Public Info - FAKE NEWS - 17!10!04 (Reviewed)

Republic of thePhilippines
Congress of the Philippines

SENATE
Pasay City
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION AND MASS MEDIA
Date : Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Time : 9:30 a.m.
Venue : Sen. Claro M. Recto Room

2nd Floor, Senate of the Philippines
Financial Center, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City
Agenda : PROLIFERATION OF FAKE AND/OR MISLEADING

NEWS AND FALSE INFORMATION:
P.S. RES. NO. 315 - RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION AND
MASS MEDIA AND OTHER APPROPRIATE
COMMITTEE/S TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF
LEGISLATION, ON THE MASSIVE PROLIFERATION OF
FAKE, ERRONEOUS, DISTORTED, FABRICATED
AND/OR MISLEADING NEWS AND FALSE
INFORMATION BY SOME GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS,
WITH THE END IN VIEW OF ENSURING THAT THE
PUBLIC WILL NOT BE DECEIVED AND THAT
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WILL NOT ABUSE THE
PLATFORM ACCORDED TO THEM BY SPREADING
PROPAGANDA AND LIES (by Senator Trillanes)
P.S. RES. NO. 271 - RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE

APPROPRIATE SENATE COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT AN
INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE
PROLIFERATION OF MISINFORMATION AND FAKE
NEWS SITES IN SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS,
PARTICULARLY ON FACEBOOK (by Senator
Pangilinan)
1
Committee on Public Information and Mass Media
October 4, 2017 (Wednesday)
Page 2
P.S. RES. NO. 259 - RESOLUTION URGING THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION
AND MASS MEDIA, AND OTHER APPROPRIATE
COMMITTEE/S TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN
AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE MASSIVE
PROLIFERATION OF FALSE, ERRONEOUS,
DISTORTED, FABRICATED AND OR MISLEADING
NEWS AND INFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA AS
WELL AS ON THE SO CALLED SOCIAL MEDIA
TROLLS IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH REMEDIAL
LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM
MANIPULATION THROUGH THE SPREAD OF
FALSE, ERRONEOUS, DISTORTED, FABRICATED
AND/OR MISLEADING NEWS AND
INFORMATION, WITH THE END IN VIEW OF
COMING UP WITH A VIABLE SYSTEM TO HOLD
THE AUTHORS, DISTRIBUTORS AND/OR
PURVEYORS OF THE SAME RESPONSIBLE AND
ACCOUNTABLE UNDER THE LAW FOR THE
CONTENTS THEY GENERATE AND/OR
DISSEMINATE (by Senator Trillanes)
SENATE BILL NO. 1492 - AN ACT PENALIZING

THE MALICIOUS DISTRIBUTION OF FALSE NEWS
AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS (by Senator
Villanueva)
MANIFESTATION OF SENATORS SOTTO,

PACQUIAO, VILLAR, GORDON, PANGILINAN,
ZUBIRI, HONTIVEROS AND ANGARA ON THE
ARTICLE “#SILENTNOMOREPH”
ATTENDANCE
SENATORS:
HON. GRACE POE - Chairperson

HON. RICHARD J. GORDON - Member
HON. JOEL VILLANUEVA - Member
HON. RISA HONTIVEROS - Member
HON. FRANCIS “KIKO” PANGILINAN - Member
HON. EMMANUEL “MANNY” D. PACQUIAO - Guest Senator
HON. MARIA LOURDES NANCY S. BINAY - Guest Senator
HON. CYNTHIA A. VILLAR - Guest Senator
2
Page 3
HON. JUAN MIGUEL “MIGZ” F. ZUBIRI - Guest Senator

HON. PAOLO BENIGNO “BAM” AQUINO IV - Guest Senator
HON. ANTONIO “SONNY” F. TRILLANES IV - Guest Senator
HON. VICENTE C. SOTTO III - Ex Officio Member
HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON - Ex Officio Member
GUESTS/RESOURCE PERSONS:
Hon. Joel Egco - Undersecretary, Presidential

Communications Operations
Office (PCOO)
Ms. Ana Maria Paz-Banaag - Assistant Secretary, PCOO
Ms. Mocha Uson - Assistant Secretary, PCOO
Ms. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles - Social Media Strategist, PCOO
Atty. Edwin Lacierda - Former Presidential Spokesperson /
DDI Strategic Communications
Atty. Abigail Valte - Former Assistant Presidential
Spokesperson; Chief Operations
Officer, DDI
Strategic Communications
Mr. Manuel Luis “Manolo” Quezon - Former Undersecretary, Presidential
Communications Development and
Strategic Planning Office
Atty. Chad Muscoso - Legal Consultant, Department
of Information and Communications
Technology (DICT)
Mr. Manuel Eduarte - Chief, Cybercrime Division, National
Bureau of Investigations (NBI)
Mr. Victor Lorenzo - Head, Digital Forensic Laboratory, NBI
Atty. Antonio La Viña - Dean, College of Law
Ateneo de Manila University
Atty. Florin Hilbay - Professor, UP College of Law
Atty. Gilbert Santos - National Privacy Commission (NPC)
Atty. Rudolph Jularbal - Kapisanan ng mga Broadkaster ng
Pilipinas (KBP)
Ms. Chi Almario-Gonzalez - Head, Futures Standards
and Practices, ABS-CBN
Mr. Jaymark Tordecilla - GMA News Online
Mr. Leon G. Flores III - Executive Director, Aksyong
Kabayanihan para sa Organisadong
Pagbabago (ANGKOP)
Mr. Rey Joseph Nieto - Blogger, Thinking Pinoy
Mr. Abelardo S. Ulanday - Editor-in-Chief, Inquirer.net
Ms. Ellen T. Tordesillas - President, VERA Files
Mr. Roby Alampay - Editor-in-Chief, Interaksyon/TV5
3
Page 4
Atty. Eugenio “Toto” Villareal - Law and Media Ethics Professor,

Ateneo Law School and former
MTRCB Chairman
Mr. Franco Mabanta - Chief Executive Officer, Social
Media Strategist/Digital Influencer
Dr. Ethel Pineda - Digital Influencer
Ms. Alessandra Marcos - Digital Influencer
Mr. Mark Lopez - Blogger
Mr. Mike Acebedo Lopez - Blogger
SENATE SECRETARIAT:
Atty. Antonette B. Cordero - Committee Secretary

Atty. Nineveh B. Lao - Committee Secretary
Ms. Cristina D.C. Astrero - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Christine M. Nery - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Araceli D. Masicap - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Ma. Emperatriz L. Novero - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Cecilia T. Sotto - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Jocelyn A. Dela Cruz - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Norma G. Dizon - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Bathaluman H. Gonzales - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Maribel P. Mendoza - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Sherill M. Villadiego - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Jeanne M. Baisa - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Rosemarie J. Ortiz - Committee Stenographer
Ms. Jeniffer F. De Silva - Committee Support Staff
(For complete list, please see attached Attendance Sheet.)
4
CDAstrero I-1 October 04, 2017 9:32 a.m. 1
AT 9:32 A.M., HON. GRACE POE, CHAIRPERSON OF

THE COMMITTEE, CALLED THE HEARING ORDER.
THE CHAIRPERSON. This hearing of the Committee on Public
Information is now called to order.
Let me greet you first good morning.
Thank you for being here on time.
I am sure that many of us begin the day the same way and end
it by checking our Twitter, Instagram and Facebook accounts. We
check our Facebook, texts, notifications before we check on our loved
ones. And at night, instead of sharing stories over dinner, we share
jokes on the family Viber group. If these have become our daily
routine, then most likely we’ve been waking up to and going to bed
with news, some fake, mostly, real, I think.
Someone once said that if it’s fake, it isn’t news, it’s propaganda,
misrepresentation, misinformation or to put it more bluntly, outright
lies. So I think, that, first, we should differentiate news from opinion.
The term “news” is defined as a report of recent events, opinion. On
the other hand, it’s a view or judgment formed about something that is
not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Currently, the term “fake news” as used by the public means a
wide array of things, from false reports to propaganda and to true
reports that have been spun out of proportion. This nation is churning
out fake news in an industrial scale that it seems that while
5
manufacturing is down, fake news factories are booming; and that
while agriculture output is low, that of troll farms is high.
Fake news has become so pervasive through the use of bots and
trolls and these fake accounts are able to sway public opinion, shape
civic discourse, affect social interaction and influence government. It
is not only in politics that fake news is blurring the truth and deepening
the divide. It has encroached in other fields as well. Fake news is the
e-version of the “budol-budol” which many of our people unable to
distinguish fact from fiction fall victims too. It is not even farfetched
that in the future, fake news can trigger wars.
Alam ninyo mga kababayan, the Internet is important to us but it
has also its weaknesses which fake news has exploited. First,
broadband should have made us broad-minded. But thanks to fake
news, it has kept many of us imprisoned in our own narrow political
beliefs. Hindi nga ba Internet is deemed to be an instrument for
liberation, technology. But now it is being used somehow to enslave
people to a certain dogma. Kaya nga ang sabi nila, fake news is in the
eye of the beholder. Who determines it through its colored lenses?
Dilaw, pula, asul. Iyan, mga kababayan ko, ang resulta ng ating color-
coded politics. Imbes alamin kung magaling ang isang ideya, ang
unang tanong kaagad ay kung saang kampo galing iyan.
Second, while the Internet also promotes connectivity, it has
sadly been used to erect firewalls within and among us that prevent
6
dialogue dahil maraming natatakot baka ma-bully. And when
conversation does not happen, the forging of consensus so essential to
our democracy is affected.
Kaya nga, third, hindi lang usaping legal or political ang
pagsusuri ng fake news phenomenon. Dapat din pag-aralan ang
sociological impact nito. Has fake news doomed civilized debate
turning it into shouting matches, dividing families and friends? Has
fake news created a cynical citizenry, distrustful of authority and even
our very institutions? Has it embroiled us in a permanent state of
cyber war? We also have to ask that while it is the role of each
individual to vet sources and check facts, what is the role of the
government in addressing the lack of news literacy? Should news
literacy be required by schools?
