For some watching the House’s latest hearing on “fake news,” seeing pro-Duterte bloggers break into tears after being cornered for spreading disinformation online may feel like a moment of vindication.

The content creators — “propagandists” as their critics would call them — said sorry over and over, even though some apologies were extracted after congressmen dangled the possibility of a contempt citation, which carries with it the punishment of House detention.

But the congressional investigation is a double-edged sword, one that blurs the line between holding disinformation peddlers to account and policing what people can say online, according to watchdogs.

“The hearing was somewhat good in the sense that the ‘fake news’ purveyors have been exposed for who they are, particularly their thought process and how they regard facts,” University of the Philippines journalism professor Danilo Arao told Rappler. “The fact that they cried out of frustration or embarrassment is just a bonus.”

“But lawmakers appear to be operating on the framework of legislative intervention through media regulation,” he added. “That is a very, very ill-advised move.”

Exposing pro-Duterte bloggers’ lack of accountability

The tri-committee hearing last March 21 was already the third installment of the congressional inquiry that started in early February.

Most of the bloggers invited were those who were associated with the camp of former president Rodrigo Duterte. They skipped the first two hearings, and even sought reprieve from the Supreme Court so the House won’t compel them to attend. They argued that the hearings curtail their right to free speech.

But the High Court issued no temporary restraining order, and with a subpoena slapped against them, the content creators were left no choice but to face the mega-panel.

The hearing turned out to be a series of confrontations between congressmen and the bloggers.

Krizette Chu, a newspaper writer with over 200,000 followers on Facebook, was chastised by Assistant Majority Leader Jude Acidre for falsely claiming that there was a looming mass resignation at the Philippine National Police, even though the PNP said there was no such thing. Manila 6th District Representative Bienvenido Abante also criticized her for saying “bad words” against the government.

Then there’s Mary Jane “MJ” Quiambao Reyes, another blogger with over 60,000 followers on Facebook, who was confronted by Abante, as well as Abang Lingkod Representative Caraps Paduano for claiming that victims of the drug war were a hoax.

On one hand, the hearing was a welcome development because it put careless bloggers who casually disregard journalistic practices in their place. The inquiry exposes “how cavalier they are with the facts,” professor Arao said.

For example, to skirt accountability for spreading the claim that there was an upcoming mass resignation at the PNP, Chu insisted she put “daw (supposedly)” in her Facebook post, and that she was only “speaking the truth of the impressions made on social media.”

Marcos’ former press secretary-turned-critic Trixie Cruz-Angeles, meanwhile, argued that a claim that might be considered “fake news” today may be time-bound, as it may eventually be true in the future.

Political motivations

Many of these bloggers — who have amassed a loyal following among their echo chambers and drawn notoriety among advocates for responsible journalism — have been operating for years. Their careers flourished during the Rodrigo Duterte presidency, a chapter in Philippine history where disinformation and hate speech thrived online and offline.

But they were only subjected to a congressional probe this year, after administration-allied lawmakers took notice of the countless times they were being targeted by the pro-Duterte bloggers. The criticisms came amid the erosion of the political alliance between the Dutertes and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

One of the justifications for the conduct of the hearing, in fact, was a privilege speech delivered by Surigao del Norte 2nd District Representative Ace Barbers about the “online attacks and harassment from trolls and malicious vloggers.”

“You can’t discount the fact that it’s politically motivated,” National Union of Journalists of the Philippines chairperson Jonathan de Santos told Rappler. “There wouldn’t be such a hearing, or their focus would be different if it weren’t for the recent developments.”

During the hearing, Congressman Abante scolded Chu for calling the government “tanga (stupid),” and Reyes for once saying online that “criminal forces” were twisting reality. Abante said he felt insulted.

“It’s not really a matter of truth. It’s like they are retaliating against negative comments about them or negative comments about the government. That’s not really what we want. What’s happening here is that it’s basically an attempt to censor freedom of expression,” De Santos said.

“Even some parts about, for example, the claim that the extrajudicial killings were a hoax, it was more about their pride. It’s like, our committee investigated that, so it must be true. It was really more about that, there was a sense of them getting back at these content creators,” he added.

Suggestion of a different approach

Professor Arao isn’t advocating for the hearings to end, but is hoping that Congress will veer from discussions on media regulation.

The recent hearing, he said, reminds him of the debate during the Duterte years, when a sweeping “fake news” bill was introduced at the upper chamber by no less than then-Senate president Tito Sotto himself. Human rights groups decisively opposed the measure, as it sought to make the government the arbiter of allowable online content.

Bataan 1st District Representative Geraldine Roman is now seeking the establishment of the Digital Council of the Philippines, which would formulate a code of conduct and outline regulations for online content creators. The intention is noble, but Arao is against the proposed inclusion of a government representative in the body.

“Through the years, the government has been looking for ways to come up with convenient excuses to control the media without being accused of censorship,” Arao said. “If you want something self-regulatory, you let the media decide as to how it will be managed or how it will be run. Government should not intervene in any way.”

He also expressed fears that congressmen may use their powers to silence professional journalists.

“If they can crack the whip, so to speak, on the bloggers, what’s preventing them from cracking the whip on the legitimate news media organizations?” Arao asked. “There may even come a point where the self-interest of the legislators will get the better of them in the sense that they will be the ones to publicly criticize journalists and news media organizations, especially those who are critical of them.”

De Santos believes that instead of potentially crafting measures that would impose harsh penalties on individuals spreading disinformation, lawmakers could instead zero in on disinformation networks.

“Maybe it’s time to expose the PR agencies or advertising agencies that offer these kinds of [disinformation] operations as a service. Because if it’s just one person you’re targeting, they can say, ‘That’s just my opinion,'” he said.

De Santos’ sentiment is similar to a point made by media scholar Jonathan Ong during the pilot hearing of the tri-committee in February. At the time, Ong cautioned against top-down regulation, which he said, may be used arbitrarily to crack down on dissent. 

He suggested that the government support research and civil society efforts in mitigating businesses of disinformation-for-hire, and pressure social media giants into being more transparent about their algorithm. 

The March 21 hearing saw TikTok Philippines present their mechanisms to supposedly prohibit misinformation that may cause societal harm, but it was a discussion that scraped only the surface, and has yet to dig deep into how social media giants hold themselves responsible for the effect of false and misleading content that finds space on their platforms.

The House tri-committee is scheduled to meet again in April, and the likes of political commentator Sass Sasot and former anti-communist insurgency task force Lorraine Badoy run the risk of House detention should they again fail to appear in person.

For now, regardless of political motivations, the congressional inquiry has achieved notable success: it has put pro-Duterte vloggers on edge about their criticisms of the government, and served as a reminder that spreading falsehoods has consequences. – Rappler.com