are endowed must be brightened and utilized” in order to overcome ignorance which causes slavery.”

What comes first, however, is love for country, which can be expressed in various forms. In his poem “Mi Ultimo Adios,” Rizal wrote:

The place matters not—cypress or laurel or lily white, Scaffold or open plain, combat or martyrdom’s plight, T’is ever the same, to serve our home and country’s need.

Photo: Graciano T.Nepomuceno: Jose Rizal . Circa 1930

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Subscribe Now

[EDITORIAL] Bakuna ang press freedom sa panahon ng pandemic

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Nakakulong ka dahil sa pandemic. Tapos bigla mong mababalitaan mula sa isang kilalang website na wala ka na palang aasahang suweldo kahit regular kang empleyado. “Mandatory no work, no pay ” na raw ngayon. Paano kakain ang pamilya mo?

Nabasa mo rin sa internet na panlaban daw sa virus ang maasim . Sa dinami-dami ng calamansi juice na ininom mo, mahapdi na ang sikmura mo at ‘di malayong nagka-ulcer ka na.

Dagdag pa diyan ang panginginig ng tuhod mo sa takot nang mapanood mo ang video ng mga katawang itinatambak sa mass graves sa Italy . Ibig sabihin, hindi malayong mangyari ‘yan sa Pilipinas!

Pero ilang search lang sa internet at makakahinga ka nang maluwag dahil “disinformation” pala ang mga ito. Lahat ng ‘yan ay HINDI TOTOO. May mga troll post pa ngang namemeke ng logo ng mga mapagkakatiwalaang website tulad ng unang ehemplo.

Ito ang konkretong halimbawa ng serbisyo publiko ng lehitimong pamamahayag.

“Freedom of speech” at “press freedom” – ang kalayaan mong magpahayag ng opinyon at kalayaan ng mga mamamahayag na magbalita – ay garantisado ng ating Konstitusyon. Ang problema, sinabi mismo ni Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte na toilet paper ang Saligang Batas. May halaga ba ‘yan sa panahon ng pandemic?

Higit kailanman, kailangan natin ang mga batayang kalayaan upang maigpawan ang krisis at hindi tayo masiraan ng ulo. At hindi ‘yan cliche. Sa harap ng disinformation na pinakulo ng maiitim na budhi at bayarang mersenaryo sa internet, ang mga kalayaang ‘yan ang magbubukas ng mata natin sa katotohan.

Bakit? Lagpas sa pagkilatis ng totoo at peke, higit kailanman, kailangang singilin ang mga nasa kapangyarihan.

Sa panahon kasi ng krisis nagkakalabasan ng baho. Nabubuking ang puro dada at walang gawa. Napaghahalata ang inutil at tumitingkad ang mahuhusay. Kaya’t kritikal ang mga kritiko.

Ito rin ang dahilan kung bakit sa maraming sulok ng mundo, ginagamit na excuse ang krisis pangkalusugan upang busalan ang mga kritiko.

Sa Hungary, binigyan ng “unli” na kapangyarihan si Premier Viktor Orban na magpatupad ng mga decree na ‘di kailangang sang-ayunan ng mga Members of Parliament (MP). Sa Jordan , binigyan ng isang “defense law” ng kapangyarihan ang Prime Minister na habulin ang mga umano’y “nagpapalaganap ng panic.” Ganoon din sa Thailand kung saan bawal ang media magbalita ng “pekeng balita” na “mananakot sa taumbayan.” Sa Chile , militar na ang nakatambay sa mga public squares na dating balwarte ng mga nagpoprotesta.

Ang problema, ang mga nasa kapangyarihan ang nagbibigay depenisyon sa taguring “maling balita.” Kapag hindi natipuhan ang sinabi mo, babansagan ka lang na “fake news,” puwede ka nang hulihin.

Ayon kay Fionnuala Ni Aolain, ang United Nations Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, maari tayong magkaroon ng “ parallel epidemic ” ng mapanupil na mga polisiya na sasabay sa pandemic.

Kahit bago pa ang epidemic, hindi na maganda ang record ng Pilipinas sa press freedom. Isa tayo sa mga kulelat sa World Press Freedom Index – pang-134.

Kaya’t di na nakakagulat na ipinatawag ng National Bureau of Investigation ang higit sa sandosenang taong nag-post ng mga kuro-kuro na hindi ikinatuwa ng mga nasa-poder. Ayon kay Chel Diokno na abugado ng isa sa mga nag-post, nagpahayag lamang ang kanyang kliyente ng “concern” sa nagaganap sa bayan. Bakit balat-sibuyas ang gobyerno sa mga post na nag-uungkat ng paggamit ng pondo ng pamahalaan? ( PANOORIN: Chel Diokno on the Rule of Law in a pandemic )

Sabi ng Department of Justice, nililimitahan ang free speech ng “ greater interest of the public .” At lahat naman daw ng hakbang nila ay alinsunod sa batas. Tanong kay Mr Menardo Guevarra, iiral ba ang “restraint” sa mga pulis, militar, at mga piskal kung mismong ang Pangulo ang nagsabing “ shoot them dead ?”

Nakadidismaya rin na ang isang campus journalist ng University of the East ay napilitang humingi ng tawad matapos batikusin si Duterte sa social media. Mismong mga dating titser niya ang nagpasimuno ng pagsasampa ng reklamo sa kanya sa barangay. Hindi na namin tatalakayin ang pagtataksil sa propesyon ng mga gurong nam-bully na supporter pala ni Digong. Ang nakaaalarma ay umabot pa ito sa barangay at ginamit na panakot ang cyber libel sa pobreng estudyanteng naging kritikal sa gobyerno.

May karapatan tayong lahat sa tumpak na balita. At lalong may karapatan tayong maglabas ng saloobin sa mga polisiyang nagbabago, at maaring sumira, ng buhay natin.

Sa panahong hindi abot-kamay ang hanap-buhay, laganap ang sakit na nakamamatay – buhay o kamatayan natin ang husay o kapalpakan ng gobyerno. Ang tanging panangga natin ay ang ating boses.

Sa totoo lang, bakuna ang malayang pamamahayag sa mga kasinungalingan at kapalpakan sa panahoon ng pandemic. Higit kailanman, dapat natin itong itaguyod at ipagtanggol. #DefendPressFreedom #CourageON – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Article III of 1987 Philippine Constitution

Article 3 pertains to the Bill of Rights.

Below is a side-by-side presentation of Article Three (3) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution in the Filipino language and in English.

