14/11/2025
FACT: Certain vloggers were invited as resource speakers to the legislative inquiries on FAKE NEWS before the House of Representatives.
ISSUE:
Was their right to freedom of expression violated?
RULING:
No.
The mere act of inviting Abines et al. (the petitioners) as resource persons to an inquiry in aid of legislation did not violate their freedom of expression, as it had no relation at all to their exercise of free speech. It did not, at the very least, regulate the content of their speech or its incidents. More important, it was a mandate from Congress to aid them in crafting sound legislation, not an act to punish them for alleged proliferation of ''fake news" in social media. In other words, the issuance of summons is a matter of procedure to effectively exercise the power of Congress to conduct its legislative inquiry. It was neither a punitive measure in relation to free speech nor an attempt to suppress it.
Since the questioned conduct did not curtail or regulate Abines et al.' s freedom of expression, the perceived chilling effect had no leg to stand on. There was no restraint on the freedom of expression that could trigger its application.
Too, We cannot prohibit Congress from inviting resource persons to legislative inquiries solely because the subject matter involves speech. Congress has the power to regulate certain forms of speech, as some forms are not protected by the Constitution, e.g. those which bring about a general disorder that threaten the State with a clear and present danger or when the utterances involved are "no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step of truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." Surely, Congres can enact laws to penalize unprotected speech.
Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice pronounced:
All penal laws, like the cybercrime law, have of course an inherent chilling effect, an in terrorem effect or the fear of possible prosecution that hangs on the heads of citizens who are minded to step beyond the boundaries of what is proper. But to prevent the State from legislating criminal laws because they instill such kind of fear is to render the state powerless in addressing and penalizing socially harmful conduct. Here, the chilling effect that results in paralysis is an illusion since Section4(a)(3) clearly describes the evil that it seeks to punish and creates no tendency to intimidate the free exercise of one's constitutional rights.
To repeat, since there is neither a law nor a bill, the present action is premature.
Ernesto S. Abines, Jr., et al vs. House of Representatives, et al, G.R. No. 27 101, July 8, 2025, Supreme Court En Banc