Photo credit: SC

MANILA — The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of a congressional inquiry into the spread of fake news online, ruling that the move did not infringe on the right to free speech of vloggers invited to testify.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the Supreme Court En Banc dismissed the petition filed by Ernesto S. Abines Jr. and several others, who sought to stop the House of Representatives from summoning them to a legislative inquiry concerning their online content.

The issue began after Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers delivered two privilege speeches in December 2024, raising concerns about so-called paid trolls and vloggers accused of spreading false information and launching coordinated attacks against public officials. His speeches prompted a joint investigation by the House Committees on Public Order and Safety, Information and Communications Technology, and Public Information — collectively referred to as the House Tri-Committee.

The petitioners, who were invited as resource persons, argued that the inquiry humiliated them and violated their constitutional right to freedom of expression. They claimed that the investigation was meant to intimidate and silence critics, creating fear among content creators online.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected these arguments. It ruled that simply being invited to a legislative hearing does not curtail free speech. The Court explained that Congress has the authority to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, especially when the topic involves issues that affect public welfare, such as misinformation and online disinformation.

According to the ruling, the invitation to appear as a resource person does not restrict what an individual says or how they express themselves. Instead, it serves as part of the information-gathering process that allows lawmakers to understand complex issues and propose appropriate policy responses.

The justices also clarified that privilege speeches made by lawmakers in their official capacity are protected under parliamentary privilege and cannot be considered attempts to suppress speech. In this case, the speeches were part of efforts to address the growing problem of online misinformation and its impact on public trust.

The Court emphasized that while freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy, it is not absolute. Congress may enact laws that regulate or penalize speech that threatens order, safety, or public welfare — as long as these laws are consistent with constitutional guarantees.

Ultimately, the decision reaffirmed Congress’ broad power to investigate matters affecting society. It also reminded lawmakers to ensure that all hearings are conducted in aid of legislation, follow published rules, and respect the rights of resource persons and witnesses.

The ruling highlights a crucial balance: protecting free expression while allowing government institutions to address the dangers of disinformation that can undermine truth and public trust.