Respondents 3 -- (Counsels for amicus curiae in favor of the government)

ISSUES: 1 and 4

ISSUE 1:

Does the police power of the state include the power to address hate speech
and take measures to prevent it?

YES! Although the general rule is that freedom of expression implies the right to freely
utter or publish one’s beliefs, ideas, or opinions without prior restraint, this is NOT
ABSOLUTE. The State can validly regulate such right when such expression falls
upon these 4 categories: (1) Pornography, (2)False or Misleading Advertisement, (3)
Advocacy of Imminent Lawless Action, and (4) Danger to National Security.
(Soriano v Laguardia)

MAIN POINT 1: THE STATE’S POLICE POWER AND ITS

SCOPE/EXTENT

Subpoint 1: What is Police Power?

Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make, ordain, and
establish wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, not repugnant to
the Constitution, for the good and welfare of the people. (MMDA v Viron Transportation
Inc)

Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its
corresponding right to protect itself and its people. Police power has been used as
justification for numerous and varied actions by the State. These range from the
regulation of dance halls, movie theaters, gas stations and cockpits.The awesome
scope of police power is best demonstrated by the fact that in its hundred or so years
of presence in our nation’s legal system, its use has rarely been denied. (Whitelight
Corp v City of Manila)

Subpoint 2: What is the extent of Police Power?

The police power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare
and a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes and the means.

2 TESTS OF A VALID POLICE POWER MEASURE:

1. the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from that of a particular

class, requires its exercise
2. the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

Subpoint 3: How Police Power is Manifested by the State

These are just some of the manifestations of the State in order to uphold the general
welfare of the people.

a.) PARENS PATRIAE

In Gonzales v Katigbak, the courts ruled that the state through, Parens Patriae,
justified the exercise of the police power of the state to regulate media not meant for
the young audience for their vulnerable and imaginative minds are bound to
misunderstand such obscene scenes.

b.) CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE

In Eastern Broadcasting v Dans, the Honorable Supreme Court went on to explain,

“The test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be the clear and
present danger rule — that words are used in such circumstances and are of such a
nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that the lawmaker has a right to prevent.”

c.) LEGISLATION (Cybercrime Laws)

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 aims to address legal issues concerning
online interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. “The State shall adopt sufficient
powers to effectively prevent and combat such offenses by facilitating their detection,
investigation, and prosecution at both the domestic and international levels, and by providing
arrangements for fast and reliable international cooperation.”
Bill of Anti-Fake news Act of 2017 seeks to penalize any person who maliciously offer,
publish, distribute, circulate and spread false news or information or cause the
publication, distribution, circulation or spreading of the same in print, broadcast or
online media.

MAIN POINT 2: PRIOR RESTRAINT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO

RESTORE THE BALANCE BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND THE
GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE

We are of the belief that the contested laws do not promote absolute restraint on the
Great Freedoms but merely prescribes regulations to promote the general welfare of
the people.

Subpoint 1: Prior Restraint

In Schenk v US, The Supreme Court ruled that “The question in every case is whether
the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create
a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent.”

In the present case, it is clear that the proliferation of fake news, hate speech and
disinformation has led to multiple riots, public uprising and is causing irreparable
damage to our Nation and its people.

It is sufficient to note that the hate speech and fake news, being the proximate cause
of all this damage, satisfies the clear and present danger rule. Therefore the State has
the right to intervene and restore the balance between democracy and the general
welfare of the people.

Subpoint 2: Balancing of Interests

Indeed, it is undoubted that one of the fundamental and most vital rights granted to
citizens of a State is the freedom of speech or expression, for without the enjoyment of
such right, a free, stable, effective, and progressive democratic state would be
difficult to attain.

However, the balance-of-interests theory rests on the basis that constitutional

freedoms are not absolute, not even those stated in the free speech and expression
clause, and that they may be abridged to some extent to serve appropriate and
important interests. (Kauper, CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE CONSTITUTION 113 (1966)

In Gonzales v COMELEC, the Court explained that “When particular conduct is

regulated in the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect,
conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine
which of the two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the
particular circumstances presented. x x x We must, therefore, undertake the
delicate and difficult task x x x to weigh the circumstances and to appraise the
substantiality of the reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free
enjoyment of rights x x x.