In Taiwan, school kids are now being taught media literacy in an
effort to help them identify news from hoaxes. Bagamat madali
tayong magalit sa fake news, hindi madaling solusyunan ito. There are
free speech considerations. Media opposition to the government is not
new. In fact, media is nicknamed the fourth estate or the fourth
branch of government because it is expected to perform the role of a
watchdog. It is expected to provide a check against the abuses of the
other branches of the state. A blogger should also not be penalized for
his views. But just how far can journalists or ordinary individuals go in
speaking against the government? Paano mo ituturo ang online dos
7
and don’ts sa mahigit isang daang milyong tao? First, how far before
free speech can be called libel?
Today, under Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention
Act, libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code is
committed through a computer system or any other similar means
which may be devised in the future is considered a cybercrime offense.
The Penal Code, “Libel is committed when a person makes
against another, a public and malicious imputation of a crime or a vice
or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a
natural or juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead.”
In several cases, the Supreme Court held that for libel to hold
water in the case of public officials or public figures, the higher
standard of actual malice must be satisfied to attain conviction. Actual
malice or malice, in fact, is committed when the offender makes the
defamatory statement that the knowledge that it is false or with
reckless disregard of whatever it is false or not. Improving actual
malice, the burden of proof lies with the offended party. Second, when
people in authority habitually employ alternative facts that it fuels the
fake news phenomenon, can they be held liable?
The phenomenon of junk news and its dissemination over social
media platforms have transformed, some say, destroyed political
8
debates. It is important to ask these questions because unlawful
means of publication and unlawful utterances are already penalized by
Article 154 of the Penal Code. Under our law, “Any person, who
printed, published, or caused to be published as news any false news
which may endanger public order or cause damage to the interest or
credit of the state shall be punished. The same applies for any person
who by the same means or by words, utterances or speeches shall
encourage disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or
praise, justify or extol any act punished by law.”
Alam niyo po noong pumasok ako sa pulitika, ang sabi ko,
minoisturize (moisturize) ko na iyong balat ko ng Teflon para hindi
tumalab sa akin ang mga puna. Sabi ko sa sarili ko, “The politician
who complains against criticism is like a ship captain who complains
about the sea.” In short, par for the course.
Noong nagsimula ang online bashing lalo na noong nakaraang
halalan, ang sabi ko sa sarili ko, the price of incumbency is eternal
bashing. Pero lately … /cda
9
CMNERY II-1 October 4, 2017 9:42 a.m. 1
THE CHAIRPERSON. ... Pero lately, napapansin ko, kailangan
ng may push back sa mga maling balita kasi apektado na rin ang ating
demokrasya. If unchecked, fake news cultivates a culture of lying. If
purveyors are allowed to get away with their lies, they embolden
government officials to also lie in order to escape accountability, crash
dissent and commit illegal acts with impunity.
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 unleased with just one meme to destroy an idea, a person or an
institution. At mayroong panganib din na ang maling online behavior
ay siyang maging asta natin sa totoong buhay. Kung hahayaan natin
iyan, baka lumaki ang mga bata ngayon na intolerant sa pananaw ng
iba at madaling maniwala sa haka-haka.
We need to expose them to a kind of conversation that educates
and enlightens, that relies on the truth and not the kind that
disrespects facts. We need to teach them that they can disagree
without being disagreeable. That when arguing, they should focus on
substance and never on slurs.
In this hearing, we will try to address these issues and more. If
we want to regulate news, are we technologically capable of doing
that? Will legislation possibly create a chilling effect on all of us? In
the same manner that we are considering punishing individual
10
purveyors of fake news, shouldn’t we also hold public officials who
release wrong and misleading information accountable?
Perhaps our resource persons, Dean Tony La Viña or Professor
Florin Hilbay can explain briefly the implications of these statements to
us, laymen. I will give also my colleagues, of course, the chance to
ask the questions.
This hearing was called also because of a certain resolution that
was filed and upon the request of my colleagues. I would like to
acknowledge and thank the presence of our Majority Leader, Senator
Tito Sotto, who is here with us, Senator Manny Pacquiao and Senator
Kiko Pangilinan.
And then before I introduce our resource persons, Senator Tito
Sotto has an opening statement as well as Senator Pacquiao.
SEN. SOTTO. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you for calling this public hearing. I know that I was
able to somewhat trigger the Committee to do this since I took on the
floor because of a—I don’t know what to call it. But anyway, part of
technology. And so allow me very briefly, Madam Chair, technology
which has become an integral part of our society and in fact our
everyday living, it’s part of everything we do now including learning,
teaching, part of work, simple and complex things, communicate. It
actually simplifies in so many ways. There are countless ways on how
11
technology positively affects us. However, it also provides a rich
environment for criminal activity.
Now, in the United States, cybercrime or computer crime is one
of the top concerns. Cybercrimes were first reported and became
evident in the 1970s and it continues to grow and evolve over time.
Despite the greater awareness and advance countermeasures,
cybercrimes continue to climb. Every day smarter criminals find
creative and innovative ways to perpetrate cybercrimes.
In the Philippines, according to an article from the Department of
Justice by Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy, it was only in 2000 when
the “I Love You” virus was unleashed globally that placed the country
on the global cyber map which led to the passage of the first Anti-
Cybercrime Law, that is the E-Commerce Act of 2000, although the
first law that comprehensively dealt really with cybercrimes is Republic
Act 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Now, according to the Philippine National Police, Madam Chair,
Anti-Cybercrime Group, the unit of the PNP, in 2015 said that the Top
5 cybercrime complaints received were: one, online scams; two, online
libel; three, online threats; four, identity theft; and fifth, photo and
video voyeurism. However, for the year 2016, topping the most
common complaints are: one, online libel; two, online scams; three,
12
identity theft; four, online threats; and still in the fifth spot is photo
and video voyeurism.
Now, recently, cyber criminals are proliferating fake and/or
misleading news and false information as well as publishing articles
that imputed malicious accusations against public officials. Of course,
we feel that the intent is to cause damage or destroy a government
institution like the Senate which are treated as the version of truth for
some and influence public opinion on the person or institution, the
subject of the article.
Now, what makes the situation worse is the fact that these
criminals are hiding behind or through false names and/or fake
websites. Sabi nga nila, “Mga duwag.” Because in the past, those who
went against the Marcoses were not afraid to show off their faces.
They were on the streets. Harapang lumalaban. Ngayon, malalakas
ang loob nitong iba dahil titirahin ang gobyerno, nagtatago sa likod ng
mga computer.
Madam Chair, we, the government officials, are at the center of
this issue. We are the usual victims of these fake news and online
libels. I hope that in this hearing, we could uncover those behind the
fake names and/or fake websites and determine where to draw the line
between freedom of speech and indecency or criminality and find
solutions to this problem through legislation.
13
Perhaps, Madam Chair, the incident is a blessing in disguise on
the so-called resolution that excluded seven senators. I find it as a
blessing in disguise because on my part I’ve been bashed a number of
times. I was the favorite victim of cyber bullies since 2012 on the
issue of the RH Bill. So I take it in stride. It’s all right, if you don’t like
me, you don’t like my face, you don’t like what I stand for, you don’t
believe in the statements that I’m saying, that’s fine with me. Okay
lang kahit anong pintas ang sabihin mo. But once you start hitting me
and calling me names and charging me with crimes that I did not
commit, my first option is to hunt you down.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you, Senator Sotto.
Sen. Manny Pacquiao and then Senator Kiko will have their
opening statement.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Alam ba ninyo kung ano ang nakapukaw sa aking galit noong
nakaraang linggo? Iyong mga news report na nagsabing only seven
out of 23 senators did not sign the resolution calling to stop the killings
of minors. Dahil sa PS Resolution 516, isa ako sa pitong senador na
binatikos sa social media dahil hindi kami nakapirma sa nasabing
resolution. Pinapalabas na suportado namin ang extrajudicial killings
at pagpatay sa mga inosente. Hindi po ito tama na sabihing hindi
14
pumirma ang taong hindi naman nabigyan ng pagkakataon na
pumirma. Ni anino nga ng resolution hindi ko nakita. Ayon sa press
release mula kay Atty. Herminio Bagro III, Chief of Staff ng opisina ni
Senator Kiko Pangilinan, nagpadala sila ng kopya ng resolution sa
official e-mail nila Senators Richard Gordon ... /cmn
15
ADMasicap III-1 October 4, 2017 9:52 a.m. 1
SEN. PACQUIAO. … Senators Richard Gordon, Gringo Honasan,
Cynthia Villar, Miguel Zubiri at Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III.
Paano po ako makakapirma sa isang resolution na hindi ko natanggap,
nabasa o napag-aralan? Hindi ito nagkataon lang. Ito ay sinadya.
Kaming dalawa ni Senate President Koko Pimentel ay hindi kasama sa
listahan ng mga pinadalhan. Hindi ito nagkataon lang, ito ay sinadya.
Si Senator de Lima na nakakulong ay nakapirma, hindi ito nagkataon
lang, ito ay sinadya.
Madam Chair, pinipigilan ko lang iyong galit ko. Hindi naman
ako ipinanganak kahapon o hindi kami ipinanganak kahapon para hindi
namin malalaman ang mga katangahan na ginagawa nila sa amin.
Hindi na bago sa akin ang binabatikos o minamaliit sa social media.
Nasanay na ako niyan. Inaatake ang aking pagkatao at nadadamay
pati rin ang aking pamilya. Pero hindi dahil nasanay na ako, hindi
puwede ko nang palampasin ito.
If news is considered as the rough draft of history, I don’t want
to be written in this manner and be remembered as someone who
supports the killing of the innocents because that is not true.
Uulitin ko po. Kinokondena ko ang mga pagpatay sa mga
inosente lalung-lalo na ang mga batang walang kamuwang-muwang.
Ako man ay lubos na nanghihinayang sa mga buhay na nasasayang.
Hindi dahil hindi nagawang pumirma sa resolusyon na ito ay
16
nangangahulugan pabor na kami sa mga pangyayaring karahasan sa
lansangan.
The issue is how we will project it on media. The claim that we
refuse to sign is totally unfair and misleading the news reports that
came out were deceptive and malicious. Ito ay sinadya upang kami ay
siraan at sirain. Maliwanag pa sa sikat ng araw iyan. This is not
merely an attack to an individual to the so-called “7 Deadly Sens,” but
an attack to the Senate as an institution. We do not want to be
remembered as senators who refused to put an end to the senseless
killings.
