Vloggers' right to speech not violated during House hearings — SC

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the House of Representatives' inquiry into fake news did not violate the right of free speech of vloggers who were invited to attend the congressional hearings on the matter.

In a 31-page decision, the SC en banc dismissed the petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by numerous online content creators and influencers last February against the investigation.

The petitioners in the case were Ernesto S. Abines, Jr., Atty. Glenn Chong, MarkAnthony Lopez, Mary Jean Q. Reyes, Dr. Richard T. Mata, Mary Catherine Diaz Binag, Ethel Pineda Garcia, Krizette Laureta Chu, Jonathan A. Morales, Lorraine Marie Badoy-Partosa, Aeron S. Peña, Nelson U. Guzmanos, Elizabeth Joie Cruz, Suzanne Batalla, Kester John Tan, and George Ahmed G. Paglinawan.

"The mere act of inviting Abines et al. as resource persons to an inquiry in aid of legislation did not violate their freedom of expression, as it had no relation at all to their exercise of free speech," it said.

"It did not, at the very least, regulate the content of their speech or its incidents," it added.

Aside from this, the SC noted that the inquiry was for the creation of sound legislation and not to punish the vloggers for alleged proliferation of fake news.

"Since the questioned conduct did not curtail or regulate Abines et al.'s freedom of expression, the perceived chilling effect had no leg to stand on. There was no restraint on the freedom of expression that could trigger its application," it said.

Further, the SC said it cannot prohibit Congress from inviting resource persons to its legislative inquiries.

The high court also said a lawmaker's criticisms that they are supposedly "trolls" and "malicious vloggers" did not suppress or regulate their speech.

Nonetheless, the High Court noted that there were instances wherein the manner of inquisition by some lawmakers appeared "unduly harsh and derogatory."

"[A]lbeit it is not the province of the Court to chastise or in any way discipline Members of Congress, we find it apropos, in line with our mandate as guardians of people's rights, to remind that resource speakers are not only guaranteed their constitutional rights during inquiries in aid of legislation," it said.

"They also deserve a reasonable expectation that the legislators conducting the inquiries will accord them courtesy and respect befitting that of any dignified human being," it added.

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, was promulgated in July and made public in November.

At least 39 invited online content creators were absent at the first House hearing last February, many of whom submitted excuse letters questioning the legitimacy and goals of the probe.

During its fourth hearing, the House Tri-Committee issued a subpoena against resource persons who were unable to attend.

In a petition for certiorari seeking for a temporary restraining order, the content creators said the House probe goes against the constitutional freedom of speech because it "threatens to take action against the vloggers who criticize public officials and who may have social media posts and contents that do not jive with the official rhetoric of those in power."

They said the inquiry was not in aid of legislation and was meant to humiliate them. — VDV, GMA Integrated News