Freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press are cornerstones of a democratic and civilized society guaranteed by the Constitution. It allows individuals to freely express their opinions, beliefs, and ideas without fear of government reprisal.

This right has come under heavy scrutiny in the wake of developments surrounding the House of Representatives’ inquiry into the rampant spread of fake news and the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) determined effort to curb disinformation and prevent online harassment under its Resolution No. 11116.

This right, however, is not absolute. The Supreme Court, in Chavez vs Gonzales case (G.R. No. 168338), established that this right must be balanced against the need to protect public order, the rights of others, and other societal interests.

The High Court recognized that while citizens have the right to free expression, this right could be limited when the exercise of this freedom poses a clear and present danger to public welfare or order. This principle has since been applied in various cases to determine when this right may be curtailed in the interests of public safety, national security, or protecting the rights of others. In this case, the Court ruled that an individual's right to express opinions could be restricted if it poses a threat to national security or is injurious to the rights of others.

Similarly, in Nicolas-Lewis vs Comelec case (G.R. No. 223705), the High Tribunal reaffirmed that freedom of expression is not absolute when it conflicts with other rights, particularly when the speech in question can cause harm or is defamatory in nature. The case involved a controversial provision on the amendment to the Overseas Voting Act that prohibits political activity abroad. The Court struck down this provision but upheld the principle that certain expressions could be regulated when they threaten the dignity or rights of individuals or society at large.

A particularly pertinent issue in the current debate over freedom of expression is the proliferation of fake news, which undermines informed decision-making and public trust. Disinformation can be harmful, distorting public opinion and can influence elections. The Supreme Court has also addressed cases of speech that endanger public order or individual reputations, recognizing that there must be safeguards in place to prevent malicious speech from causing harm. The increasing use of social media platforms has only intensified the challenge of balancing freedom of expression with the need to protect citizens from falsehoods that can lead to real-world consequences, such as violence, defamation, or electoral manipulation.

The rise of online harassment and the potential for discrimination, as highlighted in Comelec’s Resolution No. 11116, further complicates the issue. This resolution aims to protect individuals from harm caused by digital speech and to maintain the integrity of the electoral process. However, it raises concerns about the possibility of overreach. As important as it is to prevent harm, any regulatory measures must be carefully crafted to avoid infringing on the core of freedom of expression. The Supreme Court's guidance in previous cases suggests that any law or regulation should not be overly broad or vague, as this could lead to censorship and the chilling of speech.

Ultimately, where freedom of expression ends is a matter of balancing rights—between the individual’s right to speak freely and the collective right to be protected from harm. The jurisprudence set by the Supreme Court is clear—freedom of expression is not an absolute right; it is subject to reasonable restrictions when it conflicts with other fundamental rights.