SC to Speaker, solons: Comment on petition from socmed personalities
INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) has required members of the House of Representatives led by Speaker Martin Romualdez to comment on the petition filed by several social media personalities.
“In a Resolution dated February 11, 2025, the Court required the respondents to comment on the petition for certiorari and prohibition (with urgent prayer for the issuance of a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction) within a non-extendible period of 15 days from notice, to be filed with the Court and served on petitioners by personal service,” SC Spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting said.
Aside from Romualdez, the named respondents are Rep. Robert Ace Barbers and the Joint Committee comprising the Committees on Public Order and Safety, Information and Communications Technology, and Public Information represented by Reps. Dan Fernandez, Tobias Tiangco and Jose Aquino.
READ: Social media personalities want to stop House hearing invitation
The social media personalities went to the SC after Congress invited them to a hearing about disinformation and misinformation.
They said the invitations were sent after Surigao del Norte Representative Robert Ace Barbers made a statement in December 2024 that he would take action against online harassment he and other Quadcomm members.
In some social media posts, Barbers was called a drug lord despite his stand against illegal drugs.
The social media posts came out while the quad committee was then probing illegal activities in Philippine offshore gaming operators, the illicit drug trade, and extrajudicial killings in the past administration’s drug war.
READ: ‘Fighting drugs since 1995’: Barbers laughs off ‘drug lord’ rumors
The lawmaker expressed the need to establish a regulatory framework for social media use, just like mainstream media organizations and legitimate news outlets adhere to a set of ethical standards.
But petitioners believed that the so-called invitation violated their constitutional right to free speech, freedom of expression and of the press.
“Petitioners implore upon the Supreme Court, to again swiftly act and exercise its constitutional power by striking down the assailed acts of the Respondents as being patent invasions of a constitutionally protected right to free speech, freedom of expression and of the press,” they added.
