SC directs House to respond to petition filed by vloggers

The House of Representatives was ordered by the Supreme Court (SC) to reply to the petition filed by several vloggers that sought to stop its investigation into the alleged rampant posting of false and malicious content on social media platforms due to its chilling effect on their constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech, freedom of expression, and of the press.

Fifteen days upon receipt of notice were given by the SC en banc in a two-page resolution promulgated on 11 February to respondents House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Surigao del Norte Representative Ace Barbers, and the House’s joint committee conducting the inquiry, consisting of the committees on public order and safety, information and communications technology, and public information, represented by their chairmen Reps. Dan Fernandez, Tobias Tiangco, and Jose Aquino II, to submit their comment “within a non-extendible.”

Petitioners are former Press Secretary Rose Beatrix “Trixie” Cruz-Angeles, Mark Anthony Lopez, Ernesto Abines Jr., Ethel Pineda Garcia, Krizette Laureta Chu, Jonathan Morales, Lorraine Marie Badoy-Partosa, Aeron S. Peña, Nelson Guzmanos, Elizabeth Joie Cruz, Suzanne Batalla, Kester John Tan, and George Ahmed Paglinawan.

The House inquiry stemmed from Barbers' privilege speech delivered on 4 December 2024, referring to the petitioners as “trolls” and “malicious vloggers” who allegedly attacked him and public officials online.

The petitioners said in the same speech, noting that Barbers vowed to take action against those disregarding the law, calling for accountability and justice for the victims of online harassment.

The solon pressed his tirades against the respondents, most of whom are known supporters of former President Rodrigo Duterte, when he delivered another privilege speech on 16 December 2024, where he referred again to the petitioners as “paid trolls and vloggers” who are being paid from sources of illegal drugs and POGO operations.

Petitioners said the inquiry specifically violates Article II, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: “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.”

They pointed out that in the said case, it is evident that the threats, inquiry, and other acts of the respondents are calculated to drown the voice, if not totally silence, vloggers, including petitioners, who have the courage to stand up, criticize, and offer alternative views to the one preferred by the respondents.