IN FILIPINO	ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ARTIKULO III	ARTICLE III
KATIPUNAN NG MGA KARAPATAN	BILL OF RIGHTS
Hindi dapat alisan ng buhay, kalayaan, or ari-arian ang sino mang tao nang hindi kaparaanan ng batas, ni pagkaitan ang sino mang tao ng pantay na pangangalaga ng batas.	No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Ang karapatan ng mga taong-bayan na magkaroon ng kapanatagan sa kanilang sarili, pamamahay, papeles, at mga bagay-bagay laban sa hindi makatwirang paghahalughog at pagsamsam sa ano mang layunin ay hindi dapat labagin, at hindi dapat maglagda ng warrant sa paghalughog o warrant sa pagdakip maliban kung may malinaw na dahilan na personal na pagpapasyahan ng hukom matapos masiyasat ang mayhabla at ang mga testigong maihaharap niya sa ilalim ng panunumpa o patotoo, at tiyakang tinutukoy ang lugar na hahalughugin, at mga taong darakpin o mga bagay na sasamsamin.	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 or things to be seized.
(1) Hindi dapat labagin ang pagiging lihim ng komunikasyon at korespondensya maliban sa legal na utos ng hukuman, o kapag hinihingi ang naiibang kaligtasan o kaayusan ng bayan ayon sa itinakda ng batas. (2) Hindi dapat tanggapin para sa ano mang layunin sa alin mang hakbangin sa paglilitis ang ano mang ebidensya na nakuha nang labag dito o sa sinusundang seksyon.	(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Hindi dapat magpatibay ng batas na nagbabawas sa kalayaan sa pananalita, pagpapahayag, o ng pamamahayagan, o sa karapatan ng mga taong-bayan na mapayabang magkatipon at magpetisyon sa pamahalaan upang ilahad ang kanilang mga karaingan.	No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Hindi dapat magbalangkas ng batas para sa pagtatatag ng relihiyon, o nagbabawal sa malayang pagsasagamit nito. Dapat ipahintulot magpakailanman ang malayang pagsasagamit at pagtatamasa ng pagpapahayag ng relihiyon at pagsamba nang walang pagtatangi o pamimili. Hindi dapat kailanganin ang pagsusulit pangrelihiyon sa pagsasagamit ng karapatang sibil o pampulitika.	No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Hindi dapat bawalan ang kalayaan sa paninirahan at ang pagbabago ng tirahan sa saklaw ng mga katakdaang itinatadhana ng batas maliban sa legal na utos ng hukuman. Ni hindi dapat bawalan ang karapatan sa paglalakbay maliban kung para sa kapakanan ng kapanatagan ng bansa, kaligtasang pambayan, o kalusugang pambayan ayon sa maaaring itadhana ng batas.	The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Dapat kilalanin ang karapatan ng taong-bayan na mapagbatiran hinggil sa mga bagay-bagay na may kinalaman sa . Ang kaalaman sa mga opisyal na rekord, at sa mga dokumento at papeles tungkol sa mga opisyal na gawain, transaksyon, o pasya, gayon din sa mga datos sa pananaliksik ng pamahalaan na pinagbabatayan ng patakaran sa pagpapaunlad ay dapat ibigay sa mamamayan sa ilalim ng mga katakdaang maaaring itadhana ng batas.	The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Hindi dapat hadlangan ang karapatan ng mga taong-bayan kabilang ang mga naglilingkod sa publiko at pribadong sektor na magtatag ng mga asosasyon, mga unyon, o mga kapisanan sa mga layuning hindi lalabag sa batas.	The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Ang mga pribadong ariarian ay hindi dapat kunin ukol sa gamit pambayan nang walang wastong kabayaran.	Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Hindi dapat magpatibay ng batas na sisira sa pananagutan ng mga kontrata.	No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
Hindi dapat ipagkait sa sino mang tao ang malayang pagdulog sa mga hukuman at sa mga kalupunang mala-panghukuman at sapat na tulong pambatas nang dahil sa karalitaan.	Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
(1) Ang sino mang tao na sinisiyasat dahil sa paglabag ay dapat magkaroon ng karapatang mapatalastasan ng kaniyang karapatang magsawalang-kibo at magkaroon ng abogadong may sapat na kakayahan at malaya na lalong kanais-nais kung siya ang maypili. Kung hindi niya makakayanan ang paglilingkod ng abogado, kinakailangang pagkalooban siya ng isa. Hindi maiuurong ang mga karapatang ito maliban kung nakasulat at sa harap ng abogado. (2) Hindi siya dapat gamitan ng labis na pagpapahirap, pwersa, dahas, pananakot, pagbabanta, o ano mang paraaan na pipinsala sa kanyang malayang pagpapasya. Ipinagbabawal ang mga lihim kulungan, solitaryo, ingkomunikado, o iba pang katulad ng anyo ng detensyon. (3) Hindi dapat tanggaping ebidensya laban sa kanya ang ano mang pagtatapat o pag-amin na nakuha nang labag sa seksyong ito o sa seksyong labing-pito. (4) Dapat magtadhana ang batas ng mga kaparusahang penal at sibil sa mga paglabag sa seksyong ito at gayon din ng bayad-pinsala at rehabilitasyon sa mga biktima ng labis na mga paghihirap o katulad ng mga nakagawian, at sa kanilang mga pamilya.	(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
Ang lahat ng mga tao, maliban sa mga nahahabla sa mga paglabag na pinarurusahan ng reclusion perpetua kapag matibay ang ebidensya ng pagkakasala, bago mahatulan, ay dapat mapyansahan ng sapat ng pyador, o maaaring palayain sa bisa ng panagot ayon sa maaaring itadhana ng batas. Hindi dapat bawalan ang karapatan sa pyansa kahit na suspendido ang pribilehiyo ng writ of habeas corpus. Hindi dapat kailanganin ang malabis na pyansa.	All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
(1) Hindi dapat papanagutin sa pagkakasalang kriminal ang sino mang tao nang hindi kaparaanan ng batas. (2) Sa lahat ng mga pag-uusig kriminal, ang nasasakdal ay dapat ituring na walang sala hangga’t hindi napapatunayan ang naiiba, at dapat magtamasa ng karapatang magmatwid sa pamamagitan ng sarili at ng abogado, mapatalastasan ng uri at dahilan ng sakdal laban sa kanya, magkaroon ng mabilis, walang kinikilingan, at hayagan paglitis, makaharap ang mga testigo, magkaroon ng sapilitang kaparaanan upang matiyak ang pagharap ng mga testigo sa paglilitaw ng ebidensyang para sa kanyang kapakanan. Gayon man, matapos mabasa ang sakdal, maaring ituloy ang paglilitis kahit wala ang nasasakdal sa pasubaling marapat na napatalastasan siya at di makatwiran ang kanyang kabiguang humarap.	(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Hindi dapat suspindihin ang pribilehiyo ng writ of habeas corpus, maliban kung may pananalakay o paghihimagsik, kapag kinakailangan ng kaligtasan pambayan.	The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
Dapat magkaroon ang lahat ng mga tao ng karapatan sa madaliang paglutas ng kanilang mga usapin sa lahat ng mga kalupunang panghukuman, mala-panghukuman, o pampangasiwaan.	All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Hindi dapat pilitin ang isang tao na tumestigo laban sa kanyang sarili.	No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
(1) Hindi dapat detenihin ang sino mang tao dahil lamang sa kanyang paniniwala at hangaring pampulitika. (2) Hindi dapat pairalin ang ano mang anyo ng sapilitang paglilingkod, maliban kung kaparusahang pataw ng hatol ng pagkakasala.	(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
(1) Hindi dapat ipataw ang malabis na multa, ni ilapat ang malupit, imbi o di-makataong parusa, o ang parusang kamatayan, matangi kung magtadhana ang Kongreso ng parusang kamatayan sa mga kadahilanang bunsod ng mga buktot ng krimen. Dapat ibaba sa reclusion perpetua ang naipataw nang parusang kamatayan. (2) Dapat lapatan ng kaukulang batas ang pagpapahirap na pisikal, sikolohikal, o imbing pagpaparusa sa sino mang bilanggo o detenido o ang paggamit ng mga kaluwagang penal na di-makatao.	(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Hindi dapat ibilanggo ang isang tao nang dahil sa pagkakautang o hindi pagbabayad ng sedula.	No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Hindi dapat na ang isang tao ay makalawang masapanganib ng kaparusahan sa iisang paglabag. Kung pinarurusahan ng batas at ng ordinansa ang isang kagagawan, ang pagkaparusa o pakaabswelto sa ilalim ng alin man dito ay magiging hadlang sa iba pang pag-uusig sa gayon ding kagagawan.	No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Hindi dapat magpatibay ng batas ex post facto o bill of attainder.	No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Article XVIII of Philippine Constitution

