CARTOON BY: AARON PAUL C. CARIL
EDITORIAL
Walking the Line: Free Speech vs. Disinformation in the Philippines
With former President Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest, social media saw a frenzy of both celebratory and hate posts in the form of facts, half-truths, and totally inaccurate statements about the former president’s arrest. The country is again faced with a difficult choice, navigating the complex terrain where the absolute right to freedom of expression struggles to prevail alongside the urgent need to counter the noxious influence of disinformation.
The current House of Representatives investigation into “fake news” underscores the tensions within this balancing act, particularly because the House has been accused of late of weaponizing investigations in assistance legislation against the opposition. While members of Congress inquire of social media personalities and vloggers about their online content, the country looks on, cognizant of the high stakes for truth and expression.
Fake news is not a new problem, but its spread on digital media is historically unprecedented. Misleading and false information has the potential to create divisions, breed misunderstanding, and even trigger chaos. In the Philippines, social media penetration has facilitated the rapid spread of unfounded claims, frequently influencing popular opinions and, in the process, potentially undermining democratic processes.
The recent House hearings witnessed legislators questioning individuals such as newspaper editor Krizette Laureta Chu and bloggers MJ Quiambao Reyes and Mark Lopez for posting “sensationalized, baseless” accusations on the internet. Chu was forced to apologize for a post claiming mass resignation in the police and military after the arrest of former President Duterte. Reyes confessed to a lack of evidence for her allegations regarding images of EJK victims, and Lopez confessed to the dissemination of false information regarding the Philippines’s water cannoning Chinese ships. Both of these incidents highlight the real-world consequences of unregulated online accounts, which can result in public panic, social discord, and even violence, as seen in the water cannon incident.
But any regulation of the dissemination of misinformation has to be interpreted in the context of freedom of speech, which is a mainstay of Philippine jurisprudence. Although the right to free expression is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not absolute. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that this freedom does not apply to the dissemination of falsehoods, particularly those that pose a threat to public order or defame individuals.
In Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Thoenen, the Court ruled against a tabloid that ran defamatory lines, affirming that freedom of speech would not protect lies. Likewise, in Domingo, et al. v. Badoy-Partosa, the Supreme Court held that statements on social media that eroded public faith in the judiciary fell under indirect contempt, pointing out the dangers of untrammeled speech. These decisions set a precedent for holding persons and media organizations responsible for the spread of dangerous false information, an issue of public concern that should interest the public. The value of freedom of thought and expression as a “cardinal value” in a democracy has also been underscored by the Supreme Court.
There have been suggested regulations in the Philippines. Senate Bill No. 1492, the “Anti-Fake News Act of 2017,” sought to penalize the malicious publication and dissemination of fake news that may lead to panic, discord, or violence. It also sought penalties against mass media entities or social media sites that do not remove fake news after they learn of their falsity. Moreover, the “Anti-False Content Act” was proposed in the Senate in 2019, calling for penalties and imprisonment for producing or posting content that is known to be false or deceptive to the public. Although these proposals indicate a legislative will to act against disinformation, they also raise concerns regarding the likelihood of overreach and the silencing of lawful expression and fair criticisms against the government.
Preventing disinformation is undoubtedly an essential aim for protecting public discourse, a well-informed citizenry, and social stability. Regulating speech, however, has inherent dangers, even when aimed at falsehoods. Whatever is done must be so carefully balanced so as not to impinge on the absolute right to freedom of expression, as dictated by the tenets of legality, proportionality, and necessity. Ambiguous legislation may be exploited to suppress opposition, as it could be used to broadly suppress legitimate criticism or dissent.
There is also a legitimate concern that inquiries into “fake news” by the House may be used to suppress genuine grievances against the government. The emphasis on social media influencers who backed a former administration has raised concerns over the fairness of the inquiry and whether it might unintentionally suppress free speech and critical commentary.