The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the vloggers’ right to free speech is not violated when they are invited by Congress to a legislative inquiry on the spread of fake news online.

The SC pointed out that Congress cannot be prevented from inviting resource persons to legislative inquiries just because the topic involves speech.

It pointed out that 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.

In a full court decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC dismissed the petition filed by several vloggers who asked the High Court to stop the House of Representatives (HOR) from inviting them as resource persons.

The petitioners in the SC case were Ernesto S. Abines Jr., lawyer Glenn Chong, Mark Antony 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, Rose Beatrix L. Cruz-Angeles, Aeron S. Pena, Nelson U. Guzmanos, Elizabeth Joie Cruz, Suzanne Batalla, Kesten John Tan, and George Ahmed G. Paglinawan.

They asked the SC to prohibit the HOR from requiring them to attend legislative inquiries involving their social media posts.

As backgrounder, the Office of the Spokesperson of the SC said that Rep. Robert Ace S. Barbers, in two privilege speeches, raised concerns about a group allegedly spreading online misinformation and launching coordinated attacks against public officials.

Barbers referred to them as “paid trolls” and “malicious vloggers.” He vowed to take action, and called for accountability and justice for victims of online harassment.

Three HOR committees -- the Committees on Public Order and Safety; Information and Communications Technology; and Public Information (House Tri-Committee) – decided to hold a joint inquiry.

The petitioners were invited to attend which prompted them to question the validity of the hearings.

They told the SC that the inquiries violated their right to free speech, and that the House Tri-Committee humiliated and insulted them.

They also claimed that the HOR proceedings were aimed to silence them and regulate their social media content, and, thus, creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

In dismissing their petition, the SC said that there was no violation of the vloggers’ right to free speech.

It said that Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and the press as pillars of a democratic society.

It also said 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, the SC stressed.

In the petition filed by the vloggers, the SC said that simply inviting them as resource persons did not violate their freedom of expression.

It said the invitation did not regulate what they said or how they expressed themselves.

The SC pointed out that 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.

It emphasized that Congress has broad authority to regulate matters for the common good. In this case, the SC said that the HOR 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.

The SC said: “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. Allowing the unregulated dissemination of erroneous facts will ultimately degrade trust among the people and threaten the stability and reliability of day-to-day transactions.”

But the SC said HOR’s power to conduct inquiries is not unlimited. It must be in aid of legislation, held in accordance with Congress’ duly published rules of procedure, and respect the rights of resource persons and witnesses.

In this case, the SC said the House Tri-Committee complied with these requirements and set clear guidelines for the inquiry.

The vloggers’ rights were also safeguarded, in accordance with the Congress’ Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, which enumerate the witnesses’ rights and duties during hearings.

But the SC noted that some lawmakers’ questioning during the hearings was unduly harsh or demeaning.

It pointed out that resource speakers are entitled to their constitutional rights and should be treated with courtesy and respect during legislative inquiries.