Sa mga bloggers katulad ng mga nasa likod ng Facebook page
na #silentnomore, I respect the people’s freedom and expression.
Malaya tayo. Malaya po tayong magpahayag ng ating opinion, pabor
man o hindi, sa administration. Ngunit huwag nating kalimutan ang
ating responsibilidad na magsabi ng totoo na may respeto. Even our
rights have limitations. Our right to express our opinions does not give
us the right to maliciously attack other people. To the news reports of
mainstream media who committed an international error in their
report, it is your responsibility to correct your misleading and
deceptive reports.
Ang fake news ay parang lason na dahan-dahang sumisira sa
ating mga kaisipan, sa ating lipunan at sa ating bansa. Karapatan po
17
natin na malaman ang katotohanan. Umaasa ako na sa pamamagitan
nitong committee hearing malaman natin ang punot dulo ng isyung ito
at mahinto itong paglaganap ng lason na nakakasira ng kaisipan ng
mga taong walang kaalam-alam sa katotohanan.
Madam Chair, before anything else, mamaya na lang ako mag-
move for request to Cocoy—if he is not here, I will move to invite here
in the Senate to attend the hearing.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Pacquiao, I think you were
referring to a certain Cocoy Dayao. We would like you to know that we
sent him an invitation but for some reason he is not present here
today. Again, that might affirm our suspicion all along that there are
certain people hiding behind the curtain of anonymity.
But before we continue on that, Senator Kiko Pangilinan has a
brief opening statement as well.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
And to our distinguished colleagues in the Senate and our
resource persons, magandang umaga po sa kanilang lahat.
Nabanggit din lang po iyong Senate Resolution 516 at iyong
pagruruta nito, nais nating bigyang diin na base sa mga pangyayari at
based on the facts at hindi ho sa fake news, ito ho ang naganap.
Iyong resolution po was filed September 25, Monday. Noong
Miyerkules, September 20, or five days before the filing, labing-anim
18
na senador na po ang pumirma sa resolusyon. Ang instruction ko sa
ating chief-of-staff ay hanapan pa ng paraan para makakuha pa ng
dagdag na mga pirma. At base sa instruction na ito, on 12:22 p.m. of
Thursday, September 21, the following day, my office sent a copy of
the resolution to the publicly available as well as official emails of other
senators— Senators Gordon, Honasan, Villar, Zubiri and the Majority
Leader. In the email on September 21, four days before we filed it,
we had informed our colleagues that 16 senators had already signed
the resolution and that we requested that if they were willing to
sponsor it. Senator Gordon’s office acknowledge receipt of the email
on September 21 at 4:41 p.m. So, that was Thursday—Friday,
Saturday, Sunday. Monday at 5:30 p.m., September 25, we filed the
resolution. So, on the following day, September 26, at 3:35 p.m.,
during the session, the Senate resolution was read on the floor.
Binasa ho ito stating the title and the names of the 16 co-authors.
At ni-refer po ng ating Senate President sa committee nina Senators
Lacson at Hontiveros. So, base ho dito, kung nais po naming ilihim sa
mga kapwa nating senador dapat siguro hindi na ho namin pinadalhan
ng email at dapat ho siguro ay basta na lang pinayl (file).
So, sana po, base diyan sa paliwanag na iyan ay maliwanagan
ang ilan nating mga kasamahan at ang media na wala hong attempt
na ito ay ilihim sa mga kapwa nating senador at kung mayroon mang
19
hindi magandang naging reporting ay wala na sa atin iyan at alam po
naman natin kung gaano katindi ang fake news, ang paninira, kaliwa’t
kanan, sa social media.
At dahil nga riyan, tayo po ang isa sa mga nag-author ng
resolusyon para ho imbestigahan ang fake news—matagal na po. I
think three or four months ago. And we are thankful that we are now
hearing this morning. Pero nalilihis ho tayo doon sa usapin ng fake
news, balikan lang po natin very briefly ang fake news. Pag-usapan po
natin.
Balikan po natin yung kaso ni Kian. Last August, sabi po ni Sr.
Supt. Chito Bersaluna, under oath, and he verified that Kian delos
Santos as a drug pusher, na-verify na nila through social media. Hindi
po ba? Sabi nakita na daw sa balita sa social media na may
connection daw si Kian sa drugs. And I quote, “We based some
information na lumalabas sa social media. Iyong lang po basis namin,
sir, after na noong incident, sir.” The backlash after this statement was
profound. Filipinos took to social media to express their outrage
towards the use of online platforms to justify or be the basis for such
operations. Netizens took to defending the memory of Kian against an
onslaught of Internet “trolls bent on politicizing the tragedy.
Cautionary art cards became viral”, and events organized online
translated into mass protests offline. Iyong ganitong pag-apaw ng
20
sentimiyento, pakikiramay ng mga tao mula sa malayo, this is what
social media and the Internet affords us. There are many more
instances in our recent history, ladies and gentlemen, that show the
positive aspect as well as the flaws of social media. Positive because it
allows easy access to information that was not readily available …
/admasicap
21
MELNOVERO IV-1 October 4, 2017 10:02 a.m. 1
SEN. PANGILINAN. … that was not readily available before.
Positive because it allows for a space where people are able to express
their thoughts on issues. Positive because it bridges gaps to allow
conversation between fellowmen, between the politician and the people
they are serving. Such dialogue is important for a robust democracy.
Democracy demands descent, equally as important though, democracy
demands that we treat truth as an imperative. And when truth
becomes subverted, whether through money or coercion or the desire
for power, so too to the flaws in the design reveal themselves. Opinion
mutates into propaganda; stories turn into lies.
Today, as is evident not only here but around the globe, interest
groups have found ways to exploit the system ensuring that they are
narrative, their truth is the one that engages more people. Even some
public officials have taken to social media to peddle falsehoods. Who
guards what comes out of the Internet? Unlike the fourth state, the
traditional media, the Internet does not provide for editorial checks
and balances that can take those who spread misinformation into
account.
Fake news is divisive. It feeds our prejudices, our pain, our
anger and fear and the feeling that we have somehow been wronged.
It polarizes society. It divides democracy into camps when it should
22
unite as one nation conducting discourse with goodwill. Fake news is
lying, and lying is wrong.
If we are to survive as a nation, then we must remember such
simple truths. Hindi tama ang magsinungaling and the lying must
stop. This is the challenge to us. This is beyond what is viral, ladies
and gentlemen. This is the bigger picture we need to look into and we
welcome this public hearing on the proliferation of fake or misleading
news and false information.
Salamat.
SEN. SOTTO. Madam Chair.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Madam Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Sotto.
SEN. SOTTO. With the explanation of Senator Pangilinan, is he
saying that—because definitely, we did not receive the email. If we
received an email, I cannot sign an email. Were the other 16 senators
sent email also to sign? So therefore, what he’s saying is that the
news is incorrect. The news that we refused to sign is incorrect.
Perhaps we were not able to sign, they did not make us sign or for
whatever reason, but it is not correct that we refused.
SEN. PANGILINAN. That is correct. Yes, I will—
23
SEN. SOTTO. I would want to hear that from Senator
Pangilinan. As long as he says that, then let’s forget about it and let’s
go to the content of the fake news.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Perhaps, Senator Pangilinan, I know this
is beyond our Public Information hearing but, just to clarify it as a
context at the beginning—
SEN. PANGILINAN. Yes, that is correct. I—
THE CHAIRPERSON. So you agree that the news is incorrect.
They weren’t aware of it that’s why they—
SEN. PANGILINAN. No. It is incorrect to say that they
refused to sign.
SEN. SOTTO. [Off-mike] Okay.
SEN. PANGILINAN. And that’s why I said, “Hindi ko na ho
hawak iyong ganoong klaseng ano …” because we sent it on the email
and in the email we said, “If they wish to avail of the—or sponsor it,
then we can send the resolution to them.” But that doesn’t mean they
refused. I will confirm that. The media line saying that they refused
to sign is not accurate.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you for the clarification, Senator
Kiko. So, just to be clear, sinabi ni Senator Kiko na hindi tama ang
lumabas na balita na iyong pito ay ayaw pumirma.
SEN. PANGILINAN. In fact, if I may just add, because—
24
THE CHAIRPERSON. Gusto nilang pumirma siguro, ‘di saka
nila—
SEN. PANGILINAN. Immediately, ma’am, if I may add, I was
asked by some members of the media through Facebook, and I said,
“In fairness to the seven, they can still—actually, it has not been
adopted and, therefore, they can still associate themselves and co-
author the measure,” which is the practice in the Senate.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Madam Chair, I just want to clarify—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Manny.
SEN. PACQUIAO. I just want to clarify na hindi ako
nakatanggap ng email, pati si Koko, dalawa lang kami na hindi
nakatanggap ng email about diyan sa resolution na iyan at mali iyong
sinasabi na in-email sa amin, hindi namin natanggap at—natanggap
namin, mali po iyong lumalabas na—just clarification lang dahil
damage has been done, kahit na sabihin na pwede namang ihabol,
tapos na, lumabas na iyong—nasira na kami.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you for the manifestation, Senator
Manny. I think Senator Cynthia would like to—I would like to
acknowledge the presence of Senator Cynthia.
SEN. VILLAR. Ms. Chairman, I want to make a manifestation
also that I was not able to receive any email from Senator Pangilinan.
25
I’ve asked all my staff, everyone, if they received an email. There’s no
email. So we were not informed. We were not asked to sign and we
did not refuse to sign.
Thank you, Ms. Chairman.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you for stating that for the record.
I’d like to acknowledge the presence of Senator Nancy Binay.
So now, we shall begin and our other senators present here
today have other hearings to attend so we shall begin, actually, in
order of arrival. Senator Sotto will ask his questions first. We have 10
minutes each and then after which we have another round if we have
enough time. But I would also like to hear—actually, in this room,
binubuo tayo ng napakaraming mga—well, sabihin na nating
influencers, between our Facebook pages alone, the senators, and then
the ones that we have here, we have millions following us. So I hope
that this will remain productive and also civil. We would like to begin
with Senator Sotto with his questions.
