The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the congressional inquiry into the spread of fake news did not violate the free speech rights of vloggers who were invited as resource persons.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the Court En Banc dismissed the petition filed by Ernesto S. Abines Jr. and several others seeking to prohibit the House of Representatives from requiring their attendance at committee hearings related to their social media posts.
The vloggers argued that the House Tri-Committee inquiry, conducted by the Committees on Public Order and Safety, Information and Communications Technology, and Public Information, was intended to humiliate, silence, and regulate their online content, creating a chilling effect on free expression.
They also claimed they were insulted during the hearings and that the proceedings infringed upon their constitutional right to free speech.
The SC disagreed, holding that the mere act of inviting individuals to legislative hearings does not constitute a violation of their freedom of expression.
The ruling emphasized that Congress sought information in aid of legislation and did not attempt to censor, punish, or restrict what the vloggers could say.
The High Court noted that the inquiry’s purpose was to address concerns over misinformation and its harmful effects on the public.
According to the SC, the House was acting within its authority to investigate the proliferation of misleading or false online content, which lawmakers said posed risks to public trust and social stability.
The High Court’s press release cited the Court’s recognition of Congress’ broad power to regulate matters affecting the common good and its mandate to craft laws addressing emerging challenges tied to new technologies and harmful online behavior.
The Tri-Committee had also set guidelines ensuring that any proposed measures would uphold free speech and avoid undue censorship.
The SC clarified, however, that the power to conduct inquiries is not absolute and must follow duly published rules of procedure while respecting the rights of resource persons.
It noted that the House complied with these requirements, and that the witnesses’ rights were safeguarded under existing congressional rules.
The High Court did observe that certain lawmakers’ questioning was unduly harsh but reiterated that resource persons must always be treated with courtesy and respect.
In a separate concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed the inquiry had a legitimate legislative purpose, although he noted that the issue had become moot after the hearings concluded.
Leonen emphasized that Congress was addressing a serious concern: the deliberate and malicious spread of disinformation in an era dominated by social media and online platforms.
