Vloggers question House ‘fake news’ probe at SC
- The mass of pro-Duterte vloggers who call themselves “Maisug” (fierce) ducked the House hearing on misinformation and fake news and flocked instead to the Supreme Court to question the summons given them.
- Out of the 37 who snubbed the hearing, 13 petitioners asked the high court to put a stop to the inquiry since it could lead to “legislation to suppress, stifle, and censor free speech, all in the guise of ‘regulation.’”
- Rep. Robert Ace Barbers challenged the vloggers to “stop hiding behind” their legal actions, saying that the probe was not intended to curtail free speech but to craft regulations to ensure accountability and ethical use of social media.
A House inquiry into the proliferation of fake news on social media got under way on Tuesday but immediately drew a legal challenge from the very people it had invited as resource persons.
Out of the 40 vloggers, commentators and influencers invited to the hearing, only three showed up and faced the so-called House tri-committee.
Out of the 37 who snubbed the hearing, 13 filed a petition with the Supreme Court on the same day, questioning the probe for being “unconstitutional.”
The 13 petitioners, most of them known for being supporters of former President Rodrigo Duterte, asked the high court to put a stop to the inquiry and prevent any similar action by the House that seeks to police social media content.
Named as respondents were Speaker Martin Romualdez, Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, and members of the committees on public order and safety, information and communications technology, and public information that now constitute the tri-committee.
“Unless restrained, the respondents would proceed with the hearings purportedly in aid of legislation… and are bent on introducing legislation to suppress, stifle, and censor free speech, all in the guise of ‘regulation,’” the petitioners said.
Among the petitioners are former Presidential Communications Office chief Trixie Cruz-Angeles, former anti-insurgency task force spokesperson Lorraine Badoy-Partosa, and vloggers Mark Anthony Lopez, Ernesto Abines Jr., Ethel Pineda Garcia, Krizette Laureta Chu, Jonathan Morales, Aeron Pena, Nelson Guzmanos, Elizabeth Joie Cruz, Suzanne Batalla, Kester John Tan and George Ahmed Paglinawan.
Barbers’ ‘chilling effect’
Hours before their filing at the high court, they sent letters to the House tri-committee declining the invitation and expressing concerns that the inquiry would infringe on freedom of speech and expression.
In a privilege speech on Dec. 4, 2024, Barbers called for an investigation into the spread of what he called harmful online content by “trolls” and “pro-China propagandists.”
Referring to the speech, the petitioners argued that Barbers’ statements—and the ensuing inquiry—would create a “chilling effect” on free speech.
They expressed fears of being force to attend a hearing where they face harassment, humiliation or detention if cited in contempt, similar to the fate of some resource speakers in past House inquiries.
In a separate statement, Harry Roque—one of the no-shows in last year’s House hearings and who was later ordered arrested—denounced the latest inquiry as “part of the political witch hunt to silence the Dutertes and their outspoken allies.”
“The real intent is to muzzle the free speech of these modern-day truth-tellers,” said Roque, who was last reported to be overseas.
Show-cause orders
Hours before the filing of the petition, the tri-committee chaired by Laguna Rep. Dan Fernandez issued show-cause orders against Cruz-Angeles, Chu, Lopez, Abines, Pena, as well as other vloggers Elizabeth Joie Cruz, Richard Mata, Suzanne Batalla and Ethel Pineda, for their nonappearance.
The order dismissed as “invalid” the reasons they stated in their letters for snubbing Tuesday’s hearing.
Abang Lingkod Rep. Joseph Stephen Paduano also filed a motion to refer Cruz-Angeles’ absence to the House legal department for a possible disbarment complaint.
“She is an officer of the court… and she should respect the constitutional duty of Congress. I respectfully move that we consult the legal department of this House for a possible disbarment case against Atty. Trixie Angeles,” Paduano said.
Barbers challenged the vloggers to “stop hiding behind” their legal actions.
“’Di ba ang tatapang niyo? (Aren’t you supposed to be fearless?)” he said. “You’re so good at criticizing the government, so bring it up here so that we can craft legislation.’’
“You were invited here to speak your mind. Isn’t that practicing your freedom of expression? Why send excuse letters?” he added.
In defense of the House inquiry, Barbers said it was not intended to curtail free speech but to craft regulations to ensure accountability and ethical use of social media.
Proceed with caution
But other resource speakers at Tuesday’s hearing advised lawmakers to proceed with caution, saying that even the most well-intended policies could be used to suppress lawful dissent and legitimate criticism in a democracy.
It was a common warning issued by University of Massachusetts professor Jonathan Corpus Ong, University of the Philippines associate professor and Tsek.ph coordinator Rachel Khan, and lawyer Michael Tiu.
“Many antifake news laws (in other countries) are often used in an inconsistent and arbitrary fashion, often used by incumbent politicians and governments to target activists, critics, journalists and opposition parties,” Ong said.
“It would be rubberstamping local overregulation, embolden authoritarian regulators, and incentivize platforms to comply with illegitimate government requests,” he added.
Khan said there “must be emphasis on media and information literacy by involving various stakeholders, including governments, technology companies civil society organizations, and the academe in developing and implementing strategies to educate the public.”
But Khan suggested penalizing “masterminds, especially black PR firms engaged in disinformation… [T]here has to be a way to penalize them rather than the individual trolls because we would get nowhere doing that.”