With this in mind, we respectfully note that the government’s interest to protect and
promote the safety and general welfare of the people from hate speech and fake news
adequately buttresses the reasonable curtailment and valid restraint upon the
petitioners.

Subpoint 3: Dangerous Tendency Rule

In Gitlow v New York, the “dangerous tendency” is a fundamental principle, long

established, that the freedom of speech and of the press which is secured by the
Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without
responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license that
gives immunity for every possible use of language, and prevents the punishment of
those who abuse this freedom. . . . Reasonably limited, it was said by story in the
passage cited this freedom is an inestimable privilege in a free government; without
such limitation, it might become the scourge of the Republic.

The state cannot reasonably be required to measure the danger from every such
utterance in the nice balance of a jeweler's scale. A single revolutionary spark, may
kindle a fire that, smoldering for a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive
conflagration. It cannot be said that the state is acting arbitrarily or unreasonably
when, in the exercise of its judgment as to the measures necessary to protect the
public peace and safety it seeks to extinguish the spark without waiting until it has
enkindled the flame or blazed into the conflagration.

MAIN POINT 3: THE STATE IS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING ITS POLICE

POWER TO REGULATE THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA TO PREVENT
HATE SPEECH, FAKE NEWS AND DISINFORMATION

Subpoint 1: Facts of the present Case

In the case at bar, the escalation of fake news and disinformation has reached an
entire new level where conflicts on the internet are now taken to the streets, with
people weaponizing the internet to fuel their own political and social agendas. The
situation has gone out of control so now the State, in its duty to preserve our Nation,
has the right to intervene.

This is not the first time that this kind of rampage has happened to our Nation.
Disinformation and fake news lurk the internet almost on a daily basis; from ‘clickbaits’
to stitching up facts and making it appear like one thing when it’s the complete
opposite.

The recent news about the measles outbreak in the NCR has its roots on the vaccine
scare that’s been making a big impact on the people today.

(link to subpoint 2 dayun)

Subpoint 2: Dengvaxia Vaccine Scare

The Dengvaxia vaccine was a promising solution to the scourge of dengue, a
mosquito-borne disease to which hundreds of thousands of Filipinos fall victim each
year.

But in November 2017, Dengvaxia’s developer (Sanofi Pasteur) revealed that those
inoculated with it were at risk of a more severe form of dengue if they didn’t have it before.

This finding quickly made the headlines and was blown out of proportion. Soon enough, public
opinion formed that Dengvaxia killed a number of children who were administered with it.
This rumor persists, even if no death has been conclusively linked to Dengvaxia, according
to the DOH.

Now, a measles outbreak has been declared in the NCR and yet many parents REFUSE to get
their children vaccinated because they are afraid of the effects this (vaccine) might bring.

(Emphasize) We have turned into a nation of Anti-Vaxxers after the Dengvaxia controversy.
This is very dangerous because, the fallacious statements have led to the people losing their
trust in medicine. And now it’s taking a toll on us and we are suffering its consequences.

Because of disinformation episodes like the Dengvaxia scare, our nation’s fight against fake
news is more high-stakes than most people realize. How much more if we continue to let fake
news and misinformation perpetuate in our daily lives? This is why there is a necessity in
upholding the constitutionality of these laws in question.

Subpoint 3: Anti-LGBT+ and Anti-Muslim Hate Speech and hate crime

Anti-LGBT

‘Hate speech’ is especially prevalent online – on social media platforms and in comments and
posts on articles, forums and blogs. ‘Hate speech’ labels people on a single or multiple aspects
of their identity, denies their humanity and may incite harm against a particular group or
individual. Such speech undeniably has a negative impact on societies, in particular for
minority and marginalised groups.
Online anti-LGBT+ hate speech is any online communication or expression which advocates,
promotes, or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group, because
of their sexual orientation, or gender identity.