3 thoughts on “Article III of 1987 Philippine Constitution”

Can you elaborate the doctrine of Incorporation that related to article 3 section 9. of the bill of rights? Thanks

Nice men aweome web

thanks for your very good article 3 i understand it very well!….

Preamble – 1987 Philippines Explanation English, Tagalog Version

The Preamble is the first part of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Eve ry Filipino must know the Preamble and understand its meaning by heart. Most students in college who study law and political science memorize the Preamble as it is the introductory part of learning the Philippine Constitution. It is also important to master the words, purpose, and meaning behind them.

Every word is beautiful and meaningful. We also share the Tagalog or Filipino version of Preamble below.

Table of Contents:

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

preamble philippines explanation english tagalog version

Preamble Tagalog Version

Kami, ang nakapangyayaring sambayanang Pilipino, na humihingi ng tulong sa Makapangyarihang Diyos, upang bumuo ng isang makatarungan at makataong lipunan at magtatag ng isang Pamahalaan nakakatawan sa aming mga mithiin at mga lunggatiin, magtataguyod ng kabutihan sa bawat isa, mangangalaga at magpapaunlad ng aming kamanahan, at titiyak para saming sarili at angkanang susunod ng mga biyaya ng kalayaan at demokrasya sa ilalim ng pananaig ng batas at ng pamamahalang puspos ng katotohanan, katarungan, kalayaan, pag-ibig, pagkakapantay-pantay at kapayapaan, ay naglalagda at naghahayag ng Konstitusyong ito.

Preamble Philippines Meaning and Purpose

Every word in the Preamble is meaningful. It encourages love and passion for our country, the Philippines. It shows powerful messages about our profound roles and responsibilities to every Filipino and our society. As a free nation, we must act and spend our liberty with commitment focusing on the love of country, peace, and unity.

Tell us what you think about the Preamble. Do you think it still defines every Filipino nowadays? Share your views in the comments below.

Freedom in Tagalog

What is the translation of word Freedom in Tagalog/Filipino ?

Meaning of Freedom in Tagalog is : kalayaan

Defenition of word freedom.

the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

Other meanings of Freedom

we do have some freedom of choice

Recent Searched Words

Freedom Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on freedom.

Freedom is something that everybody has heard of but if you ask for its meaning then everyone will give you different meaning. This is so because everyone has a different opinion about freedom. For some freedom means the freedom of going anywhere they like, for some it means to speak up form themselves, and for some, it is liberty of doing anything they like.

Meaning of Freedom

The real meaning of freedom according to books is. Freedom refers to a state of independence where you can do what you like without any restriction by anyone. Moreover, freedom can be called a state of mind where you have the right and freedom of doing what you can think off. Also, you can feel freedom from within.

The Indian Freedom

Indian is a country which was earlier ruled by Britisher and to get rid of these rulers India fight back and earn their freedom. But during this long fight, many people lost their lives and because of the sacrifice of those people and every citizen of the country, India is a free country and the world largest democracy in the world.

Moreover, after independence India become one of those countries who give his citizen some freedom right without and restrictions.

The Indian Freedom Right

India drafted a constitution during the days of struggle with the Britishers and after independence it became applicable. In this constitution, the Indian citizen was given several fundaments right which is applicable to all citizen equally. More importantly, these right are the freedom that the constitution has given to every citizen.

These right are right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion¸ culture and educational right, right to constitutional remedies, right to education. All these right give every freedom that they can’t get in any other country.

Value of Freedom

The real value of anything can only be understood by those who have earned it or who have sacrificed their lives for it. Freedom also means liberalization from oppression. It also means the freedom from racism, from harm, from the opposition, from discrimination and many more things.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Freedom does not mean that you violate others right, it does not mean that you disregard other rights. Moreover, freedom means enchanting the beauty of nature and the environment around us.

The Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is the most common and prominent right that every citizen enjoy. Also, it is important because it is essential for the all-over development of the country.

Moreover, it gives way to open debates that helps in the discussion of thought and ideas that are essential for the growth of society.

Besides, this is the only right that links with all the other rights closely. More importantly, it is essential to express one’s view of his/her view about society and other things.

To conclude, we can say that Freedom is not what we think it is. It is a psychological concept everyone has different views on. Similarly, it has a different value for different people. But freedom links with happiness in a broadway.

FAQs on Freedom

Q.1 What is the true meaning of freedom? A.1 Freedom truly means giving equal opportunity to everyone for liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Q.2 What is freedom of expression means? A.2 Freedom of expression means the freedom to express one’s own ideas and opinions through the medium of writing, speech, and other forms of communication without causing any harm to someone’s reputation.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

Mga Setting

Bilis ng boses, pagsasalin ng text, source text, mga resulta ng pagsasalin, pagsasalin ng dokumento, i-drag at i-drop.

