Friday, July 4, 2025

When Voices Are Muted

 

                                               (image: youtube.com)

Hilom, saba diha, ikiha ta kaw…

When legal action meets online discourse, the line between justice and censorship grows dangerously thin.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros July 2, 2025 sued former Senate witness Michael Maurillo, who claimed he was bribed by the senator to implicate detained preacher Apollo Quiboloy, according to the report of EJ Macababbad of the The Philippine Star.

Senator Risa Hontiveros has filed charges against the individuals behind the YouTube channel “Pagtanggol Valiente,” which she noted was created on June 24, just a day after Joy Maurillo allegedly made a final attempt to contact her office, claiming she was being detained at the Glory Mountain property of the Quiboloy-led Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KOJC). Hontiveros said the timing raises suspicion about the coordinated spread of disinformation targeting her.

In her complaint, Hontiveros also asked the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to pursue legal action against several social media personalities who she said “deliberately contributed to the spread of false and malicious claims” by sharing Maurillo’s video. Among those named were former Palace press secretary Trixie Cruz-Angeles, former broadcaster Jay Sonza, bloggers Krizette Chu and Sass Rogando Sasot, content creator Banat By (Byron Cristobal), Tio Moreno, and lawyer Ranny Libayan.

Trixie Cruz-Angeles pushed back against Senator Hontiveros’s legal action, arguing that it constitutes a form of prior restraint and a dangerous curtailment of free speech. In a petition to the Supreme Court, she and other content creators asserted that being summoned or threatened with legal repercussions for reposting or commenting on public matters—such as Joy Maurillo’s video—sets a chilling precedent that stifles legitimate discourse and dissent.

Angeles maintained that such actions violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression and warned that penalizing online commentary simply because it criticizes public officials undermines democratic engagement.

In a similar note, Harry Roque, in a fiery Facebook Live broadcast on June 27, accused Senator Hontiveros of “orchestrating” legal actions against him and other critics—charging that she is deliberately “weaponizing her office to silence dissent”. He contended that by initiating ethics complaints and pressing for NBI involvement, Hontiveros was exploiting her senatorial authority to suppress opposition and stifle debate.

“As a public servant, I welcome fair criticism,” Hontiveros asserted, “but I will not stand by as dangerous falsehoods are spread—especially when they threaten not only my integrity but also the safety of witnesses, my staff, and the institution of the Senate itself.” Given the existence of the Cybercrime Prevention Act in the Philippines, she maintains the legal right to seek redress and protection under the provisions of the law.

The international community has consistently expressed concern over the use of cyber-libel laws as instruments of censorship, particularly on high-profile cases such as that of Filipino journalist Maria Ressa. Organizations like the United Nations, the European Union, and the International Commission of Jurists have emphasized that criminal defamation laws, including cyber-libel, can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and are often incompatible with international human rights norms (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2020; European External Action Service, 2020; International Commission of Jurists, 2020). These bodies argue that such laws are prone to misuse by state actors to silence dissent, undermine press freedom, and restrict civic space.

There is undeniably a chilling effect when those in power use silencing phrases like "Hilom" or "Saba diha," effectively discouraging people from expressing their thoughts, whether ordinary or profound. Such dismissive language undermines the fundamental freedoms of speech and expression, which are essential pillars of any democratic society.

If those in power continue to suppress the free exchange of ideas by fostering an environment of fear and oppression, how can genuine development and the pursuit of the greater good ever take root? Progress thrives in spaces where dialogue is encouraged, not silenced.

In the end, when truth is contested and dissent is punished, democracy falters. If power is used not to protect voices but to silence them, then we risk trading freedom for fear, and no society can thrive in that silence.

No comments:

Post a Comment