The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) expresses its concern over the arrest of an online content creator who falsely manipulated an online graphic reporting the statement of President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., to make it appear that he is calling for the legalization of illegal narcotics.
From news reports brought to the attention of the CHR, the online content creator was arrested on the basis of an arrest warrant for libel. Further, there are ongoing surveillance efforts by law enforcement against online content creators or vloggers whom they suspect of spreading disinformation or fake news.
The CHR reminds our law enforcement officers and agencies to remain circumspect in enforcing criminal laws that have a direct impact on the enjoyment of the freedom of expression by every individual. While there are limitations to freedom of expression, government-based sanctions that look into the truth or falsity of a statement are a form of content-based restraint that may be considered a prior restraint on free speech prohibited by Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, 15 February 2008). The CHR voices serious concerns against enforcing content-based restraint enforced on pain of criminal or penal prosecution as it sends a chilling effect on other constitutionally protected forms of speech such as an individual’s freedom to express oneself, ethical journalism, and well-meaning political advocacy. As held by our Supreme Court in Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2014, “any government threat of punishment regarding certain uses of the medium creates a chilling effect on the constitutionally-protected freedom of expression of the great masses that use it.”
The CHR remains vigilant in monitoring possible infringements on the fundamental right to freedom of expression to avoid the overbearing application of in terrorem effect of criminal law on the well-meaning exercise of fundamental rights. Indeed, “[a] blow too soon struck for freedom is preferred than a blow struck too late” (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, 15 February 2008).###