SEN. SOTTO. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to start with the National Bureau of Investigation but I
know that we have already received a progress report so I will not
make the progress report public. We will probably ask them for data
later on or data on cybercrimes filed and libel filed or other crimes filed
in the cybercrime division. We have the head of the Digital Forensic of
26
the NBI and the chief of the—we have the chief of the Cybercrime
Division of the NBI, Dr. Eduarte, and also—
Yes, before we start, Madam Chair, before I start with my first
issue and question, may we ask that all the resource persons take the
oath or be administered the oath?
THE CHAIRPERSON. So, ComSec, please administer the oath.
Magsitayo po iyong ating mga resource persons at itaas ang kanang
kamay.
THE COMMITTEE SECRETARY. Do you swear to tell the truth
and nothing but the truth in this proceedings?
Thank you.
Madam Chair, for the record, all the resource persons have
affirmed their oath.
SEN. SOTTO. Thank you.
Madam Chair, as I said, I wanted to really start with the NBI but
I will forego and perhaps later on in my second round—if I’m given a
chance, I will—just for data purposes and for the Committee. But let
me start with Mr. Rey Joseph Nieto because I have received a report
from him and the report I received is entitled, “Here’s the guy you’re
looking for.” “Senator Sotto, here’s the guy you’re looking for,” sabi
niya.
27
Rey Nieto or RJ Nieto is the person behind the “Thinking Pinoy”
and he does not hide behind any other name. Is this correct, Mr. RJ
Nieto?
MR. NIETO. Well, Mr. Senator, I was actually anonymous until I
came out in January 2017, although the Liberal Party has known my
real identity since as early as February 2016. So half anonymous, half
not. But I decided to remain anonymous because I don’t like fame.
Yeah. But if somebody is gonna sue me, they could easily find out who
I am.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Actually, you know, I follow your blog
and you show your face there.
MR. NIETO. Opo.
THE CHAIRPERSON. And even if you go by a certain name,
alam naman kung sino ka.
MR. NIETO. Opo.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So that means alam natin iyon.
Senator Sotto.
SEN. SOTTO. I have been browsing through this report that I
have received and you apparently have uncovered … /meln
28
ctsotto V-1 October 4, 2017 10:12 a.m. 1
SEN. SOTTO. … apparently, you have uncovered many other
websites. Do you call it a website or a blog or—
MR. NIETO. No. Actually, sir, ang problema po natin
karamihan po yung mga Facebook pages na mga anonymous na
nagkakalat ng fake news. Kaya lang po yung mga Facebook pages na
iyon, mayroon po silang mga naka-tie-up na websites. So sa akin,
iyong Facebook page ko po na ThinkingPinoy may naka-tie-up na
website na ThinkingPinoy.net. So iyon pong SilentNoMorePhilippines
na Facebook page, may naka-tie-up doon na SilentNoMorePH.com.
Ngayon po, iyon pong doon sa binasa ninyo na article na,
“Senator Sotto, here’s the guy you are looking for,” I discovered po
yung mga websites ng Silent No More, ng Madam Claudia and a lot of
other websites share a similar characteristic na all those websites
served advertisements from a single account. Tapos po I was able to
find out who the account holder is. So iyon po yung si Mr. Edward
Angelo Dayao na dati pong member ng Presidential Communications
Operations Office under President Aquino. So iyon po.
SEN. SOTTO. He is the person behind Silent No More. How
were you able to go about this? Because nakikita ko sa report mo,
you do a simple. Whois Lookup.
MR. NIETO. Who is po iyan.
SEN. SOTTO. Ah, who is lookup, magkakahiwalay ito.
29
MR. NIETO. Who is po, opo.
SEN. SOTTO. Which basically shows the contact information of
a website’s registrant, administrator and tech contacts.
MR. NIETO. Opo. Kasi po ganito. Una pong lumitaw yung
issue na iyan noong hinahanap namin kung sino si Pinoy Ako blog.
Kasi po matagal na kaming nila-libel niyan, noong kaibigan ko rin na
blogger na si Sass Rogando Sasot. Tapos po si Sass, noong tsinek
(check)—ginamit po yung Who is na utility, iyon po yung online utility
para i-check kung sino yung registrants, sino yung administrator, yung
mga contact details po noong taong behind the website. Ngayon po
noong tsinek (check) po ni Sass Sasot iyan, lumitaw po yung pangalan
ni Cocoy Dayao--Edward Angelo Dayao, his phone number, his
address. All those information ay freely niya nabinigay doon sa
domain registrar, doon po sa kung saan siya bumili noong domain
name. Kaya lang po noong nabisto, hinide (hide) na niya. Kaya
lang po too late na.
So given that lead po, hinanap namin kung may connection si
Cocoy Dayao doon sa Silent No More at iyan na nga po yung limitaw
doon po sa naging blog post ko po na pinublish (publish) po several
days ago.
SEN. SOTTO. All right.
30
Can you walk us through how do you do this? And I am sure I
would want the NBI to monitor.
MR. NIETO. Opo. Okay.
Step 1 po, ang una ko pong gagawin diyan kukunin ko po yung
Google AdSense publisher ID.
SEN. SOTTO. Google AdSense.
MR. NIETO. Google AdSense publisher ID. Iyon pong Google
AdSense iyon po yung facility ng Google na nag-a-allow po na kumita
yung mga web owners by serving advertisements in their websites.
SEN. SOTTO. So kumikita itong mga ito?
MR. NIETO. Opo. Kasi nasa website po—
SEN. SOTTO. Katulad nitong SilentNoMore.com na ito?
MR. NIETO. Lahat po, sir. Ang pinaka-common po na paraan
para kumita sa mga websites ay Google AdSense. So ang tsinek
(check) ko po diyan yung publisher ID noong Silent No More PH.
Tapos nakita ko nga po na yung publisher ID starts with 8 something.
It shows a unique publisher ID. Tapos po ang ginawa ko, sir, after
that, tsinek (check) ko yung mga ibang websites na gumagamit ng
same Google AdSense publisher ID at lumitaw nga po na kamukha
iyan ng publisher ID yung sa ProPinoy.net at saka po yung sa
MadamClaudiaAko.com. All right.
SEN. SOTTO. Siya rin iyan, yung Mr. Dayao?
31
MR. NIETO. Iyon pong ProPinoy.net, tsinek (check) ko po kung
sino yung—Kasi po ganito po iyan. Pag nalaman ko na pareho yung
ads nila, ibig sabihin, iisa lang yung—yung kumikita sa SilentNoMore at
kumikita sa ProPinoy.net, iisang entity lang. It may be a person or a
group of persons. Ngayon po, binakground (background) check ko
naman kung sino po ang may-ari ng ProPinoy.net. And I found out po
na dalawa po yung tao. Una, si Mr. Edward Angelo Dayao or ang
nickname ay Cocoy na dating tao ng Aquino era, PCOO.
SEN. SOTTO. Cocoy Dayao.
MR. NIETO. At saka po yung pangalawa ay co-founder at saka
po deputy editor, si Ms. Niña Terol Zialcita na dati pong political
communications head ni Senator Kiko Pangilinan, dati rin pong political
communications din ni Senator Bam Aquino—Sorry po, kinakabahan
ako.
SEN. SOTTO. Hindi. You just—
MR. NIETO. Nag-head din po siya ng elections po ng senatorial
campaign ni Senator Bam Aquino noong 2013. Siya rin po ang nag-
hold ng—nag-new media head rin po ng 2010 senatorial campaign ng
LP. Siya rin po ang nag-editor ng Tayo Magazine ng Tayo Foundation,
isa pong award-giving body na finound (found) rin ni Senator Bam
Aquino.
Sandali lang po, one minute, kinakabahan ako.
32
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay lang. Maraming salamat.
Kasi anyway, mentioning their affiliation does not necessarily
implicate their principal.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. I mean, just to put things in perspective.
MR. NIETO. Hindi po, medyo starstruck po kasi, kasi puro
senador.
Pero seriously po—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Binobola mo pa kami, hindi ka nai-
starstruck.
MR. NIETO. Hindi, totoo. [Laughter]
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay, go ahead.
MR. NIETO. Pero ano po, ma’am--So basically po napatunayan
ko doon, so far diyan po sa unang article na iyan ay si Cocoy Dayao,
siya yung web administrator noong mga websites. He does not
necessarily create the content. And besides, with the sheer number of
websites that is under his name or is owned/controlled—or controlled
by him, I think po na mayroon pa po siyang team behind him creating
the content.
SEN. SOTTO. So he is an administrator.
MR. NIETO. Pero may control po siya sa lahat ng mga
websites.
33
SEN. SOTTO. So you said he doesn’t necessarily create the
content, ganoon, of all these?
MR. NIETO. Hindi po necessarily--
SEN. SOTTO. How many websites does he operate?
MR. NIETO. Mahigit biente po.
SEN. SOTTO. Twenty plus.
MR. NIETO. Opo. Mahigit 20 po pero po iyong mga nagkakalat—
SEN. SOTTO. Can you submit to us the list of all these
websites?
MR. NIETO. I am willing po to provide information if you are
going to give me blanket immunity. Kasi po I don’t want to be held
liable for the information that may be disclosed.
SEN. SOTTO. I don’t think you are committing any crime by
giving us a list, but we can consider that later on perhaps.
MR. NIETO. Well, I can give you a list of the information that is
freely available online, pero po I accidentally—
SEN. SOTTO. Na hindi lang namin alam hanapin at yung
mga katulad mo ang nakakahanap.
MR. NIETO. Actually alam pong hanapin ng mainstream media
pero nagpapanggap sila na hindi nila nababasa iyon. Kasi po, sir,
iyan pong—kasi po ang style ng Thinking Pinoy, when I write articles, I
write them in a way na pupuwedeng gayahin noong nagbabasa kung
34
papaano ko dinerive (derive) yung information. So ngayon, if
mainstream media has a grudge against Thinking Pinoy, it’s okay.
Okay lang sa akin. Pero kung ahas po kasi iyan, tinuklaw na sila. Pero
po for five days na, walang nagpa-publish kahit isang outlet.
So iyon pong problema kasi ng fake news, totoo na madami
pong mga website na nanloloko ng tao. Pero po kailangan din po ng
mainstream media yung mga nakaupo ngayon dito ng kaunting
introspection. Kasi po sometimes the people resort to--you know, they
would rather believe fake news than real news kasi po minsan yung
real news, sobrang sabog, sobrang unbelievable din at sobrang
slanted.