There are many myths about LGBT people that are widespread and repeated over and over
again. Many people probably don’t even realise that they are untrue, and they can be easily
contested by facts.

Myth 1
‘LGBT people don’t exist in our country, it is not part of our culture’.

Myth 2
‘Families should be ‘traditional’: a wife, husband and kids; children in same-sex families are
often abused and unhappy’.

Myth 3
‘Homosexuality is a disease’.

Myth 4
‘The rights of LGBT people are not violated, they can do whatever they want at home’.

As stated in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, All human beings are born
free and equal in dignity and rights. We are all different, but we enjoy the same human rights.
Many people don’t react to ‘hate speech’ and discrimination against LGBT people because they
think it doesn’t concern them. However, restrictions on LGBT people’s rights to freely express
their identities and broader opinions do not only harm them, but deprive all people of important
and diverse information, particularly on matters of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Under certain limited circumstances, states are obliged by international human rights law to
prohibit the advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or
violence. This is the case where speech is likely and intended to result in immediate violence.
In such cases, sanctions for incitement or the removal of content should be subject to a court
order.

Anti-Muslim

“Anti-Muslim hatred and discrimination” consists of preventing and combating hate speech,
hate crime as well as discrimination directed against groups or individual members of such
groups based on their religion or ethnic origin.

Muslim communities are the victims of rhetoric that often associates them with terrorism and
extremism, or portrays the presence of Muslim communities as a threat to national identity.

Muslims are often portrayed as a monolithic group, whose religion and culture are
incompatible with the concepts of human rights and democracy.
There has always been age-old issues of bias, prejudice, and racism and of bigotry that has long
divided the non-Moro Filipino with the Moros, which had probably contributed to the
immemorial armed struggle of the Moros in the Southern Philippines

CONCLUSION

The fact surrounding us today Your Honors, is that social media is virtually accessible
to anyone. With just a few clicks, you can create your own social media account,
sometimes without verification as to your real identity. It’s easy to fabricate news,
manufacture half-truths that create an alternative reality by merging the power of bots and
fake accounts on social media to manipulate real people.

