Do politicians have a right to honour?

In the atmosphere of political polarisation in which we live, it is not uncommon for fierce criticism to be directed at each other, sometimes constituting genuine insults and personal disqualifications. And in this scenario, the question arises as to whether there is any limit to the statements politicians make and receive, or whether they are obliged to put up with them by virtue of their office.

On the one hand, the Constitution establishes the right to freedom of expression in general (Article 20.1 a), and in a reinforced form for deputies and senators, who enjoy inviolability for opinions expressed in the exercise of their functions (Article 71.1); this was extended to the members of the legislative assemblies of the autonomous communities by STC 36/1981. Its basis lies in the need for the free formation of the will of the legislative body to which they belong (STC 243/1988), in such a way that it prevents the opening of any kind of process or procedure aimed at holding parliamentarians accountable for opinions expressed in the exercise of their functions (SSTC 36/1981 and 243/1988).

This does not prevent parliamentary debate from respecting order, courtesy and parliamentary discipline (Article 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the Congress and Articles 101 to 103 of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate), so that the presidents of the respective chambers can issue reprimands in the event that these guidelines are not respected. Consequently, just as parliamentarians are entitled to make coarse remarks, they must also put up with those pronounced on them, although they should observe the necessary decorum.

This is also applicable at European level, by virtue of the case law established by the European Court of Human Rights (SS 17/5/2016 and 5/10/23), which provides that legislative assemblies are the setting par excellence for the exercise of freedom of expression within a pluralist political debate, under the protection of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, this does not mean that parliamentarians enjoy an absolute right to express themselves without limits, since the exercise of this freedom is conditioned by formal requirements, provided that such restrictions are clear, legitimate and proportionate.

But what happens when this information, criticism or expression comes from journalists and the media? Firstly, it should be remembered that the Constitution (Article 20.1d) establishes the right to information as a fundamental right, as a pillar of the democratic state that allows citizens to have a free and informed opinion.

Thus, in the event of a clash between the right to information and the right to honour of the person concerned, which is also protected as a fundamental right in the Constitution (Article 18), the necessary weighing up would have to be carried out, as required by case law, so that, in the case of politicians, this implies that they are required to have a greater tolerance of criticism than an ordinary citizen, because they hold a public office subject to the scrutiny of society (STS 20/2/1993 and SSTC 4/10/1993 and 12/11/1990).

In this sense, our courts have handed down a multitude of rulings in which, provided the requirements of truthfulness and informative interest demanded by case law are met, they reinforce journalistic activity. For example, it has been considered that the expressions "crawling like a worm and like a snake" referring to a politician are protected by freedom of expression, as they are considered to be value judgements on aspects of his political activity in the context of an election campaign (STS 18/12/2023).

A lawsuit brought against a newspaper and one of its journalists for having stated on a television programme, and then publishing the video on its website, that a political party is "anti-democratic" and that "it is financed with money from two dictatorships such as Venezuela and Iran" was also dismissed, considering that there was a sufficient factual basis to legitimise the exercise of their freedom of expression (STS 1/10/2024).

Likewise, it was considered that the right to honour of a politician had not been violated by the publication in a newspaper of a story narrating a sexual encounter between two characters against a background of acts of political corruption, on the grounds that the journalist's right to literary production and creation prevailed and that there were no elements that would allow the plaintiff to be considered collectable (STC 13/1/2025).

In conclusion, with regard to information related to politicians, it would be lawful to disseminate it, provided that it is truthful and newsworthy. As for the opinions expressed about them, they should be tolerated, especially in the parliamentary sphere, without prejudice to the respect of manners, and should not be subject to gratuitous insults.

Read the full article here.