Kasi po, for example po, ito pong Vera Files—excuse me po,
Ma’am Tordesillas—a few months ago, iyon pong si Mr. Aznar, isang
photojournalist sa Marawi, nag-post po ng video na soldiers in action.
Ako po, as regular citizen, nagtaka ako. Sabi ko, “Bakit ka nagpo-post
ng ganyan?” Kasi parang halos real time yung pagkaka-post mo,
baka ma-endanger yung mga soldiers. Ngayon po marami akong
followers online, mga halos 700,000 po, tapos siyempre yung mga
followers ko nabasa iyon, tapos nagalit sila kay Aznar. “Oo nga,
Aznar, bakit ganyan, ganyan?” Tapos po after that, kinondemn
(condemn) po ako ng National Union of Journalists of the Philippines.
Tapos po after that, naglabas daw pa po ng fact-check yung Vera Files
35
about it. Ang basis po daw nila ay yung metadata noong mga pictures
or whatever na nagso-show kung kalian kinuha yung mga pictures.
Kaya lang po ang hindi ginawa noong Vera Files ay i-check iyong iba
pang mga files ni Aznar. Basically po ang napakita ko noong nagsulat
ako ng rebuttal sa Vera Files ay faulty yung mga time stamp doon sa
mga files ni Aznar. So basically po baseless po—pointless po yung
ginawa nilang fact- check. However, wala po akong narinig na reply or
anything of that sort from Vera Files.
So what I am saying is this … cts
36
JADela Cruz VI-1 October 4, 2017 10:22 a.m. 1
MR. NIETO. … So what I am saying is this. Hindi ko po alam
kung ano iyong kahihinatnan noong Senate investigation na ito. Pero
ang gusto ko lang pong ipaglaban sana i-legislate natin iyong right to
reply. Hindi po necessarily sa print, radio and sa TV kasi po mayroon
pong space constraints iyan at iyon din po ang dahilan kung bakit hindi
pumasa iyong FOI dati. Pero po at least doon sa social media at saka
iyong mga websites noong mga news agencies. Now, for example,
kung i-libel po uli ako ng Rappler.com, mayroon po akong space para
mag-reply.
Sorry po, rant na ito pero totoo kasi. Noon pong January, in-
accuse kami ng Rappler.com na tumatanggap kami ng pera kay
Secretary Martin Andanar at ang source lang ng Rappler po ay isang
anonymous source. Tapos po ang sabi ako at saka si Sass binibigyan
ng pera. Ngayon po tinanong ko iyong Rappler, “Bakit hindi ninyo ako
in-interview?” Ang sabi nila sa akin hindi naman daw kasi kami
importante doon sa istorya pero kami iyong ni-libel. So ang point po
dito sana i-legislate ninyo iyong right of reply. Iyon lang po ang
hinihingi ko kasi pag nag-legislate tayo against fake news, baka
maging prior constraint so maging unconstitutional. Pero at least po
right of reply lang ang ipinaglalaban ko.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Alam mo, tama--Senator Sotto, mabilis
lang ano? Pero tama iyong sinabi mo iyong sa right of reply na ngayon
37
may online tayo, hindi limited iyong space. So maaari ngang
ikonsidera.
Senator Sotto, thank you.
SEN. SOTTO. Yes. All right. You mentioned a Niña Terol. Is this
the same Niña Terol who is connected with McCann Erickson?
THE CHAIRPERSON. I would like to acknowledge the presence
of the Minority Leader, Senator Drilon, and, of course, Senator Bam
Aquino and Senator Zubiri.
Thank you.
SEN. SOTTO. Is this the same Niña Terol of McCann Erickson?
MR. NIETO. Yes, yes. The same Niña Terol that was under
Senator Bam Aquino from, I think, 2012 to 2014.
SEN. SOTTO. And then who is this Sass na sinasabi mo?
MR. NIETO. Sass Rogando Sasot is—
SEN. SOTTO. He is also an administrator?
MR. NIETO. No. Sass Rogando Sasot is another blogger who is a
close friend of mine. We were together on a lot of things.
SEN. SOTTO. Okay. Do you think that the Google AdSense ID
or account, do you know its ownership of a website or is it possible
that the owner of the website be different from the owner or the one
who owns the Google AdSense ID?
MR. NIETO. That is possible po. Kaya lang po—
38
SEN. SOTTO. That is possible. But what is the common thing?
MR. NIETO. I can answer that po in an executive session if you
will grant me immunity kasi I don’t want to break laws.
SEN. SOTTO. We will consider that later on after, perhaps the
rest of the hearing is done.
MR. NIETO. Opo.
SEN. SOTTO. We will consider your request.
MR. NIETO. Pero disclaimer lang po, sir. Hindi ko po sinasabi na
complacent si Niña Terol doon sa issue. All I am saying is siya po iyong
commonality.
SEN. SOTTO. The name just rang a bell when you mentioned
her. Oo.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Madam Chairperson, with the permission of
Senator Sotto. I just want to clarify.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Madam Chair, just a quick clarification
because he wants to go into an executive session. Why is that?
THE CHAIRPERSON. I think he wants to go on executive
session before he divulges certain individuals that are connected with
certain websites or blogs.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Why does it have to be in executive
session, ma’am? May we be clarified?
39
THE CHAIRPERSON. Well, I think he is just being cautious and
we cannot blame the individual for being cautious. But I think we have
a lawyer here to explain.
SEN. AQUINO. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think he is being cautious
at all Mr. Chairman. After all, he has been stating individuals who had
worked here already, he mentioned my name already. So nasaan po
iyong caution doon? Baka magandang ikwento na lang ho niya lahat
ngayon. Magkalabasan na, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Hindi. Alam mo, there is a way— Okay.
SEN. SOTTO. Wait. Madam Chair, he merely said some of the
questions he would like to answer—give to my questions, he would
rather give it in executive session. He is not asking for it and I am not
moving for it. So let’s take it easy, relax lang kayo. Huwag kayong
masyadong hot.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Hindi. Alam mo, unang-una—
SEN. SOTTO. Wala naman humihingi ng executive session.
Hindi pa ako tapos.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Sotto, perhaps para lang hindi
masyadong kaibahan si Mr. Nieto, itong mga pangalan naman na ito ay
base sa iyong pagsasaliksik diumano. Hindi mo pa naman sinasabi na
sila talaga iyon, hindi ba? Kaya nga tayo may pagdinig para
40
maberipika. So hindi iyan libel, hindi iyan paninira. Kasi, dapat nga
magbukas tayo dito at sabihin natin. So—
SEN. SOTTO. Para matuto tayo kung papaanong nabubuksan
ito at nakikita natin kung sino ang mga nasa likod nitong mga blog na
ito sapagkat nagtatago nga. Eto maganda because nakakita natin
ngayon ito. Of course the progress report of the NBI is another thing
and I will not insist that we divulge it now. But itong mga
impormasyon na nakukuha natin, palagay ko malaki ang maitutulong
sa Committee. At tayo mismo at inyong mga staff would be able to
follow the style or the system that he is following so that we may be
able to find out more.
To continue with Mr. Nieto, do you have a duly recognized
organization?
MR. NIETO. Wala.
SEN. SOTTO. Like iyong National Union of Journalists, mayroon
ba iyong ano o KBP, iyong mga bloggers?
MR. NIETO. Wala po. Kasi po, sir, ano lang iyon Facebook
account ko lang iyon na nagblog ako tapos nag-viral na lang bigla. So
wala pong kaplano-plano iyan .
SEN. SOTTO. Okay. So again, for the record, para mas
malinaw dahil maraming impormasyon kang naibigay kanina.
41
How did you confirm that Mr. Dayao or Cocoy Dayao or
whatever is his first name is the editor-in-chief and chairman of
ProPinoy.Net.
MR. NIETO. Editor-in-Chief and Chairman of ProPinoy. Kasi po
marami pong mga news article na nagke-claim na ganoon. Tapos
bukod po doon iyong sarili po niyang link and account, iyon po iyong
isang social network po na pang-professionals na sinasabi na iyon po
iyong, ganon siya, editor-in-chief and co-founder ng ProPinoy.Net.
SEN. SOTTO. And he is operating also more than 20 other
websites?
MR. NIETO. The evidence suggests po na yes, he is operating
around that many websites.
SEN. SOTTO. All right. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I will continue later. Perhaps you can go to the
other resource persons or they would continue with Mr. Nieto. I will do
my second round later.
THE CHAIRPERSON. But Senator Sotto, of course, you called
for this hearing—also one of the ones that call for this hearing. We’ll
give you more time if you need.
The next would be Senator--Senator Migz Zubiri is requesting
that he delivers a statement. Perhaps you can ask Senator Pacquiao
because he is next.
42
SEN. ZUBIRI. Okay lang if that is already Senator Pacquiao. I’ll
just give an opening statement.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Sige. Sime, Madam Chair.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Thank you. It is not a prepared statement. It is
just from the heart. I would like to just say that I was not told about
this resolution being circulated by the Senators. I know Senator Kiko
Pangilinan approached my desk, I clearly remember that but I was
about to give a privilege speech about Atio Castillo on his death. And I
said, “Let’s talk after” and he never came back. We saw each other in
the lounge, he never mentioned about the resolution. So I’d like to put
it on record that if it was in front of me, as I have mentioned in my
statement in the Senate, I would have signed it. Because all my official
positions in the Senate, whether inside the Senate halls or even in the
lounge, is we are against EJKs. As a matter of fact, I led another
resolution signed by all members of the majority condemning all forms
of EJKs. Not just with minors, not just with children, Your Honor,
Madam Chair. I would like to put that on record and it is quite foul that
whoever this fellow is in “Silent No More” would accuse the seven of us
because after that I spoke to Senator Pacquiao and Senator Villar and
they were so upset that they were not approached and we were not
told. Usually our staff, usually our COS—chiefs of staff—would discuss
it among themselves if there is an important minority-majority, all-
43
member resolution. This time, we were not told. So, I don’t want to
impute any malice on the members of the Senate who pushed of that.