There is an undeniable possibility that social media will be used for all the wrong
reasons. That is why the State is taking it upon itself to uphold the dignity of our nation
by making the necessary steps to secure our values, civility and moral essence as
Filipinos.
 ISSUE 4: Does the third law on internet and social media platforms violate the Bill of
Rights? (Identify provisions)
The law in question:
a third law was issued making Facebook, Twitter, WhatsAp, Instagram, and other internet/social media
platforms subject to pecuniary sanctions if if any posts it allowed in its platforms caused social conflict
and in particular result in death and defamation of individuals. They can also be summarily shut
down as decided by the government.
POSITION: No, the third Law does not violate the Bill of Rights
Main Point 1( David): The Third Law is not violative of the Bill of Rights
because the law itself is an exercise of police power regulating only these
rights for the public good which is to lessen social conflict that result in
death and defamation of individuals.
Subpoint 1: The State’s use of Police power in this case through the Law
justifies any curtailment, if there are any, of any rights within the Bill of
Rights.
It has been held by the Court in White Light v. City of Manila that Police power
as a power of the state that while incapable of definition (*Di ni important pero if i ask
ka why di sha ma define: To define is to limit and when you limit the state’s police power, you are
impairing the state itself.) is only constrained by the necessity of the reasonable
means for the accomplishment of the intended purpose while not being unduly
oppressive of private rights. Further, it also must appear that it is the interests of
the public in general, and not a particular group of persons, require an
interference with private rights.
Applying this to the case at hand, we can see the the third law’s means are
reasonable for the ends it aims to achieve. With regards to the ends of the law,
The legislative intent of the law reveals the evils intended to be suppressed,
which are social media posts that bring about social conflict, which lead to death
and defamation.
With regards to the means, pecuniary sanctions are only imposed on the
social/internet media platforms if it allowed posts that caused social conflict and
in particular result in death and defamation of individuals. The law could have
banned all these social media platforms to ensure that no posts of such nature
would exist but instead the law imposes a standard which is to be followed in its
application - which is,t posts on social media platforms that cause social conflict
and in particular result in death and defamation of individuals. The law in
question thus leaves the rights of individuals found in the bill of rights intact and
merely regulates, as it imposes pecuniary liabilities, the exercise of these rights
for the betterment of the public good. Thus it is but rational to say that the
means of the law reasonably justify the lawful end it seeks to enforce.
Subpoint 2: The shutdown of the social media platforms as decided by the
government is not discretional and thus is not violative of the Bill of
Rights.
The law does not give the government sole discretion of the shutdowns, which if
it were would be a violation of the due process clause and other rights in the bill
of rights. This is because the law passes the sufficient standard test which
ensures that people who are delegated with powers by laws can’t run riot and
abuse the powers that have been granted to him.
The sufficient standard test is one of the two test to determine whether there has
been a valid legislative delegation of powers in laws. This test ensures that the
law does not give any room for the delegate to have discretion and thus abuse
the power granted to him. Thus it ensures that the law, once in the hands of the
delegated authority has nothing else to do but apply the provisions of the law
according to the conditions espoused in the law of when it is to be applied.
A law is said to have passed the sufficient standard test and thus is to be held
as a valid delegation of power when there is a sufficient standard. The Supreme
court held in Edu v. Ericta that a sufficient standard is one which within the law
that maps out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority by defines the
legislative policy it seeks to enforce through the law, and indicates the
circumstances under which the delegated power is to be used. Further, in
Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, the court held that the requisites of a
sufficient standard are: (1)specify the limits of the delegate’s authority, (2)
announce the legislative policy, (3) and identify the conditions which the law is to
be implemented.
Applying these to the case we can see that the third law passes the sufficient
standard test. With regard to the requisites, the first requisite is complied with
when the law expressly stated that it can only impose pecuniary sanctions and
impose a shutdown on the social media platforms. The second requisite is
complied with by the law when it evokes the legislative policy behind the law
which the avoidance of the perils of social media posts that bring about social
