“Netizens have the edge over us (public officials). Nobody censors them. And unless we retaliate this way (by publicly bashing them), how else can their attacks be abated?”—Gov. Gwen Garcia
“The governor’s public shaming ran contrary to the standards of ethics (that) officials in public service are bound. She should’ve handled the comment through more appropriate professional channels or...used her platform to clarify issues...rather than resulting in public shaming and personal attacks.”—Commission on Human Rights’ Jacqueline Ann de Guia
The core of the dispute is plain enough.
Can a public official who feels personally insulted by a netizen lash back with personal insults: slander for slander, live-streamed press-con for Facebook blast?
The FB user, a woman with multiple children, called people in government “bogo, kurakot, nagki-at” (dumb, corrupt and negligent or reckless). Gov. Gwen Garcia felt alluded to and struck back in the same fashion.
Personal life
Last Monday, May 18, at her Capitol press briefing, the governor, among others:
[1] Displayed in large print-out the comments posted by the FB user, a woman, whom Guv Gwen identified by name and the barangay where she resides.
[2] Asked the netizen to identify the persons she referred to as corrupt (“Kinsa ang corrupt, day, pagklaro kuno”).
[3] Disclosed details of the FB user’s personal life, including her having seven kids by two men: One, with her estranged husband and the other, her live-in partner;
[4] Teasing the netizen about wearing shorts and backless blouse (“maybe you’re looking for your third; mapun-an nang imong pito”).
The gist of it is that the governor gave a dose of things that the netizen dished out on FB.
Netizens ‘have the edge’
Guv Gwen’s justification, highlighted by the Sugbo News poster-style lift-out quote, goes directly to what many public officials complain about social media attacks: Netizens “have the edge” and public officials, the governor said, are helpless against personal insults and name-calling, such as “kurakot,” “wakwak,” “abat.”
How to “retaliate,” as the governor puts it, or how the “governor answers the governed,” as CHR spokeswoman lawyer Jacqueline Ann de Guia puts it.
De Guia sees the public official as being duty-bound to observe the Code of Conduct and Standards for Public Officials and Employees. That code sets the norm for behavior of those in government and carries penalty for violation.
CHR says officials shall not trade personal insults with netizens but instead “bridge gap between the governor and the governed.”
How helpless are they?
Those in government cannot behave as badly as the citizen: That’s what the CHR in effect says. The governor cannot publicly bash or bully the FB user who publicly bashes or bullies her.
What must public officials do? And how helpless are they? CHR, through de Guia, talks of the public official “victimizing the weak, bullying the vulnerable, and humiliating the disadvantaged.”
The public official, true, holds the power of government: He decides how public resources are used and when they can be used for good or mischief.
Abuse of free speech
Yet citizens have the right to free speech and access to Facebook and Twitter. With their phone and social media account, plain folk, individually and collectively, can pounce on public official. Plain citizens, transformed into netizens by the digital platform, can become the bully.
And that has made many public officials cringe and suffer in silence. Social media platforms—with no editor to enforce grammar, logic or plain sense, no filter against grossness and meanness—are no place for a conversation, much more a debate.
Option to sue
But can public officials not sue? They can and they do. For cyber-libel, when their honor is smeared. For inciting to sedition, when the threat tends to obstruct their function in office.
If the netizen circulates false information, the public official may use (a) the Revised Penal Code provision against unlawful utterances or (b) the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act prohibition on spreading false news and information on Covid-19 or, “taking advantage of the health crisis, causing panic and chaos.”
But a lawsuit requires “probable cause” and time. That mother of multiple kids didn’t identify the persons she defamed. Besides a lawsuit is not instant reprisal. Not like bashing the basher before the public. And that won’t rule out litigation if it must come to that.
‘Unya nalingaw mo?’
Is the public official actually helpless? Often the LGU chief has a media apparatus at his disposal, with which he may shoot down a lie and strike back. That may be the CHR’s point: Use the digital platform but don’t use the slander the netizen employs.
Guv Gwen thinks that publicly shaming boorish behavior in social media may reduce the garbage that’s sometimes dumped on digital platform. And her methods—a live-streamed press-con with Capitol beat reporters present—are open and on record, not the illicit or deceptive use of an army of trolls and radio hacks.
And the public show entertains. After one such “wow”-filled session, which under CHR classification may be deemed “bullying,” the governor quipped to her audience, “Unya nalingaw mo?”