(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