conflict, death and defamation. Lastly the third requisite is complied with by the
law when it says that the delegate’s authority to impose pecuniary sanctions and
shutdowns can only be done when the social media platform has allowed.
Thus due to the law in question having passed the sufficient standard test, any
doubts of discretionality which would impugn on the bill of rights are erased.
Subpoint 3: With regard to due process, the law passes the strict scrutiny
test which justifies the means found in the law.
In White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, the Supreme Court held that “strict
scrutiny refers to the standard for determining the quality and the amount of
governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of fundamental
freedoms.” For a statute to pass the strict scrutiny test, the Supreme Court
explained in the case of City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr. that “the government will
meet substantive due process only if it can prove that the law is necessary to
achieve a compelling government purpose.”\
In this case, the compelling government purpose that, for the us the counsel of
amicus curiae, is the avoidance of the perils of social media posts that bring
about social conflict, death and defamation. This is a compelling government
purpose that would justify the law in question because what we are dealing with
here is already the death of persons.
What is involved here is not merely social media posts which are harmless,
rather they are posts which have gone beyond the realm of our screens and
festered in the hearts of the citizens propelling them to kill another person. The
state as parens patriae should see this as a compelling government purpose
because what is at stake here is already the lives of its people. Thus the state
should take necessary and reasonable steps to avoid this evil, and one of them
is this law. The law can be classified as necessary because it does not go to
extremes, it merely imposes pecuniary liabilites, which we can inferr would help
in deterring the social media platforms from allowing posts which cause social
conflict, death, and defamation. It also grants the government the power to shut
these sites down which, as counsels of amicus curiae, we see as necessary
when pecuniary liabilities are not enough to deter these platforms from allowing
these posts. Lastly, the law itself imposes a very narrow circumstance of when
to apply the law, which is only when the platforms allow posts which cause
social conflict, death and defamation. The legislators in making the law ensured
that the means of the law would be just enough, would be necessary to address
this problem.
Thus, as there is a compelling governmental purpose, and as the means of the
law are necessary and reasonable to achieve those purposes, it is our position
that the third law does not in any way violate due process.
Main Point 2( Dolly):
The Third Law is not violative of the Bill of Rights, specifically section 4
article III of the constitution the freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press, or the right of the people peaceful assemby is not an
abridgment of the aforementioned rights but a safeguard of the latter and
other rights.
Subpont 1: freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceful assemby is not absolute subject to regulation
In Belo vs. Guevara (2017), the A landmark case for Facebook privacy and freedom of
expression in PH, the Court Time and again, held that the freedom of speech and of
expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. While the freedom of expression
and the right of speech and of the press are among the most zealously protected rights in the
Constitution, every person exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged to act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.As such, the constitutional
right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult
others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.
In order not to curtail this freedom, subsequent punishment of the expression is
likewise prohibited. This prohibition does not apply however when the
expression creates a dangerous tendency which the State has the right to
prevent or when there is a rational connection between the speech and the evil
feared (People vs. Perez, 45 Phil, 599) .The second test on whether or not the
subsequent punishment of free expression will be prohibited is the clear and
present danger rule. “The question in every case is whether the words are used
under such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and
present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has a
right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. “In each case, courts
must ask whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies
such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger (Dennis vs.
United States 341 U.S. 494,509) The third standard applicable to this rule on
subsequent punishment of free expression is the balancing of interest test. If on
the balance, it appears that the public interest served by restrictive legislation is
of such a character that it outweighs the abridgement of freedom, then the court
will find the legislation valid (Gonzales vs. Comelec 27 SCRA 835).

