US v.

Dorr

FACTS: Fred L. Dorr and a number of other persons (Dorr, et al.) were convicted of violating Section 8 of Act No.
292 which punishes the utterance of "seditious words or speeches" and the writing, publication, or circulation of
"scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands"
or other libels against the same entities which (1) "tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his
office", (2) "tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes", (3) "suggest or incite
rebellious conspiracies or riots", or (4) "tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the
peace of the community, the safety, and order of the Government". The same provision also punishes the
deliberate concealment of the aforementioned acts.

The charge against Dorr et al. stemmed from an article published in the newspaper Manila Freedom criticizing the
appointment by the Civil Commission of certain persons— including Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera— to key
government positions. The said article referred to the aforementioned appointees as "rascals" and "corrupt" and
called certain government offices organized by the Civil Commission as "rotten" and "corrupt".

ISSUE: Whether or not the publication of the subject article falls within the purview of Section 8 of Act No. 292.

HELD: NO. The article in question produces none of the effects enumerated in Section 8 of Act No. 292. In addition,
the same provision refers to libel of the government in general, and not of specific individuals.

Ratio Decidendi N.B.: The Court did not provide any basis for finding that the subject article did not have the
tendency to produce the effects enumerated under Section 8 of Act No. 292, other than all the justices agreed on
the same conclusion.

As used in Act No. 292, the term "government" is used in the abstract sense of the existing political system, as
distinguished from the concrete organisms of the Government, such as the Houses of Congress and the Executive,
which are also specially mentioned. Had the framers of the said law intended to mean specific government
personnel, they would have expressly stated so.

In this case, the article in question, attacked the Civil Commission and some of its individual members, not the
governmental system. Hence, it falls outside the purview of Act No. 292.