Philippines
National
Vloggers ask SC to stop congressional probe on their social media posts
Vloggers ask SC to stop congressional probe on their social media posts
The Supreme Court (SC) was asked on Tuesday, Feb. 4, to stop the House of Representatives (HOR) from continuing with the probe on vloggers for their alleged false and malicious postings in social media.
In a petition filed by 17 vloggers, the SC was asked to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would stop immediately the HOR’s probe.
The petitioners are Ernesto S. Abines Jr., lawyer Glenn Chong, Mark Anthony Lopez, Mary Jean Q. Reyes, Dr. Richard T. Mata, May 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, Kester John Tan, and George Ahmed G. Paglinawan.
Named respondents were the HOR represented by Speaker Ferdinan Martin G. Romualdez and Reps. Robert Ace S. Barbers, Dan S. Fernandez, Tobias M. Tiangco, and Jose S. Aquino II.
Through the law firm of Roque and Partners and lawyer Tomas Jose B. Berenguer, the vloggers told the SC that the HOR’s probe violates their rights to free speech, freedom of express and of the press.
They pointed out that the HOR’s inquiry in aid of legislation “creates a chilling effect” in the exercises of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
“This chilling effect constitutes prior restraint on free expression. As such, the acts of the respondents should be struck down as unconstitutional,” they said.
They also told the SC the HOR’s probe stemmed from Barber’s privilege speech in December 2024. The speech, they said, referred to them as “trolls” and “malicious vloggers” who allegedly attacked him and public officials online.
In another privilege speech, the vloggers said that Barbers again referred to them as “paid trolls and vloggers” who are being paid out of illegal fund sources.
Then, they said the HOR adopted a resolution allowing an inquiry in aid of legislation and they were asked to attend.
They told the SC that the inquiry 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.”
“In this case, it is evident that the threats, inquiry and other acts of the respondents are calculated to drown the voice if not to totally silence vloggers including petitioners herein who have the courage to stand up, criticize and offer alternative views to the one preferred by the respondents,” they stressed.