Furthermore, Schenck vs United States, decided by the US Supreme Court in

1919, was the first case of major importance that sought to resolve the clash
between the right of free speech of the individual and the police power of the
State. Holmes introduced what has now come to be known as the clear and
present danger rule. When the words used are of such a nature as to create a
clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has the right to prevent, liability for words that produce that effect may
be enforced.

Furthermore, the following are other limitations of the right

Criminalizes libel and slander by act or deed – is about any act which shall cast Dishonor,
Discredit or Contempt upon another person.

Blasphemy against decency and good customs – by public displays or exhibitions which
glorify criminals or condon crimes; use of prohibited drugs and selling obscene literature.
Subpoint 2: If freedom of speech were absolute, it might curtail other’s rights. Trolls
and fake identities spreading news on social media might mask themselves by abusing
such right causing social conflict which might result in death and defamation of
individuals.
The Freedom of expression is not an absolute nor is it an "unbridled license that gives
immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who
abuse this freedom." (Gonzales v. COMELEC, 137 Phil. 471, 494(1969).
all speech are not treated the same. Some types of speech may be subjected to some
regulation by the State under its pervasive police power, in order that it may not be injurious to
the equal right of others or those of the community or society.(Hector S. De Leon, I Philippine
Constitutional Law: Principles and Cases 485 (2003).
In our jurisdiction slander or libel, lewd and obscene speech, as well as "fighting words" are
not entitled to constitutional protection and may be penalized. (John E. Nowak & Ronald D.
Rotunda, Constitutional Law §16.1, 1131 (7th ed.2000 [Hereinafter Nowak & Rotunda,
Constitutional Law].)
Laws have also limited the freedom of speech and of the press, or otherwise affected the
media and freedom of expression. The Constitution itself imposes certain limits (such as
Article IX on the Commission on Elections, and Article XVI prohibiting foreign media
ownership); as do the Revised Penal Code (with provisions on national security, libel and
obscenity), the Civil Code (which contains two articles on privacy), the Rules of Court (on the
fair administration of justice and contempt) and certain presidential decrees. There is also a
"shield law," or Republic Act No. 53, as amended by Republic Act No. 1477. Section 1 of this
law provides protection for non-disclosure of sources of information, without prejudice to one’s
liability under civil and criminal laws. The publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited
reporter of a newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to
reveal the source of any information or news report appearing in said publication, if the
information was released in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless the court
or a Committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the
state.
mass media – which should be the bastion of responsible use of freedom of speech – is also
its most frequent violator. More often than not, they display bias and can serve as tools for the
powerful in swaying the public opinion as well as in destroying the reputation of others.
(Philstar.net)
If freedom of expression were absolute and the same was abused, other people's rights will
be prejudiced. "your right stops where my own starts". If one has a right of speech or
expression and such was abused by posting fake news on facebook, or by posting libelous
contents about a person online, one is also violating the other person’s right to information
specifically provided by section 7 of the bill of rights. Or if such is to be excused, having
freedom of speech as a defense against the libelous matters, such will be a violation of due
process of law. Therefore, the regulation as so provided by the third law is valid as it
safeguards that the freedom of speech will not be abused and other people's rights are not
prejudiced.
In order to protect one’s freedom of speech from being abused, certain regulations thus must
be implemented.
Subpoint 3: The present scenario in the country presents a clear and present danger of evil
which can cause defamation, chaos or even death to people.
Early this year, the “Digital in 2017 Global Overview Report” was released, and results show some
data regarding internet and social media use that are worth delving into. In particular, there are 3.773
billion internet users and 2.789 billion social media users all over the world. The global internet user
number is reported to be up by more than 80% since year 2012, and there is an increase in social media
use of 21% users year-on-year.
The presence of fake news in the Philippines has been on the rise as can be glimpsed by the
alarm it has caused among public official. According to Senator Grace Poe, she argued, “If
fake news is not challenged, it will create lynch mobs out of certain people, turning them into
an army of character assassins, who can be unleashed, with just one meme, to destroy an
idea, a person, or an institution.”
The Senate Committee also invited administration officials like the controversial blogger and
dancer-turned high government official, Presidential Communications Assistant Secretary
Mocha Uson, who runs the “Mocha Uson Blog”. She is lambasted by the public for spreading
fake news such as using a photo of the Honduras police when she asked the public in one of
her articles to pray for the Philippine Army during the recent war in Marawi. In the peak of
public outrage due to the killing of the 17-year-old victim Kian Delos Santos as part of the
drug crackdown of the Duterte Administration, Asst. Sec. Uson wrote in August this year a
story of a killed cop in an operation to prick the conscience of those against the drug war of
the President. However, the officer’s wake that she cited was still back in year 2016. Senator
Nancy Binay argues that it would be hard for the government to fight fake news when one of
its perpetrators comes from its very own ranks, pointing to Uson.
The issue on fake news is more significant than ever, and if not curbed, it would continue to
fool readers, carrying on with its antics of blurring the truth from manufactured lies.
Prime Minister's Department, said the Malaysian government has taken it upon itself to regulate social
media, which "can be abused by politics of hate, condemnation and fake news."
"Social media makes everyone a journalist," he said. "But not everyone can discern what is true and
what is not true." Malaysia is "strict on hate speech and speech that provokes violence, lies, and creates
rumors. "There are boundaries set for freedom of expression," he said
In fact, 51% of journalists rated fake news as a serious problem, according to Cision’s 2017
Global Social Journalism Study.
Furthermore, In the Philippines, Records obtained from the DOJ-Office of Cybercrime showed
that there are a total of 127 cyber-libel cases filed before the agency last year.
The number is almost 274 percent higher compared to the 34 cyber-libel cases filed in 2016.
In 2015 80 cyber-libel cases
were lodged with the DOJ, 31 of these cases already dismissed.
But in 2016 – a year of heated political debates that also took place in cyberspace – online libel
emerged as the top complaint of Filipino internet users, with 494 complaints recorded compared to 311
recorded in 2015. It comprised 26.49% of the 1,865 cybercrime complaints for 2016.
Even the Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg himself acknowledged that Facebook has failed
to properly tackle a number of issues including ‘fake news’ and hate speech on the platform.
Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that it’s no longer a question of whether Facebook and other social
media companies should be regulated, but how. Balanced data protection and privacy laws and
regulations are necessary to protect both privacy rights and freedom of expression.
Other alarming danger caused by social media because of abuse of freedom of
speech as recorded not just in the Philippines but also worldwide are the
following:
Blackmailing, suicide by social bullying, facebook impersonation
to post pictures and comments that intentionally defame his reputation, Blasphemy
against decency and good customs – by public displays or exhibitions which glorify criminals
or condon crimes; use of prohibited drugs and selling obscene literature and many more
The alarming increase of the aforementioned crimes and unlawfuls acts caused by
abuse of freedom of speech in social media presents a clear and present danger
which based on well settled jurisprudence may allow the congress to regulate the
freedom of speech or expression.

