The “Bully” That I Am
/
Social media influencers and bloggers take their oath at the March 21 Congressional hearing on the proliferation of fake news (photo courtesy of the Philippine House of Representatives).
The accusation came from MJ Quiambao, one of the pro-Duterte bloggers invited to a committee hearing investigating the proliferation of disinformation on social media.
Quiambao, whom I have never met in person, questioned why the House Tri-committee (Tricom) has not invited the likes of me to shed light on the issue at hand. In response, Congressman Romeo Acop asked Quiambao if she was the one doing the bullying instead.
My encounters with Quiambao were limited to social media comments, especially when I called her out on disinformation that she and her fellow DDS (Duterte Die-hard Supporters) spread on their social media accounts.
Apparently, Quiambao was triggered when I questioned her being out of the country as her reason for not attending a previous Tricom hearing, when on that very same day, she arrived and was among the bloggers who went to the Supreme Court to ask it to stop Congress from summoning them to the hearings.
Others in the group of petitioners have called me “tanga” (idiot), “kulang sa pansin” (bereft of attention), and “bayaran” (paid troll).
I have never masked my political biases, but never have I used my social media accounts to spread fake news or as a means to generate income. Even posts on my satirical site, The Adobo Chronicles, are all based on factual news and events.
The Tricom joint hearings began in February this year, when the committees on public order and safety, public information, and information and communications technology called for an inquiry on disinformation on the Internet, with the aim of exploring potential regulatory measures to curb its impact. Invitations were sent to government agencies, the news media and about 40 online personalities, many known for their support of the Duterte family. Among them were former broadcaster Jay Sonza, blogger Sass Rogando Sasot, former press secretary-turned-blogger Trixie Cruz-Angeles, and Manila Bulletin editor Krizette Laureta Chu.
The bloggers chose to skip the first two hearings while awaiting the high court’s decision on their petition where they claimed the hearings were in violation of their right to free speech.
Finally, on March 21, after a non-response from the Supreme Court, some of the petitioner-bloggers showed up before the committee. Legislators took turns grilling the bloggers who, amid tears and initial defiance, apologized for their past social media posts and all but admitted having no firsthand or factual basis for news and comments spread through their social media accounts.
Many believe their apologies and admissions were insincere and were a way to avoid being cited in contempt. True enough, soon after the hearing, the bloggers took to their social media accounts to criticize the lawmakers, conveniently forgetting their admissions and apologies under oath.
True enough, soon after the hearing, the bloggers took to their social media accounts to criticize the lawmakers, conveniently forgetting their admissions and apologies under oath.
The Philippine Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, a cornerstone of a democratic society that allows individuals to express opinions without fear of censorship. However, many believe that this freedom is not absolute. The dissemination of false information that harms individuals, institutions, or public order can warrant legal intervention. The challenge lies in delineating between protected speech and punishable disinformation.
Proponents of free speech argue that robust discourse, including controversial or unpopular opinions, is essential for a healthy democracy. They caution against broad regulations that could stifle legitimate expression and dissent. Conversely, advocates for stricter measures contend that unchecked disinformation undermines public trust, manipulates public opinion, and can lead to real-world harm, necessitating regulatory frameworks to protect the public sphere.
Indeed, the Philippine legal system addresses the dissemination of false information through various statutes. Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes the publication of false information that may endanger public order or cause damage to state interests. Violations can result in imprisonment ranging from one month and one day to six months, along with fines between P40,000 to P200,000. Furthermore, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 enhances penalties for crimes committed via information and communications technology, potentially extending imprisonment to six years.
As a journalist, I will always claim my right to free speech. But I will also continue to be on the lookout for disinformation and fake news that will bring irreparable harm to innocent and law-abiding citizens… even if I am called a bully for doing so, which in itself is disinformation.
Rene Astudillo is a writer, book author and blogger and has recently retired from more than two decades of nonprofit community work in the Bay Area. He spends his time between California and the Philippines.
More articles from Rene Astudillo