But what intrigues me, Madam Chairman, is how it was published, how
it was treated after to the media, to the online sites. And, therefore, I
would like to condemn that in strongest terms and hopefully after the
end of this meeting, we can come up with a conclusion on who’s at
fault and what we could do about it.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Madam Chairperson.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Just very quickly because—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Pacquiao, would you allow
Senator Pangilinan a few minutes?
SEN. PACQUIAO. Sige, Madam Chair.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Very, very briefly, Madam Chairperson.
Senator Zubiri himself said that I approached him. So if I had
wanted to hide it from him or not have him signed it, why would I have
approached him. I think we should be able to distinguish between the
impact that it had because of social media and what we were doing
prior to it … /jadc
44
SEN. PANGILINAN. … prior to it coming out of social media. I
approached him, yes, I affirm, I will confirm that he said, “I am just
going to deliver a privilege speech and, therefore, we can talk about it
later” and, therefore, I said, “Yes, okay.” But if my intention was to
hide it from him, why would I have approached him in the first place?
I did not go back to him, that is correct and because I had to leave—
but my instructions to my staff was that those who have not signed,
let us go to their offices and seek their support if they are interested to
or if they wish to associate themselves from the resolution. I just
wanted that clarified, Madam Chairperson.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Pacquiao, your questions.
Wala dito iyong tao na gusto kong tanungin sa harapan. But
before that, Madam Chair, I move that we’re going to invite Cocoy
Dayao in the next hearing.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Manny, we did invite him but
there’s no response from him. It’s so ironic that his blog is Silent No
More when he is so silent now.
[Laughter]
We will probably issue a subpoena if we have another hearing.
45
Sa PCOO, napakalaki ng role ng PCOO para sa labanan ng fake
news. Gusto kong malaman kung ano’ng aksyon ang gagawin ninyo
rito dito sa mga fake news na lumalabas. Paano ninyo ipahihinto ito at
paano natin mahuli iyong mga gumagawa nito?
MR. EGCO. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, Your
Honors.
If I may, I’d like to read the brief statement that I prepared for
this Committee hearing. But first, I’d like to relay the apologies of our
secretary, Martin Andanar, for not being able to attend because of a
prior engagement.
SEN. PANGILINAN. All right.
MR. EGCO. Madam Chair, Your Honors, concerns about fake
news, false news or false information are not something new. In fact,
Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code of 1930 and Presidential Decree
No. 90 of 1973 both penalize false information and the publication or,
otherwise, propagation or proliferation of which.
With the advent of technology, bare information spreads like
wildfire in a matter of seconds. The problem on fake news has reached
alarming proportions and on a global scale. It is not something that is
endemic or unique to us in the Philippines. The phenomenon has
grown directly proportionate to advancements in information
technology. Even the most powerful and holiest people on earth are
46
not spared from this new age scourge. Now, the question is, how do
we deal with it? Should we just shrug the problem off like ordinary
“tsismis” or rumors that we should allow to pass for being nothing of
value? To ignore them when our names are maligned to the point of
dishonor and when our reputation is besmirched beyond repair? Or
should we fight it by criminalizing such acts as spreading fake news?
If we so decide to deal with the problem head on, the next question
that comes to mind is in what way? To arrive at the most intelligent
answers to these questions, the first and the most important thing to
do is to find a legal definition for fake news.
Some may even argue that what could appear as fake news to
some may not be fake news to others. Ergo, the need to clearly define
fake news, determine its parameters before we could even talk of
penalizing those who would create and/or spread them. There should
be clearly established and identifiable elements in spotting fake news.
For starters, we can argue that fake news is “the unscrupulous and
malicious propagation of information that aims to deliberately mislead
or misinform a targeted audience or tend to cause panic, division,
chaos, violence and hate among the general public when the source or
author commits reckless disregard of the truth or even factual details
about a particular issue of interest.” But defining fake news, spotting
them or penalizing those acts are easier said than done considering our
47
democratic environment. Thus, the need for a carefully studied, well-
thought of and generally accepted measure to discourage people from
committing what would eventually be considered an unlawful act. For
instance, if we are to construe false or erroneous or even mistaken
news stories—ito po iyong mga kuryente—as unlawfully fake. To
include biased opinions or substandard professional views, then we are
facing an even greater problem.
We must remember that in Article III, Section 4 of the
Constitution, our tendencies to exaggerate or project one-sided opinion
or even lie at times, our protected rights in the form of free speech and
expression and the charter forbids, passage of any law that will abridge
these freedoms.
Another point, in fact, is the difficulty in identifying the
publishers of websites or webpages that are involved in propagating
fake news. In fact, anybody who is computer literate in all age groups
may be capable of altering data and information or even use that are
legitimately published by recognized news organizations. Who will
identify them or go after them? And once they are identified, isn’t it
very easy to shut down the site and create a new one instead?
The sadder part is that we cannot stop people from sharing fake
news even after they had been determined to be fake. Therefore,
public education is a must.
48
We may, for the sake of argument, agree to impose a ban on
fake news. But then again, we have to find a highly credible and
competent body to do the job. Should we in the executive do it?
Considering the ramifications of such, we would readily reject the
thought for we are not in the business of regulating the flow of ideas
unless we are explicitly allowed to do so under the circumstances.
That, we strongly doubt. So should there be a need to put up such a
body, it should be well- represented by all stakeholders, probably,
commission on freedom of sorts. Because problem on fake news has
an enormous impact on all of us, the solution requires a multisectoral
and multidisciplinary approach with public education on eradication of
fake news as the centerpiece of the engagement. We may adopt ideas
such as engaging various social media platform operators and the like.
But social media literacy could provide a key to solving it. We have to
adopt and embark on such a program if only to educate the public on
the more productive uses of social media and the consequences of
using these platforms in carrying out a sinister plan.
Your Honors, along with this statement, we are submitting our
position paper on these pending measures.
Thank you very much.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Thank you.
49
Tama ka doon. Hindi natin mai-stop iyong mga tao na
maglaganap ng mga fake news pero puwede nating ipasarado iyong
website nila. But mayroon na bang na-prosecute sa mga bloggers o
website na nag-o-operate—naglalabas ng mga fake news? Mayroon na
ba tayong mga na-prosecute, Your Honor?
SEN. DRILON. Can I reply to that? Can I reply to that, Madam
Chair?
SEN. SOTTO. Yes, Senator Drilon.
SEN. DRILON. Yes. I had one blogger convicted of libel because
of malicious, false allegation which besmirched my honor. I had him
convicted of libel. He is on appeal.
SEN. SOTTO. All right.
SEN. DRILON. So there is a remedy available for this fake
news because the libel laws are there. If we feel that this is a fake
news and it maligns us, avail of the libel—the law. Because any form of
constraint on free speech can be a slippery slope. That is what we
should remember. Hindi po bakit hindi natin hulihin ito. Hindi po
pupuwede. This is a democratic system. This is a life that we have to
live with. And so if, you know—
SEN. SOTTO. Perhaps, what Senator Pacquiao means is that
hulihin pagkatapos … /cda
50
SEN. SOTTO. ... hulihin pagkatapos faylan (file) ng kaso at na-
convict.
SEN. DRILON. Okay. I just wanted to reply that I have
availed—
SEN. SOTTO. Perhaps, the answer can be given also by NBI.
In answer to Senator Pacquiao’s question, how many cybercrime
cases have you had and how many have been filed?
MR. EDUARTE. Yes, good morning, Your Honors.
For 2016, we filed, in all, 48 cases but there is no distinction as
to whether this is cyber libel. This is for the general violation of
cybercrime.
SEN. SOTTO. All types of cybercrimes.
MR. EDUARTE. Yes, Your Honor.
For January to September 30 of this year, we already filed 99
cases, Your Honor.
SEN. SOTTO. Ninety-nine cases. Okay. But how many
complaints have you had? In 2016, how many complaints of
cybercrimes?
MR. EDUARTE. For 2016, we received, Your Honor, 2,279. We
terminated 160 cases.
51
SEN. SOTTO. Libo. Okay. Two thousand two hundred
seventy-nine. And then in 2017?
MR. EDUARTE. For 2017, we received 1,515 cases, Your
Honor.
SEN. SOTTO. All right. Thank you.
Senator Pacquiao. Yes.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A follow-up question ...
MR. EGCO. Thank you, Your Honor.
I think the problem is this. “Fake news” as a term is being
used—generic eh. So iyon po iyong problema natin ngayon. We can
even accuse anyone of us here, each other, of committing fake news
because we have no clear or legal definition of fake news so far. So
that’s why the argument on EJK is taking very long time because
sinasabi nila wala namang EJK because—Parang ganito po iyon, naging
media jargon siya, sinabi lahat pagka nasaktan, nagalit, fake news
iyan. I may be even accused of spreading fake news myself or anyone
of us here in the absence of that legal definition of what fake news is.
And once we have identified what fake news is by determining its
elements like malice siguro, publication, ano ba pa iyan?—iyong
reckless disregard of the truth. Ang problema po kasi dito, pag
52
sinadya kasi iyong news, kinuha ko iyong news na totoo, alam kong
totoo, tapos para sirain si Senator Pacquaio, iniba-iba ko iyong laman
niya at saka ko ipinublish (publish). So that will classify as fake news.
But iyong simpleng tsismis po, I think mga deniable ano eh, especially
stories that the following day nag-i-issue ng erratum ang ating mga
dyaryo, for instance. So ang hirap pong i-determine. So we really
have to first define the legal parameters of what fake news is, Your
Honor.
Thank you.
MS. BANAAG. Mr. Chair.
SEN. SOTTO. Senator Pacquiao has the floor.
SEN. HONTIVEROS. Yes, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to make a quick follow-up to the point raised by
the Usec.
With the permission of Senator Manny, of course, Mr. Chair.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Just one minute.
SEN. SOTTO. The Chair recognizes Senator Hontiveros.
SEN. HONTIVEROS. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I will take less than one minute. Hindi pa ako magtatanong
ng mga tanong ko sa ngayon. Gusto ko lang pong klaruhin na actually
may ideya na ang gobyerno kung ano ang fake news, hindi pa man ito
53
nasa batas. Kasi ang gobyerno natin ang nag-host ng roundtable
discussion on countering fake news and communicating the right
information kung saan si Sec Andanar mismo ay umupo bilang chair ng
ASEAN Ministers Responsible for Information. So hindi pupuwedeng
sabihin, Mr. Chair, na wala pa tayong ideya. Alam na po ng gobyerno
kung ano ang fake news in essence.