Pagsasalin ng website

Maglagay ng URL

Pagsasalin ng larawan

The Society of Honor by Joe America

Comment Guidelines
Policy and Terms
The Villanueva Interviews
Going Home: Salazar and Garcia

Kalayaan sa Pananalita (Freedom of Speech) o Krimen?

Posted by Juana Pilipinas on August 15, 2018 · 46 Comments

By Juana Pilipinas

(From The Author: The featured quote is a free graphics taken from the Internet. Some may question the spelling of the word “licence” in it. It is accurate in the British English convention but should be spelled “license” in American English convention.)

Palagi po nating naririnig ngayon ang salitang freedom of speech . Pwede daw pong murahin at insultuhin ni PDuterte ang kahit na sino man dahil iyon ang kanyang karapatan. Protektado daw po siya ng kalayaan sa pananalita o freedom of speech . Ganun din daw po kay Mocha Uson. Pwede daw po niyang murahin, laitin, at yurakan ang dangal ng mga oposisionista, katulad ni Senador Trillanes at ang Pangalawang Pangulong Leni Robredo dahil dito.

Tama po ba na gawing sandalan ang karapatang kalayaan sa pananalita ng mga nagtatangol sa Pangulo at kay Mocha?

Si Drew Olivar po at ang balahurang video niya patungkol kay VP Robredo, freedom of speech pa rin?

Marami pa pong ibang tao lalo na sa social media at mga comments section ng mga blogs at online na peryodiko na nagsasabing mayroon silang freedom of speech kapag may pumupuna sa kanilang mga maaanghang o balahurang pahayag. Tama po ba sila?

Suriin po natin.

Ano ang Artikulo III, Seksyon 4 ng Konstitusyon?

Ang Artikulo III ng Konstitusyon ay ang katipunan ng mga karapatang pangtao ng bawat mamamayan ng Pilipinas na itinalaga sa Konstitusyon. Ito po ang nilalahad ng Seksyon 4:

“ Hindi dapat magpatibay ng batas na nagbabawas sa kalayaan sa pananalita, pagpapahayag, o ng pamamahayagan, o sa karapatan ng mga taong-bayan na mapayapang magkatipon at magpetisyon sa pamahalaan upang ilahad ang kanilang mga karaingan .”

Ang atin pong tutuonan ng pansin ay ang kalayaan sa pananalita. Bawal po ang anumang batas na magbabawas o magpapahinto sa kalayaan ng tao na sabihin ang kanilang opinyon sa anumang isyu o bagay. Ang kalayaan sa pananalita ay proteksyon ng mga mamayan laban sa gobyerno na maaring magsagawa ng batas na maglilimita nito.

Ang bawat mamamayan ay may karapatang magpahayag ng kanilang damdamin at opinyon ngunit ito po ay hindi lubos. Meron pong limitasyon ang ating kalayaan sa pananalita.

Mga Limitasyon ng Kalayaan sa Pananalita

Moderasyon at pang-unawa po sa kapwa ang dapat pairalin bago natin sambitin, isulat, isiwalat, i- tweet , i- meme , i- blog , i- YouTube , i- Facebook ( o anumang plataporma) ang ating mga saloobing damdamin. Mayroon pong katumbas na responsibilidad ang kalayaan. Krimen po ang pananalitang umabuso sa karapatan ng ibang tao at yung nakakaepekto sa kanilang kaligtasan.

Ito po ang listahan ng mga halimbawa ng pananalita o aksyon na hindi protektado ng kalayaan sa pananalita :

Pagsisinungaling para siraan ang puri ng kapwa tao.
Pananalita o aksyon na malaswa o mahalay.
Pananakot o pagbabanta sa kapwa tao.
Pananalita na naglalagay sa panganib ang kapwa tao.
Pananalita na lumalabag sa karapatan ng kapwa tao.
Bayolenteng banta sa kapwa tao.
Pagsisiwalat ng mag sikreto ng pamahalaan o ng militar.
Panawagan na ibagsak ang pamahalaan.
Pananalita na nag-uudyok sa kapwa na gumawa ng mga akto o hakbang na labag sa batas.

Sa artikulong ito, ang mga pananalita o aksyon na tinaguriang krimen sa dangal o puri ng kapwa tao ang ating pagtutuonan ng pansin. Sa listahan sa itaas, ito po ang numero 1. Ang tawag po sa krimeng ito ay slander o libel, o krimeng nakakasira sa puri o dangal ng kapwa tao. Ang mga pananalita o aksyon sa numero 2-9 ay mga krimen din ngunit ang mga ito ay kakaibang uri.

Pagkakaiba ng Slander sa Libel

Ang slander at libel ay parehong krimen na ang sanhi ay ang mga salitang hindi makatotohanan na sumisira o yumuyurak sa dangal o puri ng kapwa tao. Ang kaibahan ay ang slander ay tulad ng tsismis o intriga na kumakalat sa pamamagitan ng pananalita at ang libel ay pamamahagi ng paninira sa pamamagitan ng pagsusulat at paglalathala. Sa kasalukuyan na mundo na gumagamit ang mga tao ng computerized devices, mayroon naring bagong krimen na tinatawag na cyberlibel .

Batas sa Krimeng Slander o Libel sa Pilipinas

Ang taong nangli- libel o nangi- slander ay lulamabag sa Titulo 13, Tsapter 1 ng Revised Penal Code of the Philippines .

Title 13, Crimes Against Honor, Chapter One, Libel . http://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2.htm

Meron narin pong Cyberlibel Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) na ipinahiwatig na konstitusyunal ng Korte Suprema nuong Pebrero 11, 2018 para sa mga naglalathala ng kabalahuraan gamit ang mga computerized devices . Binigyang liwanag ng Korte Suprema na sa mga aktong kriminal na cyber related, ang kasalanan ay sa taong nag-udyok, nagpasimuno o pinagmulan ng orihinal na dokumentong libelous . Ang mga taong nagkalat nito sa pamamagitan ng pagla- like , pagri- retweet , o ibang pamamaraan ay hindi papatawan ng parusa.

Cyberlibel Prevention Act of 2012 (RA10175) https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2012/ra_10175_2012.html

Sana po ay basahin at unawain ang mga probisyon ng dalawang batas na nabangit sa itaas at gawing gabay ang mga ito bago magsalita, magsulat o maglathala ng anumang makakaepekto sa ating kapwa tao. Ang kalayaan sa pananalita ay pwedeng abusuhin. Pag inabuso po natin ang ating kapwa sa pamamagitan nito, ito ay matatawag na krimen o paglabag sa batas. Lahat po ng krimen ay may kalakip na parusa.

Kayo na po ang humusga

Sino po ang tama? Yung nagsasabing protektado ng freedom of speech ang lahat ng pananalita ng Pangulo at ni Mocha Uson o yung mga tumutuligsa sa kanila at nagsasabing lumalabag sila sa batas kapag sila ay nangaabuso ng kapwa tao sa kanilang pananalita?

