Screengrab from Congress PH

It was a showdown that many pro-Duterte vloggers hoped to avoid. But after the Supreme Court (SC) refused to grant a temporary restraining order (TRO), several influencers and content creators found themselves with no choice but to attend the House of Representatives’ Tri-Committee (Tri-Comm) hearing on fake news and online disinformation.

Among those present on Friday were former PCOO chief Trixie Cruz-Angeles, Krizette Laureta Chu, Ahmed Paglinawan, Elizabeth Joie Cruz, Ethel Pineda Garcia, Mark Anthony Lopez, Mary Jane Quiambao Reyes, Marc Louie Gamboa, and Richard Tesoro Mata. While Paglinawan and Gamboa were not subpoenaed, the rest were legally compelled to appear.

A Legal Fight That Didn’t Pay Off

For months, these vloggers had pushed back against the congressional probe, arguing that the investigation violated their right to free speech. They took their case to the SC, claiming that lawmakers were unfairly targeting them for their political views, particularly their support for former President Rodrigo Duterte. Their petition also questioned the inquiry’s purpose, suggesting it was more about intimidation than legislation.

But the SC’s refusal to issue a TRO meant that Congress could proceed with its hearings—forcing the vloggers to comply. Lawmakers had warned that continued defiance could lead to contempt charges and even detention.

The Hearing: Defending Free Speech or Spreading Disinformation?
Inside the hearing, tensions ran high as legislators grilled the influencers on their content. The Tri-Comm—comprising the Committees on Public Information, Good Government and Public Accountability, and Information and Communications Technology—aims to examine how online disinformation shapes public perception, influences elections, and threatens national security.

Rep. Robert Ace Barbers of Surigao del Norte emphasized that the inquiry is not about silencing critics but about uncovering whether government resources were used to fund disinformation campaigns. The committee is particularly focused on political influencers allegedly pushing misleading narratives to sway public opinion.

Cruz-Angeles, Chu, Lopez, and Mata defended their content, insisting their posts were protected under freedom of expression. They argued that their platforms foster political discourse rather than intentionally mislead the public.

However, lawmakers challenged this claim, presenting flagged content, including doctored images and misrepresented videos—such as viral posts falsely depicting massive protests demanding Duterte’s return to power. Independent fact-checkers had already debunked these claims, raising concerns about the manipulation of public perception.

The Bigger Picture: Free Speech vs. Accountability

At the heart of the debate is a pressing question: Where does free speech end, and where does accountability begin? While legislators reiterated that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracy, they also stressed that deliberately spreading false information to manipulate public discourse cannot go unchecked.

With the Supreme Court’s decision allowing the congressional investigation to proceed, it looks like this legal and political battle is far from over. The Tri-Comm has made it clear—vloggers and influencers won’t be getting a free pass when it comes to misinformation.