Supreme Court Rules Congressional Hearings on Disinformation Did Not Violate Vloggers’ Free Speech Rights

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has determined that the House of Representatives did not infringe upon vloggers’ freedom of expression when it invited them to participate in a congressional inquiry focused on disinformation. The ruling, authored by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro Javier, was made public on Thursday, November 13.

In its decision, the Court dismissed a petition filed by Ernesto Abines Jr. and other vloggers who had sought to halt their required attendance at hearings conducted by a tri-committee on public order and safety, information and communications technology, and public information.

“Simply inviting the vloggers as resource persons did not violate their freedom of expression. The invitation did not regulate what they said or how they expressed themselves,” the Supreme Court explained in its ruling. “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.”

The High Court emphasized that legislative bodies cannot be prohibited from inviting resource persons to hearings merely because the subject matter involves speech. It noted that Congress has constitutional authority to create legislation that penalizes forms of speech not protected under the 1987 Constitution, “such as those that create disorder or threaten society.”

Article III, Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, stating: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.”

The Court further stated that Congress possesses “broad authority to regulate matters for the common good” and acted within its mandate when conducting these inquiries. However, it clarified that this investigative power is not unlimited and must be exercised “in aid of legislation,” follow published procedural rules, and respect the rights of all participants.

Despite upholding the legality of the hearings, the Supreme Court did criticize the conduct of some lawmakers, noting that certain questioning of the vloggers was “unduly harsh or demeaning.” The Court emphasized that resource persons are entitled to constitutional protections and should be treated with courtesy and respect during legislative proceedings.

In a separate concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen noted that the petition had become moot due to the inquiry’s conclusion. He agreed that the legislative investigation was conducted with a valid purpose—specifically addressing “the proper regulation against the proliferation of false information online.”

The House initiated its hearings on online disinformation in February, inviting approximately 40 vloggers, many of whom are known supporters of former president Rodrigo Duterte. The invitees included former broadcaster Jay Sonza, bloggers Sass Rogando Sasot and Mark Anthony Lopez, commentator Lord Byron Cristobal (known as “Banat By”), former press secretary Trixie Cruz-Angeles, and Lorraine Marie Tablang Badoy, who has been accused of “red-tagging” individuals.

The Court also addressed former Representative Robert Ace Barbers’ privilege speeches, which had raised concerns about a group allegedly spreading misinformation and coordinating attacks against officials. Barbers had labeled them as “paid trolls” and “malicious vloggers.” The Court determined that these speeches did not violate the petitioners’ freedom of expression, as they were delivered in Barbers’ official capacity and addressed “a serious social problem—the deliberate spread of misinformation that harms not only public officials, but also ordinary citizens.”

This ruling comes amid growing global concerns about the impact of online disinformation on democratic processes and public discourse, with the Philippines being particularly affected by the proliferation of false information across social media platforms.