Salamat, Mr. Chair.
At salamat, Senator Manny.
SEN. SOTTO. Go ahead, Senator Pacquiao.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Can you explain it ...
Please explain.
MS. BANAAG. Mr. Chairman, Madam Senator, I think what the
undersecretary was saying here is that for the body or for the Senate
to define what fake news really is in order for us to move on with other
matters. And we acknowledge, ma’am, that, yes, the secretary,
Secretary Andanar, chaired the AMRI last September 9 for the ASEAN
Ministers Responsible for Information. And we were there during that
forum and it was just a forum but it was not a forum to define fake
news for it to become a law that would be penalized by our
government.
54
SEN. SOTTO. All right. Senator Pacquiao.
By the way, we would like to acknowledge the presence of Sen.
Joel Villanueva and Senator Hontiveros.
MR. EGCO. Mr. Chairman, if I may add something to—
SEN. PACQUIAO. Okay. Go ahead, go ahead.
MR. EGCO. For Senator Hontiveros, yes, we were there during
the roundtable discussion. And that discussion, for your information,
Your Honor, was a gathering of media personalities from ASEAN and
Japan. So they gathered there to tell their own stories about Facebook
and to tell the body to formulate a regional approach in combating fake
news. So one of the most important decision where they arrived at,
iyon pong binanggit ko kanina, iyong media literacy. So it was
suggested there by the representatives that we should go down to the
grassroots level all around the country. Yes. And it’s all part of our
position paper, ma’am.
Thank you.
Tama naman iyong sabi ni Risa Hontiveros na malalaman din
natin kung ano iyong fake news like recently iyong wife ko lumabas na
55
patay na daw. Tapos, ang daming nagtawagan sa cellphone ko,
“Anong nangyari, anong nangyari?” Dito sa Pilipinas, sa Amerika,
maraming—puno ng tawag dahil lumabas sa news na iyong asawa ko
raw ay namatay na. So ang ano natin doon is gusto kong malaman
kung may data na ba tayo na how many website bloggers o pages
spreading these fake news.
MS. BANAAG. Yes, Senator Pacquiao.
Sir, we don’t have the data on that because perhaps it’s not
within our mandate or jurisdiction to monitor websites that are bogus
or legal.
And, sir, may I take this opportunity, ma’am, chair, senators and
members of this Committee, may I take this opportunity to give three
points on the stand of PCOO on the fake news. First is to have a
definition of what fake news is. And second, we formally suggest that
a massive media and information literacy campaign would be
implemented throughout the country with whatever ways this body
would like it to be implemented. But we are doing it on our end. On
the side of the Presidential Communications Office, we are reaching out
to local government units, local communicators, private and public, in
order to campaign on self-regulation on how to self-regulate
themselves insofar as the hyper digital and social media is nowadays.
56
And, of course, we’d like also to take note on the position of
Senator Pangilinan on possible amendment on the Cybercrime Act.
Perhaps, to look into the Cybercrime Act which may not limit the
persons who first published the fake story but it would extend to those
who would maliciously share the fake news.
That’s all, Your Honor.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Manny, perhaps, you can also
ask the NBI Cybercrime Group. They are the ones that are supposed
to monitor also these things. PCOO is more on public information and
dissemination of hopefully accurate information.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Yes. To NBI, kung mino-monitor ba nila
itong mga fake news, anong aksyon ang ginawa ninyo para dito sa
mga fake news, mga bloggers na website na palaging naglalabas ng
mga hindi totoong balita. Anong aksyon niyo rito na paano niyo
minomonitor ang mga fake news na ito?
Actually, when it comes to social media platforms spreading fake
news, wala hong government agency ... /cmn
57
MR. EDUARTE. … government agency that monitors the same
but we are acting on complaints referred to our office. Meaning, we
are only acting on cases referred to us. But for me or for our
office, the fake news, if it will result to libel and other cases, it
will be actionable by the office, otherwise, we cannot act on it.
Thank you.
Madam Chair, ang mga katanungan ko doon sa—iyong
nagpataas ng buhok ko sa likod, nagpaputi ng buhok ko, si Cocoy
Dayao—
MS. USON. Madam Chair, may I have the floor, please?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Asec Mocha.
MS. USON. Yes. Ma’am, first of all, I would like to thank your
office for inviting me today this Senate hearing as a resource person
dahil po biktima rin po ako ng fake news. Hindi pa po ako na-appoint
bilang opisyal ng gobyerno, naglabas na po itong ABS-CBN na ako
daw ay na-appoint bilang Customs consultant. At dahil po doon ako ay
na-bash online. At ito rin pong anonymous Facebook page na Madam
Claudia na diumano ay hawak din nitong Cocoy Dayao ay nagpalabas
po ng pekeng tseke na ibinayad daw po sa akin ni BBM na hindi naman
po totoo dahil ang nakalagay pong pangalan doon ay Margo Uson at
hindi ko po kumpletong pangalan iyon.
58
At isa pa po, kadalasan pong nagpapakalat din ng fake news ay
ating ilang mainstream media. Katulad po diyan ng GMA na rin. Noong
sinamahan ko si Pangulong Duterte doon, sinabi po ng GMA na ako
daw ay nag-selfie sa loob ng Grand Mosque sa Marawi na naka-boots.
Hindi naman po ako nag-selfie doon. At dahil po doon, na-bash po ako
ng ating mga kababayan at humingi naman po ako ng paumanhin sa
ating mga kapatid na Muslim. Ngunit iyon po ang mga halimbawa ng
mga fake news. Kaya po nandito po ako para suportahan po itong
hearing na ito dahil ako po ay biktima ng fake news.
Thank you, Your Honor.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Asec Mocha, salamat sa iyong
manifestation. At least alam mo ang nararamdaman ng isang
nabibiktima, hindi ba? So, napapahalagahan natin dito ang
importansiya nito. At alam ko naba-bash dito ang mainstream news.
Ang mainstream news ay mayroon ding function, kayo siguro iyong—
kung fourth estate sila, kayo iyong fifth na nagbabantay sa kanila.
Checks and balances, walang perpekto dito. May nag-text din sa akin
na sinabi ko daw kanina na “Fake news is in the eye of the beholder.”
That is not exactly what I meant. Fake news is fake news. What I’m
trying to say is this. It’s in the eye of the beholder because sometimes
we choose to believe certain things without vetting it. That’s why we
look at it with colored lenses. Ang nangyayari dito, tinitingnan natin,
59
kung pula ang ating pananaw o dilaw ang ating pananaw, hindi natin
iniisip na kung sasabihin natin, “Saan galing ang news na iyan?”
Imbes na, “Tama ba ang news na iyan?”
So, it doesn’t matter if, let’s say, a yellow— well, I won’t call it—
an LP supporter will post something if it is factual. Let’s learn from it.
Or if somebody that is a supporter of the President and the
administration for as long as it is factual. The problem is if we see
through colored lenses and we leave it at that. So, that is a
correction. I did not say that it is right because it is something that
we believe in. We need to vet it.
And for the mainstream media, it is also your chance now to
answer what our bloggers are saying. Hindi natin minamaliit ang
trabaho ninyo kaya lang iyong focus kasi ngayon ay dito nga sa fake
news natin ngayon na nakikita sa Internet.
So, go ahead, ma’am. Do you have any more to add?
MS. USON. Yes, Madam Chair. And also po, maganda na na-
expose po ni RJ a.k.a. “Thinking Pinoy” iyon diumanong tao sa likod
nitong napakaraming anonymous na anti-Duterte FB pages na
nagpapakalat ng fake news na nabiktima po ang seven senators na
sinabihang “seven deadly sens”, na wala naman pong katotohanan na
sila ay inalok na pumirma. Kaya po nandito ako para suportahan
iyan, alamin po iyong mga nagpapakalat talaga ng fake news at dapat
60
po ay magkaroon ng accountability. May mukha po dapat itong mga
bloggers na ito sa Facebook po.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Tama. Doon sa sinabi mo, hindi lahat
sumasang-ayon sa sinasabi mo. Ako minsan, hindi rin sumasang-ayon
sa sinasabi mo, pero at least nandiyan ang mukha mo, nandiyan ang
pangalan mo. Ganoon din sa ibang mga kasama natin dito, si Franco,
si Mr. Nieto, nandito rin si Mr. Quezon, si Abbey, nandito rin si Mr.
Lacierda, nilalabas ninyo ang mukha ninyo. Hindi katulad nitong isang
hinahabol natin na ang lakas-lakas ng loob magsalita, hindi naman
nagpapakita dito. So, we need accountability because the mainstream
media have to answer to their bosses. They have an internal
ombudsman group. They can get fired from their jobs if they don’t
do their research properly whereas the bloggers, of course, this is the
new media now. You are accountable to yourselves.
Of course, Asec Mocha, you are now part of the government, so
the responsibility on your shoulders is even more.
MS. USON. Yes, Madam Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So, because like I notice, Atty. Angeles
here is a digital influencer of the PCOO. What exactly does a digital
influencer mean? Does it mean that you will influence based on what
the administration wants or based on what the truth is?
61
MS. ANGELES. Good morning, Senator Poe. Good morning,
Senators.
The term “digital influencer”—you might need a short history.
The term “digital influencer” actually comes from the social media
phenomenon. During the last elections, several groups of what they
call social media influencers were contracted to assist in the last
elections. These groups, they hire several people with several social
media accounts. The most glaring example of this would be Twitter.
So, on Twitter, you have several people with accounts that have
followers sometimes in the hundreds of thousands. So, if they all
Twitter at the same time, use a particular hashtag, you can cause a
trend, and that trend will show up at the side panel of your Twitter
page and you will see that so many people have been responding or
have been tweeting about a particular event, a particular person or a
particular subject matter. During elections, this becomes vital. These
social media influencers are hired by some candidates or people
handling candidates and they cause a trend and these trends are
considered influential, possibly in changing the minds of certain people
particularly during election time. So, that will be more difficult on
Facebook but there are still their counterpart groups.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So, ma’am, my question is, what is your
job description now in PCOO?
