Manila: The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a congressional inquiry on the spread of fake news online did not violate the right to free speech of vloggers invited as resource persons. In a decision made public Thursday, the SC En Banc dismissed the petition filed by Ernesto Abines Jr. and others asking it to prohibit the House of Representatives from requiring them to attend legislative inquiries involving their social media posts.
According to Philippines News Agency, the petitioners questioned the validity of the hearings, arguing before the SC that the inquiries violated their right to free speech, and that the House Tri-Committee humiliated and insulted them. They claimed that the proceedings aimed to silence them and regulate their social media content, creating a chilling effect on free expression.
The SC disagreed, ruling that there was no violation of the vloggers’ right to free speech. Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and the press as pillars of a democratic society. The SC said these rights have two aspects — freedom from prior restraint or government censorship, and freedom from subsequent punishment.
‘While these rights may be restricted, any regulation must be aligned with legitimate objectives. In this case, simply inviting the vloggers as resource persons did not violate their freedom of expression,’ the SC said. ‘The invitation did not regulate what they said or how they expressed themselves. Congress, as part of its functions, only wanted to gather information for crafting laws, not to punish anyone for spreading ‘fake news’ or to suppress speech,’ it added.
The SC ruled that Congress cannot be prevented from inviting resource persons to legislative inquiries just because the topic involves speech. Congress, it said, has the power to enact laws penalizing forms of speech that are not protected under the Constitution, such as those that create disorder or threaten society.
It also ruled that Rep. Robert Ace Barbers’ privilege speeches, which initiated the congressional hearings, did not violate petitioners’ freedom of expression. ‘His speeches were not meant to silence or punish anyone. He delivered the speeches in his official capacity as a Member of the House, addressing a serious social problem — the deliberate spread of misinformation that harms not only public officials, but also ordinary citizens,’ the SC said.
The SC also emphasized that Congress has broad authority to regulate matters for the common good. In this case, the House acted within its power when it conducted an inquiry to find ways to address the spread of false or misleading information, which can undermine public trust and threaten social stability, it said.
‘The dangers of the proliferation of false information and narratives are not difficult to imagine, and the need to address this issue most promptly is truly imperative. Allowing the unregulated dissemination of erroneous facts will ultimately degrade trust among the people and threaten the stability and reliability of day-to-day transactions,’ the SC said.
However, the SC noted that some lawmakers’ questioning during the hearings was unduly harsh or demeaning. It emphasized that resource speakers are entitled to their constitutional rights and should be treated with courtesy and respect during legislative inquiries.
