13/11/2025
The has ruled that a congressional inquiry on the spread of fake news online did not violate the right to free speech of vloggers invited as resource persons.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 dismissed the petition filed by Ernesto S. Abines, Jr. 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭. to prohibit the House of Representatives (House) from requiring them to attend legislative inquiries involving their social media posts.
In December 2024, Representative Robert Ace S. Barbers delivered two privilege speeches wherein he raised concerns about “paid trolls” and “malicious vloggers” allegedly spreading online misinformation and launching coordinated attacks against public officials. This led the House Committees on Public Order and Safety; on Information and Communications Technology; and on Public Information (House Tri-Committee) to hold a joint inquiry.
The petitioners were invited to attend as resource speakers, which prompted them to question before the SC the validity of the hearings.
They argued that the inquiries violated their right to free speech, and that the House Tri-Committee humiliated and insulted the invited resource speakers. They claimed that the proceedings aimed to silence them and regulate their social media content, creating a chilling effect on free expression.
Disagreeing with the petitioners, the SC ruled that there was no violation of the vloggers’ right to free speech.
Article III, Section 4 of the 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and the press as pillars of a democratic society. These rights have two aspects: freedom from prior restraint or government censorship, and freedom from subsequent punishment. While these rights may be restricted, any regulation must be aligned with legitimate objectives.
In this case, 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. 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 SC also ruled that Congress cannot be prevented from inviting resource persons to legislative inquiries just because the topic involves speech. Congress has the power to enact laws penalizing forms of speech that are not protected under the 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, such as those that create disorder or threaten society.
The SC said that neither did Rep. Barbers’ privilege speeches violate petitioners’ freedom of expression, as the same were not meant to silence or punish anyone. He delivered the speeches in his official capacity, addressing the deliberate spread of misinformation that harms not only public officials, but also ordinary citizens.
The SC also emphasized that Congress has broad authority to regulate matters for the common good. In this case, the House acted within its power when it conducted an inquiry to find ways to address the spread of false or misleading information, which can undermine public trust and threaten social stability.
However, this power to conduct inquiries must be in aid of legislation, held in accordance with Congress’ duly published rules of procedure, and respectful of the rights of resource persons and witnesses.
Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155440.
Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155425.
Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155430.