Si Olivar, pwede ba niyang igiit ang kanyang freedom of speech sa ginawa niyang video?

Ang mga netizens na wagas kung mambalahura ng mga opisyales sa gobyerno o sa kapwa netizens , dapat ba silang magmunimuni o sige lang dahil sa freedom of speech ?

YOU BE THE JUDGE.

Unless we have the 3 precons in the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report. The 3 precons were kids with special neural sensory powers all wired up into a special machine that allows them to forecast crimes before they were committed. Their notification allows Tom Cruise and his team to apprehend the criminals before the crime was committed.

Love that movie. I am a sci-fi fan.

We need some of those kids and machines in PH. No more Tokhang guessing games. All criminals are proven guilty by clairvoyance.

******* 1. Thank you for delineating the limits of freedom of speech.

2. There are two aspects to be considered in the case of Drew Olivar.

2.1. VP Robredo is a public person. 2.2. Olivar used the Facebook platform.

3. As to the first aspect, the Philippine doctrine on defamation is broad when it comes to public figures. Public figures are naturally subject to public scrutiny and, therefore, the bar for defamation is higher. I gather that:

3.1. The defamation must be proven to be false. 3.2. The defamer must be proven to have shown “actual malice” or reckless disregard for that falsity.

4. The defamation of VP Robredo by Olivar does not bear repeating. I think 3.2 is easy to prove; 3.1 is not. The onus of proof is not on Olivar to prove that his claim is true. The onus is on VP Robredo to prove Olivar’s claim is false.

4.1. This doctrine overturns the standard rule that the onus of proof belongs to he who makes the claim.

4.2. But how do you prove a negative?

4.3. I believe it is for this reason that VP Robredo has not formally filed a case.

5. The other aspect is that the publisher of a defamation post is liable. This makes FB liable… but only if it was notified of the offending post and did nothing about it within a reasonable amount of time.

5.1. The penalty for online label is higher. Previously, bail was pegged at a minimum of P2,000; now it is set to at least P50,000 to P100,000. Maximum jail time has been increased from 4 years and 2 months to 12 years.

5.2. Penalties only apply to the original poster. They do not apply to users who simply react to the post, like sharing, re-blogging, or registering their “Like.” I note that I have seen Olivar’s re-posted several times.

6. Another interesting question: Is Olivar’s post slander or libel? He is speaking (audio) but the post is on a multimedia (text, video, images, and print) platform. *****

4.2 – By presenting witnesses and producing affidavits (MRP). I am pretty sure that the VP did not travel alone and she can produce someone who can validate her personal statement.

6. It falls within the ambit of cyberlibel. The RPC was updated with an RA which grouped all offensive digital/computerized speech/act into cyberlibel.

******* A negative cannot be proved.

Lawyer: Were you with the claimant every day? Witness: Yes.

Lawyer: Were you with the claimant most of the day? Witness: Yes.

Lawyer: Were you with the claimant 24/7? Witness: No.

Lawyer: Then you cannot say that nothing happened, can you? Witness: No. *****

Kung si Georgina ang kasama, 24/7 yan. Kuripot daw is Ma’am Leni so double bed accommodation siguro yon. But that is a mere opinion on my part. It could happen.

Remember the Chiong sisters case? Paco de Llaranaga was believed to have been in Cebu even if friends – an entire class – testified he was in Manila. As friends they are not considered neutral witnesses according to the judge.

I think until the basics of justice, truth and fairness are grasped by Philippine society and culture – my opinion is they are NOT – the same dreadful game will keep repeating itself.

So what will be admissible in court as far as evidence or truth in the case of Olivar V. Robredo in your opinion?

I find it ridiculous in the first place that someone has to prove something alleged isn’t true. Normally that is not the way it works in court, but outside it seems anyone can accuse you of anything, wildly. No wonder people don’t get “innocent until proven guilty” as a concept.

If you ask what evidence will be deemed permissible, I fear that will depend on the judge. Some judges, like the one presiding over De Lima’s case, make a case where there is none. But I guess some have to fight with windmills so that others may have it better later on..

Well said, Irineo.

May limitasyon ang freedom of speech, sigurado yan.

Slarder or libel, pero yung burden of proof ay nasa taong na agrabyado. Kaya, nakadepende na yan kay VP Robredo kung e rereklamo nya si Olivar at kung papano nya mapatunayan na hindi totoo ang sinasabi ni Olivar.

Tanong din ni Edgar yan. Ang sagot ko ay by the VP presenting witnesses and affidavits from those who were with her during the trip. “clear and convincing evidence” at damages ang kailangan for public figures. I am sure the video inflicted some pain and suffering to the VP. I’d say as a layman that she got a case.

German law distinguishes between Defamation and Intentional Defamation. Philippine Law seems to only cover what is defined as Intentional Defamation in Germany: “Whosoever intentionally and knowingly asserts or disseminates an untrue fact related to another person” while defamation in Germany is “Whosoever asserts or disseminates a fact related to another person which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him, shall, unless this fact can be proven to be true”.There is also a higher sentence for both if “if the act was committed publicly, in a meeting or through dissemination of written materials” – clever definition as jurisprudence simply had to define what is published on the Internet as public or equivalent to written materials, while simply talking around town has a smaller sentence, and you would have to have witnesses to prove it was said.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1701

A lot of sections in Chapter 14 of the German Criminal Code are repealed, as they probably are 19th century stuff. “Insult” still remains, Section 186, although it will usually be cops and clerks in government who file cases. Private altercations may often fall under Section 199 Mutual Insults.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch#§_103:_Insulting_of_organs_and_representatives_of_foreign_states_(repealed)

Since January 1, 2018, I am free to insult Duterte. This is because President Erdogan filed a case against a German satirist, causing the German Parliament to repeal the old law prohibiting insults to foreign heads of state. I still am not allowed to do this, but why should I:

Whosoever removes, destroys, damages, renders unrecognisable or insults by mischief a flag of a foreign state, which is displayed according to legal provisions or recognised custom, or a state symbol of such a state which has been publicly installed by a recognised mission of such state, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine. – meaning I can indeed display a tattered Filipino flag in a blog article which is something I did once, but I may not go onto Embassy or Residence grounds and burn the flag of another country, or piss on it (“insult by mischief”). Special rules against insulting Ambassadors are gone also, only ordinary rules apply like to everyone else.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1482

There are rules similar to what was thrown at Carlos Celdran here in Germany. Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) defames the religion or ideology of others in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine. or Whosoever 1. intentionally and inappropriately disturbs a religious service or an act of religious worship of a church or other religious association within Germany or 2. commits defamatory mischief at a place dedicated to the religious worship of such a religious association shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

Even if I think waving a placard in church would not interest anyone over here, it could only lead to sentencing if done during Holy Mass, disturbing the service. What Pussy Riot did in an Orthodox Church, even if outside of worship, could be considered “defamatory mischief”. Besides, minor offences by first timers in Germany usually do not lead to prison. Sentences two years and under are suspended, meaning all you have to do is report to a parole officer. The reason is not to destroy biographies – or expose normal people to the prison crowd.

