MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc has dismissed a petition filed by a group of vloggers and content creators, led by Ernesto S. Abines, Jr., who sought to prohibit the House of Representatives (HOR) from compelling their attendance at a joint inquiry into “fake news” and online misinformation. The Court ruled that neither the inquiry itself nor the legislative summons violated the petitioners’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression.
In a Decision promulgated on July 8, 2025, and penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC reinforced the doctrine of separation of powers, upholding the legislature’s inherent authority to conduct investigations and shielding lawmakers’ related statements through parliamentary immunity.
Antecedent Facts: Legislative Inquiry into “Trolls” and “Fake News”
The case stemmed from the privilege speeches delivered by Representative Robert Ace S. Barbers in December 2024, where he denounced individuals he termed “trolls” and “malicious vloggers” for allegedly spreading misinformation and engaging in coordinated online attacks. Following the speeches, the House adopted House Resolution No. 286, authorizing a joint inquiry by the House Tri-Committee to craft legislation addressing the rampant posting of false and malicious online content.
The petitioners, who had previously criticized public officials, were subsequently invited as resource speakers. After they failed to appear, the House Tri-Committee issued show cause orders and resolutions to compel their attendance, prompting the petitioners to file the instant case. They argued that the inquiry violated their constitutional rights by creating an unlawful “chilling effect” on their freedom of expression.
The Doctrine: Immunity and Non-Justiciable Legislative Power
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on two primary procedural grounds: lack of an actual case or controversy and lack of legal standing.
The Court first ruled that Representative Barbers’ privilege speeches were covered by parliamentary immunity under Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution. Since the speeches were delivered by a lawmaker in his official capacity to expose a prevailing social ill, they are non-justiciable and cannot be questioned in any forum outside of Congress itself.
Second, the SC held that the power of inquiry exercised by the House Tri-Committee was a legitimate exercise of legislative function that falls within the political question doctrine. The Court found that the inquiry was clearly “in aid of legislation,” aimed at crafting measures to regulate conduct against the proliferation of false information—a matter within the legislature’s inherent police power. The Court stressed that the judicial branch will not interfere with this legislative prerogative.
Ruling on Free Speech and Legal Standing
The SC directly addressed the core issue of free speech violation, ruling that the mere act of inviting a resource person to an inquiry does not curtail or regulate the content of their speech. The Court stressed that the issuance of summons is simply a matter of procedure to effectively exercise the power of inquiry and is not a punitive measure or an attempt at prior restraint. Consequently, the claim of a “chilling effect” had no legal basis.
Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioners lacked the requisite legal standing, as their apprehension that the inquiry was “aimed at legislation which will curtail their freedom of speech” was “pure conjecture.” In the absence of an actual bill, let alone an enacted law, such concerns were deemed speculative and incapable of causing the direct injury required to sue.
While dismissing the petition, the Court issued a strong reminder to Congress that resource speakers must be accorded courtesy and respect. The decision ultimately upholds the legislature’s broad constitutional authority to conduct investigations to perform its law-making function effectively.