Main Point 3 (Dolly and David): In the instant case, the petitioner-social
media platforms - Facebook and Twitter have not been denied of any of
their rights through the law, and if there were a denial such as a shutdown
of the platform which would infringe on the right to free speech of every
Filipino, it is justified as an exercise of police power by the state.

Subpoint 1: Facts - history of the law.

As stated in the facts of the case, fake news and the deterioration of political
discourse has become a problem in the Philippines. People have weaponized
of social media which lead to the exacerbation of conflicts in the Philippines.
Thus the two other laws in question in this case were enacted. The third law was
enacted as a further safeguard, aimed directly at the social media platforms
where these fake news, and hate speeches are found. This third law, the one
assailed in this issue made Facebook, Twitter, and other internet/social media
platforms subject to pecuniary sanctions if any posts it allowed in its platforms
caused social conflict and in particular result in death and defamation of
individuals. They can also be summarily shut down as decided by the
government.
As technology evolves the line of what is possible and impossible blurs making
the situation we have at hand, a possible one. Who would have thought words
on a screen would lead to rampages, riots, social conflicts, death, and
defamation. Because of this, the Government as parens patriae is tasked with
the responsibility of adapting and addressing the many problems that have
come up along with the evolution of technology, and the third law is one of them.
And as discussed earlier, the law itself is justified an is in no way violating the
Bill of Rights. This law mainly directed against the social media is but necessary
to enforce the compelling state interest stated earlier. Since the first two laws
have dealt with the people and the regulation of their rights, the government saw
it necessary to also as a further safeguard that would ensure the evils that
brought about the enactment of these laws would be suppressed, a law that
would be directed to the platforms themselves. In this scenario it is not only the
people then who should be responsible in the exercise of their rights, but also
the social media platforms which regulate the posts, speeches and expressions
of the people; in this scenario all are made accountable and mandatorily made
to be responsible in their usage of the social media platforms, which thus would
lead to the achievement of the goal of these three laws - the avoidance of posts
online that cause social conflict, that spread fake news and etc. Thus the
enactment of the third law is but necessary in the State’s mission to eradicate
the evils which brought about the enactment of the laws in the first place.
Subpoint 2: Facebook and Twitter and the Bill of Rights
In the case at hand petitioners Facebook and Twitter, are one of the leading
social media platforms where posts that have lead to great evils are seen. As
earlier argued, the state in exercising its police power is thus merely regulating
the freedom of speech and any other rights of petitioners and the Filipino people
who use these social media platforms. As stated earlier, there is a compelling
state interest to implement this law which justifies any, if there are any, violation
of rights.
Facebook and Twitter being subjected to pecuniary sanctions and the shutdown
does not in any way deprive them of the right to free speech and expression.
The right remains intact but is merely regulated to ensure that there would be
less if not no posts that would cause conflicts, spread fake news, cause deaths,
and defamation. Facebook, Twitter, and the people using these platforms are
still free to express themselves and speak for themselves. But as these rights
are not absolute, and as these rights necessitate that they be used responsibly
because if not, they would lead to great danger, there is a need for regulation,
which is the pecuniary sanction and shutdown. The pecuniary santion as said
earlier can be inferred to be imposed by the lawmakers as a detterent to the
social media platforms in allowing harmful posts to exist in their platforms. Thus
it imposes an obligation to them, as the means in which people express
themselves, to ensure that there would be no posts that would cause harm. The
shutdown as earlier argued, is justified because of the compelling state interest
at hand. As earlier stated, the vaccination issue on these platforms has caused
social conflict, and facebook has done nothing, they let these posts circulate
which lead to Filipinos thinking that vaccines don’t work. At present, there is an
outbreak of measles, which can lead to death if not treated properly. And with
our country being a third world country, most people persuaded by these posts
about vaccines also happen to be people who are marginalized, who lack the
necessary education and who believe anything said by someone who they see
as an authority figure. Because of this, when children of these marginalized and