This part is also interesting:

————

Section 188 Defamation of persons in the political arena

(1) If an offence of defamation (section 186) is committed publicly, in a meeting or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) against a person involved in the popular political life based on the position of that person in public life, and if the offence may make his public activities substantially more difficult the penalty shall be imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) An intentional defamation (section 187) under the same conditions shall entail imprisonment from six months to five years.

————-

Consider that many simple people (much like Leni Robredo) enter politics in Germany. Teachers who run for municipal council and take leave during their term. Notary publics who leave their office to their partners because they were elected for Mayor (the Bonn Mayor in the 1980s was a Notary Public with a functioning office). Owners of family businesses who let their family run the business while they are in the State Parliament – happens often in rural Germany. Imagine if these people were subject to the same harrassment by insults as what was the norm during the Weimar Republic, when especially Nazis insulted everybody. Insults could mean danger, as people who believed these insults sometimes acted on them.

******* This definition of defamation would apply to Olivar.

“…unless this fact can be proven to be true.”

The onus of proof would be on him. *****

The anus of proof? Hehe. Funny though how many Filipinos believe that tsismis is true. Some older ones will even say “where there is smoke, there is fire” as if that proved anything. Tsismis is often vicious, of course usually against people one doesn’t like.

Trolls only had to weaponize that aspect of Philippine society, spreading rumors like “Mar Roxas stole the Yolanda funds”. I have seen people nodding in absurd agreement about the strangest allegations in Filipino migrant communities, based on quarrels between groups.

In pre-enlightened societies, you had that often: “Christians sacrifice children” in Rome. Being able to look beyond emotions and check facts/logic is an acquired, modern skill.

The danger in this situation is that people could say “Leila de Lima did it also, didn’t she”?

That kind of “argument” almost qualifies as proof for many a Filipino from ordinary origins. Hate discussing in Filipino because the language does lack rigor, illogic passes easily.

True, vicious rumors and hearsay are often believed by a lot of Filipinos. Why are they hesitant to ask for evidence/proof from the bearer? Is it part of the feigned or false modesty?

I also agree that the it is oftentimes hard to express logical and abstract concepts in Filipino. Pero swak na swak sa pamimilosopo. Taglish and Konyo is easier but it is often ridiculed as the language of the oligarch.

Do you also find it as a subjective or a non-substantive language or is it just my lack of in-depth knowledge of it?

Three things:

1) your writing in Filipino has greatly improved, I think it is a result of practice. There were earlier articles that sounded a bit wooden, like school Tagalog. What you write now is more of a contemporary Filipino which reflects what is used in social media, more vivid/fluid.

2) It is not non-substantive, but it takes a lot of practice to express things substantively in Filipino. Ang peg ko diyan iyong mga isinusulat nila Trillanes at Gary Alejano. Filipino is after all a language of verbs, English and especially German are languages of nouns.

3) At times I just don’t feel like writing in the language. In fact at times I feel tired of all matters regarding Philippines and Filipinos. I feel a great distance to the mentality. Combined with a great sadness about why things have to be that way. What can I do?

Well, a bit of a break is what I’m taking, that’s what I’m doing now. All of us do at times. Hoping that the horror of a Marcos running the country with the Peso at 80:1$ doesn’t come.

******* 3. I once asked the question here, “Do you feel that your thinking is light-years away from contemporary Filipinos?”

@ Josephivo replied that he didn’t, that we expend the same effort as a poor man thinking how to provide for the family.

I wasn’t thinking quantitatively, of course, but qualitatively.

If I were to pinpoint the quality, I would say it’s not only the unChristian violence of Duterte’s side but also the idolatry of the opposite sides. There is groupthink on all sides.

I am speaking not only of the idolatry of saints but also the idolatry of all false gods — of celebrities; of isms; of fame; of houses, cars, and gadgets; of sex partners; of money; of piety; and of power.

Everything is reduced to relative status.

Anyone who does not possess any of these in “sufficient” quantity is looked down upon. “Sufficient” being in the eyes of the beholder.

If you do possess any of these in “sufficient” quantity, you are looked up upon and privileged. The constraints of morality do not apply to you.

One may have status, but one can easily lose it because of groupthink. It’s almost impossible to put Sereno and Alvarez in the same sentence, never mind the same category, but they both lost “it.”

On the other hand, there’s Pacquiao who can lord it over all because he has an immense quantity of several false gods.

Our morality is idiosyncratic at worst and sectarian at best. *****

Duterte is talking about resigning (again) but he wants someone like Bongbong or Chiz to replace him. The Marcos horror you are dreading might just be around the corner.

http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/08/15/Duterte-better-successor-Escudero-Marcos.html

I think he is hinting that he will over power or influence the PET and Escudero is just a red herring.

Just a trivial info, Neph – what does PET stand for? I can’t seem to find it.

sonny, PET is the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, de facto the Supreme Court.

With Sereno out, it might be easier for things to be cooked as Duterte wants.

Anyone who does not possess any of these in “sufficient” quantity is looked down upon.

yes, that is so very true. Contempt is one very pervasive aspect of Philippine society.

There are also elements of very materialistic attitude in Munich, but not that CONTEMPT.

There is tolerance (sometimes even admiration) for stuff like Franz Beckenbauer saying “God rejoices over every child” after he got his secretary pregnant during a Bayern München Christmas party. But not this “you know who I am” at almost every street corner.

One may have status, but one can easily lose it because of groupthink.

Akin to the age of witch hunts over here in Europe.

Much thanks, Irineo.

I can emphatize with your #3. It is with a sense of resignation that I feel my interest of many things Filipino is slipping away by physical default. The undesirability of our present state of affairs in the islands are weighing heavily on this alienation.

You may have noticed that the speeches of President Duterte were laden with cussing, insults, altercations, sex jokes, profanity, and language that cast aspersions on the Office of the President. He has done these under the cover of “Freedom of Speech”. The kanto lingo simply termed it as “Spits Freedom”. A collection of his speeches then, my kanto friend suggested title is “The Spittles of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte”.

You are funny. I like “Spits Freedom” or “Freedom of Spits” by PRD.

Yes. He seems to get a kick out of not only bringing shame to the highest office of the country but also recklessly disrespecting the Constitution.

