- Advertisement -

Ian Alfredo Magno

HASN’T the web already been swamped with false bulletins and dispatches the moment Internet came into being several decades ago?  Then, what is this recent hullabaloo on a national scale regarding fake news all about?

- Advertisement -

What for and what’s new?

If the objective of the investigation (in aid of legislation, kuno) is to censor such materials, then oh-em-gee (OMG), isn’t it utter hypocrisy?  Why not go after those sites or blogs, what have you, which illegally (palpably obviously) promote pornography, sort of what seems to be a silent yet booming underground local industry?

Cutting through the chase, are the powers-that-be sincerely concerned about the censorship of online links for goodness’ sake? Or isn’t such a legislative effort a cynical attempt to salvage face value, so to speak, after once or twice being the subject of unpleasant outbursts by netizens?

Indeed, there exists a thin line between criticism and slander especially when the material purports to something undesirable about a person. However, when it addresses public officials in general, the divide seems a little bit wider and, thus, clearer. In the case of de Leon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 212623 dated 11 January 2016, the Supreme Court stated: “One of man’s most prized possessions is his integrity. There lies a thin line between criticism and outright defamation. When one makes commentaries about the other’s performance of official duties, the criticism is considered constructive, then aimed for the betterment of his or her service to the public. It is thus, a continuing duty on the part of the public officer to make room for improvement on the basis of this constructive criticism in as much as it is imperative on the part of the general public to make the necessary commentaries should they see any lapses on the part of the public officer.”

The bottomline is two-pronged.

In this millennial age, information is everything. We have witnessed how the Internet has revolutionized from a simple online store-chest of data at the onset towards being a whole new avenue for paying the laundry or checking one’s pet bulldog at home (using online capable cams). And who knows when and how far this online revolution could go further? Information, at this time and age, like the air that we breathe, is everywhere, and therefore inevitable.

If indeed local legislators succeed in crafting a novel law which suppresses online information (of any sort), it would be not long enough until such a piece of legislation becomes passé – given the Internet’s ever growing fluidity; where something new is generated almost by the second, if not millisecond. The political response, rather, should be to teach this generation the correct discretion in dissecting and processing data into useful information.

On the other hand, in the exercise of one’s freedom of expression, particularly in critiquing the performance of public officials elected to office (supposedly to serve the best sentiments of the people), one is given ample elbow room; as it actually serves and operates as a feedback mechanism, which may even prove useful in improving the discharge of official duties. One thing must be certain: such critique must be in connection with the performance of public duties of the concerned public official. Beyond that, it is an abuse of one’s right and, therefore, a violation of the Constitution and certain penal laws.

Fake news? Why bark up the wrong tree? Why not, instead, improve one’s brand of public service beyond par?  And leave the critiquing to the sovereign people.

 

(Ian Alfredo T. Magno is a legal officer at Philhealth and is a lawyer based in Cagayan de Oro. E-mail: ianalfredom@gmail.com)

Disclaimer

Mindanao Gold Star Daily holds the copyrights of all articles and photos in perpetuity. Any unauthorized reproduction in any platform, electronic and hardcopy, shall be liable for copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Rights Law of the Philippines.

- Advertisement -