poor people get sick with measles because they believed the social media posts
about vaccines being harmful, they oftentimes have no money to have their
children treated and thus would lead to the child’s death. This concrete example
of how unregulated social media posts is merely the tip of the iceberg of the
danger that social media platforms and unregulated social media posts bring.
Thus, as the case already involves life or death, we, as stated earlier, believe
that this is a very compelling state interest to justify an shutdown of these
platforms.
Subpoint 3: Facebook, Twitter, WhatsAp, Instagram, and other
internet/social media platforms has a big responsibility for stricter and
firmer rules to safeguard freedom of speech and other rights while using
such platforms in order to avoid liabilitiy and worst, shut down.
The spread of fake news, the increase of cyber- crimes specificallyx cyber libel,
the growth of a misinformed society due to people’s failure to determines which
is genuine and fake information has been a big dilemma not just in the
Philippines but alll over the world.
Facebook, one of the leading social media platform in the world, acknowledged
through their founder and CEO himself, Mark Zuckerberg that Facebook has failed to properly tackle
a number of issues including ‘fake news’ and hate speech on the platform.
Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that it’s no longer a question of whether Facebook and other social
media companies should be regulated, but how. Balanced data protection and privacy
laws and regulations are necessary to protect both privacy rights and freedom of
expression.
But how?
Twitter and Facebook are two platforms that internet users refer to for news and
information. Still, they refer to themselves as tech companies rather than media
platforms. As a result, these social media platforms have drafted their own
policies to regulate freedom of speech, which has created some challenges.
Facebook, on the other hand, removes Multicultural Graveyard and all related
posts, while Facebook live has been used to film murders, rape, torture and
suicides. Users have called for Facebook to censor such videos before they are
posted, but they resisted in fear of violating free speech.
Companies use censorship because they have a responsibility to protect their
users and deter potential violence. Thus, this argument should an ethical one
rather than a legal one.
These companies have evolved from platforms to full-fledged media companies.
Once we acknowledge that these social media companies are just that – media
companies – it becomes easy to see the need for a degree of self-censorship.
All media companies have a set of rules and standards that they abide by to
verify their content and prevent the spread of fake news. If media companies
must abide by strong standards and rules, why shouldn’t these social media
companies do the same?
The effects of misinformation on social media are not small; they have tangible,
sometimes violent effects on society. Consequently, it is the basic responsibility
of social media companies to curb the spread of such incendiary misinformation.
Moreover, an accurate platform is a more appealing platform and a better
business model.
There is a tradeoff between security and free speech because humans are
fallible. If there is no filter on information and anything goes, then there will be
consequences. When Alex Jones propagated the Pizzagate story, it added fuel
to the fire, resulting in a man firing an assault rifle in a D.C. pizza parlor. Speech
that incites violence must be removed because it causes direct harm to social
media users. Thus, it’s clear that while this step might seem controversial on the
surface, it’s a necessary one to protect the sanctity of platforms, their users, and
the effects that arise.
This rampant problem has been recognized not just by the government, or the
people but most especially the creators of these platforms. While the solution
must start from the people, these platforms must also take a lead to regulate,
censor and filter such before the world can see it. With the power they have
comes a responsibility to regulate its effects. It is a two way process, these
platforms must do their roles strictly otherwise the government, in their valid
exercise of police power can come in for public welfare.
(https://sites.dartmouth.edu/commonsense/2018/11/05)

Questions by Justices:
(ISSUE #1) In addressing this issue, petitioners contended that political conversation is part of
our daily lives and during discourse, emotions are high in defending one’s cause. Inevitably, a
heated discussion may arise, and may result to cursing or hate speech. So if a person ended
up cursing or expressing hate speech while stating his political beliefs, let’s say it fell under
one of the 4 categories that you mentioned, can it be said that he already violated the laws? If
so, won’t it contradict Sec. 18 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution that “No person shall be
detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations”?