JP, my friends of younger times from the Cordilleras said it first – freedom of spit w/ good serving of ‘nga-nga’ 🙂 More respectable than PrD, though.

That is even funnier, Kuya Sonny. Ipa-trending yan sa tweeter. 🙂

Notes from the Editor

I would like to thank Giancarlo Angulo for taking over administration of the blog to keep it available as a historical resource and to publish articles and moderate if I am not available. This is a huge relief for me. JA

This is predominantly a discussion blog. The articles focus on a topic and commenters chip in to build insights. The genius moments are invariably found in the discussion section. And occasionally flames and nonsense are found there, haha. Join us if you please. Become a regular and enjoy a refreshing breadth and depth of thought about the Philippines.

The Society of Honor is published via Word Press hosting in the United States. The blog is not accredited by any government or non-government entity, is not a member of any association or group, and is generally not an originator of news. The blog is not an advocacy of any particular cause.

Please read the ‘Policy and Terms’ tab for further information.

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

Translation of "freedom" into Tagalog

kalayaan, Kalayaan, kasarinlan are the top translations of "freedom" into Tagalog. Sample translated sentence: How does strict obedience actually increase our freedom? ↔ Paano tunay na makadaragdag sa ating kalayaan ang mahigpit na pagsunod?

(uncountable) The state of being free, of not being imprisoned or enslaved. [..]

English-Tagalog dictionary

not being imprisoned or enslaved [..]

How does strict obedience actually increase our freedom ?

Paano tunay na makadaragdag sa ating kalayaan ang mahigpit na pagsunod?

Show algorithmically generated translations

Automatic translations of " freedom " into Tagalog

Phrases similar to "freedom" with translations into tagalog.

freedom of the press Kalayaan ng mga mamahayag
academic freedom kalayaang pantalisikan · talisikning kalayaan
Freedom Party of Austria FPO
freedom of speech Kalayaan sa pananalita
freedoms kalayaan

Translations of "freedom" into Tagalog in sentences, translation memory

Tagalog-Dictionary.com

Meaning of "freedom", freedom •.

1. being free, liberty, free use: laya, kalayaan
2. independence: paglaya, kalayaan, pagsasarili, kasarinlan
3. exemption: pagiging libre

» synonyms and related words:

1. freedom: kalayaan
2. right or power to do as one pleases, power or opportunity to do something: kalayaan
freedom from control, support or influence of others: kasarinlan, kalayaan, pagsasarili
the guarantee necessary to get a person free from arrest until he is to appear for trial: piyansa, lagak,
to obtain such freedom: magpiyansa, pumiyansa, piyansahan
1. act of entering: pagpasok
2. place by which to enter: pasukan, pintuan
3. freedom or right of entering or mixing with: karapatan sa pagpasok, karapatang pumasok (makihalo)
1. a sleep: tulog, pagtulog
2. quiet, freedom from anything that tires, troubles, disturbs, or pains: ginhawa, kaginhawahan, katiwasayan
3. the absence of motion, stillness: katahimikan
4. ease after work or effort: pahinga, pamamahinga, pagpapahinga
5. a support: patungan
6. what is left, remaining: ang natira, ang iba
1. to take a rest: magpahinga, mamahinga
2. to lean: sumandal, isandal, sumandig, isandig
3. depend: masalalay, isalalay
4. to let rest: patigilin
5. to be at rest, to be dead: namamayapa na
6. to lie in the grave: nasa libingan
a being safe, freedom from harm or danger: kaligtasan, pagkaligtas
bringing no harm or danger: di makapipinsala, walang peligro, walang panganib
malaya (ma-) free, emancipated, independent

Improve your Filipino vocabulary

Articles & essays.

Morong Majesty
Balut Making
Palawan's Little Saigon
The Filipino and The Salacot
Barong Tagalog

Filipino Food

Fermented Rice
In Praise of Suman Past
Sisig na Sisig
Tinapa - Smoked Fish
Biscocho Pasuquin
Panecillos de San Nicolas

Native Games

Sungka | Sipa
Agawan Base
Tumbang Preso
Chinese Garter
Marbles (Holen)
Hide and Seek (Taguan)

Spread the word

Idioms / Mga Sawikain
Proverbs / Mga Salawikain
Essays / Stories
Filipino Folk Songs
Online Games
Holloween All Souls Day Saints
Christmas in the Philippines
New Year's Eve in the Philippines
Palm Sunday's Palaspas
Filipino Legends

Festivals & Events

Araquio Festival
Ati-atihan Festival
Giant Lantern Festival
Hot Air Balloon
Flores de Mayo - Flowers of May
Mardi Gras The Philippine Style

Filipino Sites

Buy and Sell Philippines
Filipino Freelancers

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

Only the First Amendment Can Protect Students, Campuses and Speech

A foot clad in a high-top sneaker on top of a verdigris sculpture.

By Cass R. Sunstein

Mr. Sunstein is a law professor at Harvard and the author of “Campus Free Speech: A Pocket Guide.”

Last spring, protests at numerous American universities, prompted by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, produced fierce debates over freedom of speech on campus.

Colleges and universities struggled mightily over how to mount an appropriate response. The University of Pennsylvania refused to allow a screening of a movie that was sharply critical of Israel. Brandeis University barred a pro-Palestinian student group in response to inflammatory statements made by its national chapter.

At Columbia, police officers arrested more than 100 students in an effort to empty the school’s pro-Palestinian encampment; classes were later moved online . But at Northwestern, the administration entered into a deal with protesters in which almost all of their tents were removed in return for multiple commitments by the university, including an agreement to provide the “full cost of attendance for five Palestinian undergraduates to attend Northwestern for the duration of their undergraduate careers.”

There have been intense debates about whether antisemitic speech, as such, should be banned on campus and about the right definition of antisemitic speech. With the new academic year starting alongside a looming presidential election, we can expect protest activity on a host of issues, raising fresh questions about free speech on campus.

To answer those questions, we should turn to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that Congress “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Those words provide the right foundation for forging a new consensus about the scope and importance of free speech in higher education.

