Right To Honor In The Constitution

Right to Honor in the Constitution

First, this lawsuit begins with an article published by D. Rogelio (defendant), which according to the plaintiff D. Ignacio, this article has an impact on his right to honor and his image right.

In the Court of First Instance, D. Ignacio is represented by the attorney D. Federico Ruipérez Palomino and, D. Rogelio is represented by the attorney Mrs. María Mercedes Pérez García. In this first court, D. Rogelio, painter and sculptor, is accused of not respecting the fundamental right of image and honor, by publishing an article in the newspaper, in an opinion section of the newspaper, which according to D. Ignacio, supposed his professional discrediting and denigrated his reputation as a person of a certain notoriety, either exercising the profession of mayor or that of the practice of medicine in Cuenca.

Before this court, two of the fundamental rights were filed again: the right to freedom of expression and the right to honor.

Before the Provincial Court, D. Rogelio was accused guilty of having interfered with the honor and the image of D itself. Ignacio. Although finally, it was declared that D. Rogelio had not committed illegitimate interference in the image of D. Ignacio.

Faced with this situation, both presented appeal, and the case was taken before the Supreme Court, now being Ms. Diana as procedural successor of the deceased D. Rogelio.

The article was published in an opinion section, aimed at exercising her personal opinion and making regional readers participate, in the case of a local newspaper.

In said article, D. Rogelio expressed his discontent for the performance of the then mayor in the remodeling process of the Valencian Bishop Square, of which the construction of a statue of King Alfonso VIII was part, paid by the Consistory and for which the D Dally. Rogelio, presented his project, finally not attended.

The main arguments that are contributed in defense of the right to honor and to the image itself as opposed to the right to freedom of expression are, for example, the publication of “false facts” that would affect the discredit as a professional of D. Ignacio and the denigration of his reputation, for being a person with some notoriety, by exercising a public office. Likewise, it is also declared that the indicated expressions with which the defendant in the article had been expressed, since they could be considered unfortunate or a verbal excess, and that therefore, directly affected the image of the plaintiff had been expressed. Knowing that the limits of the right to freedom of expression are the rights to personality (to honor, image and intimacy).

The right to honor protects the person’s own reputation, which is understood as the appreciation that people have of her. This would prevent the dissemination of certain types of messages that could be insulting or denigrating for the person.

Knowing this, the Constitution only before the right to honor against freedom of expression if the criticisms of the defendant have a certain degree of aggressiveness, and could affect the professional activity of an individual, having an impact on their individual dignity. In this way, so that an interference in these rights to personality can be considered justified, it is necessary that the information or the form of expression be referred to matters of public relevance or of general interest.