By Trishia Karyl Calumarde and Ismael Aviles Sanchez III
Freedom of expression fuels democracy. But in today’s digital age — where lies spread faster than truth—how do we protect it without silencing dissent.
In a democracy like the Philippines, where sovereignty lies with the people and all government authority comes from them, freedom of expression is more than a right — it is the lifeblood of political participation. Our Constitution stands firm: no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press.
Yet freedom, even when enshrined in law, is not without limits. The digital age has amplified voices once unheard, but it has also unleashed an avalanche of disinformation, cyber harassment, and online libel. In a world where falsehoods move faster than facts, we are forced to wrestle with an uneasy question: where do we draw the line between protecting free speech and preventing its abuse?
Freedom of speech is vital to democracy, but it was never meant to be a shield for lies, defamation, or inciting violence. Our Supreme Court (SC) has recognized that this right, while fundamental, must yield when speech presents a clear and present danger to public order, national security, or public morals. These principles, drawn from landmark rulings decades ago, remain strikingly relevant in today’s hyperconnected world.
Recognizing the risks, Congress enacted the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, criminalizing online libel, identity theft and cyberbullying. The SC later affirmed that freedom of expression must not be twisted into a tool for character assassination or the spread of falsehoods.
Still, the risk of overreach looms large. Proposals like the Anti-Fake News Bill, while intended to combat disinformation, raise serious concerns. Vague definitions and sweeping powers could be weaponized to silence critics, control narratives and suppress independent journalism. History reminds us that during Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s martial law, press freedom was crushed and dissent was branded a threat to security. Today, similar tactics could hide behind the language of fighting “fake news.”
Thus, regulation, while necessary, must be wielded with care. Measures meant to protect democracy must not, in practice, erode it.
As technology evolves, so too must our understanding of rights and responsibilities. Regulation must strike a delicate balance: firm enough to counter real harm, yet restrained enough to protect the marketplace of ideas that democracy depends on.
Ultimately, we must ask ourselves not only how to safeguard freedom of expression — but whether we are willing to fight for a version of it that remains truly free.