1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly inherited by the United States through its adoption of the First Amendment.[13] By the dawn of the 20th century, disputes on free speech and the press mostly involved the role of newspapers and periodicals, particularly "those of a different political persuasion than the party in power-in acting as critics of the ."[14] The roots of our own free speech clause can be traced back to the U.S. First Amendment. In 1900, U.S. President William McKinley introduced a differently worded free speech clause through the Magna Carta of Philippine Liberty. Heavily influenced by the First Amendment, it read: "That no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the rights of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."[15] This was echoed in the organic acts of the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law of 1916.[16] With the increasing desire for independence, the free exercise of speech and the press became indispensable for our people. The free speech clause eventually flowed through our jurisprudence. In the 1922 case of United States v. Perfecto,[17] the right of the people to free exercise of speech and of assembly has been acknowledged as fundamental in our democratic and republican state: The interest of civilized society and the maintenance of good demand a full and free discussion of all affairs of public interest. Complete liberty to comment upon the administration of Government, as well as the conduct of public men, is necessary for free speech. The people are not obliged, under modem civilized governments, to speak of the conduct of their officials, their servants, in whispers or with bated breath. The right to assemble and petition the Government, and to make requests and demands upon public officials, is a necessary consequence of republican and democratic institutions, and the complement of the right of free speech. [18] (Citations omitted) The right to free speech was accorded constitutional protection in the 1935 Constitution, and eventually, the 1973 Constitution, which retained the same wording of the free speech clause: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. Free speech has since enjoyed a preferred position in the scheme of our constitutional values.[19] In Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Company, Inc.:[20] Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. If human rights are extinguished by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to limit the power of and ceases to be an efficacious shield against the tyranny of officials, of majorities, of https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 26/60