As a rallying cry, that consensus should endorse the greatest sentence ever written by a Supreme Court justice. In 1943, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote , “Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

IMAGES

😂 Freedom of speech philippines. Freedom of Expression in the
Freedom in Tagalog
Democracy and Freedom in Tagalog
Freedom
#1 Best Guide On How To Write An Essay In Tagalog
FREEDOM Explained in Tagalog

VIDEO

Essay #1 :- Right to Freedom of Expression
essay on freedom in english/10 lines on freedom fighters in english(swatantrata senani par nibandh
essay on freedom fighters/10 lines on freedom fighters in english/swatantrata senani par nibandh
PINOY TAGALOG MOVIE / ANG PANDAY RECAP
Independence Day
ANG IBON NI ISLAW

COMMENTS

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Filipino (Tagalog) Language Profile. Noong Disyembre 10, 1948, ang Pangkalahatang Kapulungan ng mga Bansang Nagkakaisa ay nagsagawa at nagpahayag ng Pandaigdig na Pahayag ng mga Karapatan ng Tao. Ang buong nilalaman noon ay mababasa sa mga susunod na pahina. Kasunod ng makasaysayang gawaing ito, ang Kapulungan ay nanawagan sa lahat ng mga ...
Remembering the Filipino struggles for freedom
THE FILIPINO-AMERICAN WAR 1899-1913 by Samuel K. Tan published by Cavite Historical Society and UP Press 2002. This is one of the best books on that heroic episode of Philippine history which ...
[EDITORIAL] Press Freedom Day: Pakikipagsabwatan ang manahimik
Sa kanyang talumpati sa harap ng United Nations bilang awardee ng 2021 UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize, sinabi ni Ressa na " silence is complicity " - pakikipagsabwatan ang ...
Carlos Bulosan's 'Freedom from Want'
We want to share the promises and fruits of American life. We want to be free from fear and hunger. If you want to know what we are — we are marching! Become a Saturday Evening Post member and enjoy unlimited access. Subscribe now. In 1943, the Post commissioned Filipino novelist and poet Carlos Bulosan to craft this essay to accompany Norman ...
The Rebirth of Freedom (1946-1970) Period of Activism (1970-1972)
On July 4, 1946, the Philippines regained is freedom and the Filipino flag waved joyously alone. The chains were broken. The early post-liberation period was marked by a kind of "struggle of mind and spirit" posed by the sudden emancipation from the enemy, and the wild desire to see print.
Filipinas Heritage Library
Rizal's Stand on Freedom. On Philippine History and Culture 0 Comments. While awaiting trial in 1896, Rizal wrote a manifesto that expressed his disapproval of the armed revolution against Spain. He cleared his name, which he said was being used by some revolutionaries to espouse certain ideals. He said that he has always opposed, fought, and ...
The Indolence of the Filipinos: Essay by Jose P. Rizal
A Series of Essays by Jose P. Rizal. Doctor Sanciano, in his Progreso de Filipinas, has taken up this question, agitated, as he calls it, and relying upon facts and reports furnished by the very same Spanish authorities that ruled the Philippines has demonstrated that such indolence does not exist, and that all said about it does not deserve a ...
Freedom from Want
Gemma Nemenzo. In 1943, the celebrated Filipino American writer, Carlos Bulosan, was chosen to write an essay on Freedom from Want to accompany an artwork of the quintessential American artist, Norman Rockwell. Retired Ambassador Virgilio A. Reyes Jr., one of Positively Filipino 's regular contributing writers, tells the story behind the essay ...
The Filipinos' freedom of expression
We will not be silenced. Every Filipino is a free man. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is enshrined: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right ...
FREEDOM Explained in Tagalog
What's in the Video:1. What is Freedom? What is the Essence of Freedom?2. Kinds of Freedom 2.1. Physical Freedom 2.2. Psychological Freedom 2.3. Mor...
[EDITORIAL] Bakuna ang press freedom sa panahon ng pandemic
Isa tayo sa mga kulelat sa World Press Freedom Index - pang-134. Kaya't di na nakakagulat na ipinatawag ng National Bureau of Investigation ang higit sa sandosenang taong nag-post ng mga kuro ...
Article III of 1987 Philippine Constitution
Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution in the Filipino language and in English. Bill of Rights. ... No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. ... and to documents and papers pertaining to ...
Essay About Freedom In The Philippines
Essay About Freedom In The Philippines. Philippines has a republic government demonstrated with the freedom gained from determination and bravery. The history of the country told its dark past from the hands of conquerors which help shape the culture, tradition and even politics of the country. As a result, Philippines became diverse in many ways.
Preamble
Preamble. We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy ...
Philippines: Freedom in the World 2020 Country Report
Authorities stated in July 2019 that 5,526 people had been killed in Duterte's antidrug campaign as of June 30, 2019. However, human rights groups, drawing in part from a 2017 police report of "deaths under investigation," in 2019 put the number of related deaths at as many as 27,000.
Freedom in Tagalog
Freedom in Tagalog. Freedom Meaning in Tagalog. What is the meaning of Freedom in Tagalog? Find Pronunciation, Examples, Synonyms and Similar words for Freedom in Tagalog.
Philippines: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report
However, the Philippines remains one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists. Journalists experience physical attacks; threats, including death threats and bomb threats; smear campaigns claiming they conspire against the government; red-tagging; and distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks.
#1 Best Guide On How To Write An Essay In Tagalog
The introduction (panimula) is where you will answer basic questions and tell your readers what the essay is going to be about. Make sure that you hook your readers in your introduction, otherwise, they won't keep reading. Next is the body (katawan) of the essay. This is where you'll talk in-depth about the topic.
Freedom Essay for Students and Children
Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas. Freedom does not mean that you violate others right, it does not mean that you disregard other rights. Moreover, freedom means enchanting the beauty of nature and the environment around us. The Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech is the most common and prominent right that every ...
Google Translate
Ang serbisyo ng Google, na inaalok nang libre, ay agarang nagsasalin ng mga salita, parirala, at web page sa pagitan ng English at mahigit 100 iba pang wika.
Kalayaan sa Pananalita (Freedom of Speech) o Krimen?
Pwede daw pong murahin at insultuhin ni PDuterte ang kahit na sino man dahil iyon ang kanyang karapatan. Protektado daw po siya ng kalayaan sa pananalita o freedom of speech. Ganun din daw po kay Mocha Uson. Pwede daw po niyang murahin, laitin, at yurakan ang dangal ng mga oposisionista, katulad ni Senador Trillanes at ang Pangalawang Pangulong ...
freedom in Tagalog
Kalayaan sa pananalita. freedom of speech. Kalayaan sa pananalita. more (+2) Add example. Translations of "freedom" into Tagalog in sentences, translation memory. Declension Stem. Value God-Given Freedom. Pahalagahan ang Bigay-Diyos na Kalayaan.
Freedom Meaning
n. 1. freedom: kalayaan. 2. right or power to do as one pleases, power or opportunity to do something: kalayaan. independence. n. freedom from control, support or influence of others: kasarinlan, kalayaan, pagsasarili. bail. n. the guarantee necessary to get a person free from arrest until he is to appear for trial: piyansa, lagak,
Only the First Amendment Can Protect Students, Campuses and Speech
Guest Essay. Only the First Amendment Can Protect Students, Campuses and Speech. Sept. 6, 2024, 5:06 a.m. ET. ... produced fierce debates over freedom of speech on campus.