SC: Congressional probe on ‘fake news’ did not violate vloggers’ free speech

November 13, 2025 | 4:57pm

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by several vloggers claiming that the congressional hearing on disinformation and “fake news” violated their right to free speech.

In a 31-page decision promulgated on July 8 but released on November 13, the high court ruled that the inquiry, which invited mostly pro-Duterte vloggers, did not infringe on any constitutional right.

It said that an invitation to attend the House Tri-Committee’s hearings as a resource person was not, in any form, a regulation of one’s freedom of speech and expression.

“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 Supreme Court said in a statement.

The high court also ruled in favor of the House of Representatives, saying the “perceived chilling effect had no leg to stand on” because the invited vloggers or social media personalities were not restrained from sharing their thoughts and opinions.

It is because of this lack of proof of prior restraint that the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by the likes of political commentators Ernesto “Jun” Abines, Mark Anthony Lopez and Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI) host Lorraine Badoy was dismissed.

“Too, we cannot prohibit Congress from inviting resource persons to legislative inquiries solely because the subject matter involves speech,” the decision read.

Congress’ right to probe

The Supreme Court also explained that there are forms of speech that are not protected by the Constitution, such as those that “bring about a general disorder” or threaten the State “with a clear and present danger.”

Congress has the constitutional power to legislate penalties for unprotected speech. Still, since no bill or law has been enacted concerning speech as a result of the inquiry, the argument that the vloggers’ freedom of speech and expression was violated was considered “premature.”

For the Supreme Court, it is within the House of Representatives’ right to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation “to find ways to address the spread of false or misleading information,” given its role in eroding public trust and threatening social stability.

“The dangers of the proliferation of false information and narratives are not difficult to imagine, and the need to address this issue most promptly is truly imperative,” the decision read.

The high court also noted how the House Tri-Comm resulted in proposed measures seeking to define “fake news” and punish peddlers of disinformation, which is the deliberate spread of false information to cause public disorder or manipulate public opinion.

Congress exercising free speech

The vloggers filed the petition on February 4, the same day the House Tri-Committee held a hearing attended by only three invited resource persons.

Beyond the congressional probe, the petitioners also took issue with former Rep. Ace Barbers’ privilege speech during a plenary session, in which he referred to social media personalities as “paid trolls” and “malicious vloggers.”

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that Barbers was exercising his freedom of expression, which does not constitute a prohibition or regulation of speech.

“His speeches were not meant to silence or punish anyone. He delivered the speeches in his official capacity as a Member of the House, addressing a serious social problem — the deliberate spread of misinformation that harms not only public officials, but also ordinary citizens,” the statement read.

While the Supreme Court largely rejected the petitioners’ arguments, it pointed out that some lawmakers’ interpellations questioning the vloggers during the Tri-Comm hearings were “unduly harsh or demeaning.”

Even as Congress holds the exclusive power to discipline unparliamentary behavior during hearings, the Court stressed that resource persons must still be treated with dignity and respect.

The House Tri-Committee’s probe, however, was held in the 19th Congress and terminated before it adjourned, which Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said would render the petition “moot.”

Lawmakers of the 20th Congress, however, may refile the anti-fake news bills proposed as a result of the probe or seek to revive the inquiry should they deem it necessary.