62
MS. ANGELES. Actually, what we do is we assist Asec Mocha
among other things in dealing with her social media account and in—
THE CHAIRPERSON. What is the goal? What are you trying to
do? What are you trying to influence people with?
MS. ANGELES. The goal really is to make sure—well, it’s not
really—actually, my real title is social media strategist. I would like to
correct this one. However, the term “social media influencer”, well,
that isn’t me, that would be Asec Mocha.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So, if you are a strategist, what is the
goal of PCOO?
MS. ANGELES. The goal of PCOO is to give out government
information. So, things like the passing of certain laws which are
necessary for us to disseminate. For example, today, the release of
the postponement of barangay elections.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Those are important.
MS. ANGELES. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Now, of course, sometimes— and you
are very opinionated, all of you there that’s why you are in that office
and you also have a lot of following. But we should sometimes also
distinguish between political information and also an actual
government policy. So, these things, maybe, within your group— I
trust that Secretary Martin is also policing, sometimes iyong pabugso-
63
bugso ng damdamin, lumalabas doon sa ating ano and we need to
just check. Iyon lamang and you have your reputation also to protect
to remain objective. So, that’s very important.
MS. ANGELES. Yes. There is no question about that. But we
also have to acknowledge that the times are changing. For example,
government information needs to be put out there and the best people
sometimes to put them out there are social media people with lots of
followings. If Asec Mocha puts out a bit of information, you know that
about five million people are going to see that.
THE CHAIRPERSON. And that’s why there is more
responsibility resting on you.
MS. ANGELES. Yes, Madam Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Because you have five million people and
even more with the multiplier effect of these people na magkukwento
sa iba. So, talagang tinitingala ka ng mga taong ito. Maganda rin
sigurong pagkakataon na ipagbuklod-buklod … /admasicap
64
THE CHAIRPERSON. … ipagbuklod-buklod imbes na
paghiwalay-hiwalay. Pero naiintindihan ko kasi lahat kayo, first year
pa lang ninyo sa office, tinitira na kayo. So defensive mode. But
remember, our mandate is to be loyal to the common good, to the
people.
Okay. Senator Manny, I’m sorry to have interrupted your time.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Madam Chair, ipagpaliban ko na muna iyong
pagtatanong ko dahil iyong mga tanong ko doon kay Cocoy Dayao—
SEN. SOTTO. [Off-mike] Tanong o suntok?
SEN. PACQUIAO. Huh?
SEN. SOTTO. [Off-mike] Tanong o suntok?
SEN. PACQUIAO. Hindi. Kasama na iyon. Suntok at saka
tanong. [Laughter]
THE CHAIRPERSON. Hindi. Alam naman nating mapagtimpi si
Senator Pacquiao. So ang susunod na nasa listahan natin—
SEN. BINAY. Madam Chair, with the permission from Senator
Kiko Pangilinan, before we move, kasi nabanggit ni Ms. Angeles, I
don’t know, are you an Asec, JO, consultant? So what’s your item?
MS. ANGELES. I think it would be akin to consultant to
contracted service.
SEN. BINAY. You mentioned kasi parang digital influencers
were hired during the previous elections. So among the influencers
65
present here, sino sa inyo ang mga na-hire during the previous
elections?
MS. ANGELES. Ma’am, if I may. For the most part, when the
digital influencers were being hired, part of the agreement is
confidentiality so I’m not sure if anybody would be willing to admit to
this even—ako, I can say, I wasn’t. So I’m not sure if anybody else
who is here, though I understand that the contractual obligation would
be in part confidentiality.
SEN. BINAY. Can we hear from the other influencers?
MR. MABANTA. Hi, I’m Franco. Are you asking during the
election season? Hundred thousand percent no, I was not paid.
MR. NIETO. No, ma’am, I was not hired by anyone or accepted
money from anyone during the elections and I think a better person to
ask would be the one behind “Nasaan ang Pangulo?” because they
were indeed hired for black propaganda, according to my sources.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So who are the ones behind “Nasaan ang
Pangulo?”
MR. NIETO. Well, from the information that I got, it’s also in
my website, you may want to invite Ms. Joyce Ramirez because she
allegedly was the person who commandeered the entire campaign
with—it was basically—
THE CHAIRPERSON. This is during the Mamasapano incident?
66
MR. NIETO. Yes, yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. “Nasaan ang Pangulo?” was
trending because they were wondering what the President at that time
was doing.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So “Nasaan ang Pangulo?” who hired her?
MR. NIETO. Allegedly, it was then, well, Mar Roxas.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Wait a minute. Did we hear this right?
MR. NIETO. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Who hired the influencer to do the
trending on Ms. Joyce?
MR. NIETO. Joyce Ramirez is not exactly an influencer. She’s
more like a PR lady who handles, who has control over influencers,
who has contracts with influencers.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. So she claims that Senator—no,
I’m sorry, Secretary Roxas hired her to trend “Nasaan ang Pangulo?”
which is actually against President Aquino at that time?
MR. NIETO. Let me clarify it, ma’am.
The “Nasaan ang Pangulo?” campaign, based on the information
that I got, is a campaign that is intended to pin down all the blame
over the Mamasapano incident on President Aquino apparently so that
if Mar runs for the presidency, he can be shielded from the bad PR. So
67
basically back then, because the Mamasapano involves a DILG and Mar
was under DILG, it will be PNoy and Mar who will get the, you know,
the flak for it. So the “Nasaan ang Pangulo?” apparently was intended
to focus all the bad PR on PNoy and insulate Mar.
THE CHAIRPERSON. This is a very controversial and strong
allegation against the former Secretary. I hope that there’s actual
proof to this, that her services were contracted for this, and are there
witnesses—
MR. LACIERDA. Madam Chair.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Who is this?
Secretary Lacierda.
MR. LACIERDA. It’s a very offensive statement made by Mr.
Nieto here. An allegation that has no basis. We were on the day that
the caskets were flown into Fort Villamor. We were all there. Mr.
Nieto spoke of a very irresponsible statement and its very malicious,
all on the basis of allegation. You cannot speak in this floor, before
honorable senators, an allegation which has no basis. That particular
statement is malicious and I’d like to correct him of that vigorously
because there’s no such thing. If you recall during the campaign,
Mamasapano was an issue against Mar Roxas. And if he thinks that
“Nasaan ang Pangulo?” was used as a basis to distance Mar Roxas
68
from the President, was not true. The fact is we were all there.
President Aquino chose not to be on that—in Fort Villamor on that day
because he wanted the family members to spend time with the—
amongst themselves.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Secretary Lacierda, actually when we
looked at the statement alone or the act “Nasaan ang Pangulo?” which
is a Twitter hashtag, that’s not fake news. That’s a question. It just
so happens it trended and, of course, it’s malicious if somebody
provoked it and promoted it, financially also supported it.
So would you have proof?
MR. NIETO. Yes, ma’am. Actually, I wrote about this in—one
second, ma’am. I would also like to make it clear that this is—we are
a bit digressing, but the point in this entire topic is that if there is
someone to ask, you might wanna ask her. So I wrote this in February
2017 and this Ms. Joyce Ramirez gave away a Microsoft Word
document to other political camps while she was pitching her services
and it includes the “Nasaan ang Pangulo?” project. And the Microsoft
Word document that she was giving out has her name on the metadata
field for author. Yeah, that’s the end—
SEN. SOTTO. Then, therefore, Madam Chair, the person behind
the “Nasaan ang Pangulo?” is Ms. Joyce Ramirez?
MR. NIETO. Well, the evidence suggests so.
69
SEN. SOTTO. The evidence proves that. So who is she?
MR. NIETO. Well, I don’t know.
MR. LACIERDA. Madam Chair, he is accusing based on—on
basis of six degrees of separation. That is not evidence. As a lawyer, I
can speak. Atty. Florin Hilbay here is a lawyer. Those are not
considered as evidence.
THE CHAIRPERSON. You know, I agree, Secretary Lacierda.
At this point, this is still hearsay. But Mr. Nieto saying that
perhaps Joyce can come here and testify, what he is—actually he is
leading it towards that because he said that the document has Joyce’
imprint on it.
MR. NIETO. And the second point here is I think the most
important person to ask here is Mr. Cocoy Dayao, but obviously he
didn’t wanna go here today. The second one is Ms. Joyce Ramirez and
the third one would be Mr. Pete Silva.
Mr. Pete Silva, in January 2017, allegedly circulated a list of
instructions that is intended to shield Vice President Leny Robredo from
flak arising from her US trip in the middle of Typhoon Nina. So this
basically is the center of the LenyLeaks issue that went viral in January
2017. It’s just an email and, you know, it could have been hearsay
but it was Commission on Filipinos Overseas Chief Imelda Nicolas, the
sister of Loida Nicolas-Lewis who shared it. And Mr. Pete Silva
70
basically appears to be someone who is directly connected to the Office
of the Vice President and who issues specific instructions on how Leni
supporters will react because the email that he circulated shows that
“from the Office of the Vice President.” Something like this, “We’re
gonna have a problem. When Leni comes back home, she’s gonna be
attacked so this is what we’re gonna do. Attack Bongbong Marcos and
say Zandro is stupid, that he did not graduate from Oxford.” You
know, stuff like that, a very black propaganda.
So the point here is we might want to—because when the news—
sorry, I’m a bit digressing. But when the news organizations reported
about it—and I think the intention really ignored that Pete Silva angle.
So if we want to have a better idea on how the propaganda machine
works, you might wanna invite him too.
So these three people. First is Cocoy Dayao, second is Mr. Pete
Silva of the LeniLeaks controversy because Cocoy might know Pete.
And then No. 3 is Ms. Joyce Ramirez. But Ms. Joyce Ramirez is just an
optional. So Pete and Cocoy are more important than Joyce.
SEN. SOTTO. Madam Chair, may we ask Mr. Nieto to submit to
your Committee documents that he has or that he has acquired or in
his possession to prove these allegations … /meln
71
SEN. SOTTO. … to prove these allegations or the reason, not
prove but why he is making these allegations? These documents
about coming from “Nasaan ang Pangulo” and all that stuff. You
would have it in your computers or your hard drive or wherever, or you
have downloaded it, please submit all of it to the Committee.
MR. NIETO. Okay, sir.
SEN. SOTTO. Kasi ngayon ang maganda, Madam Chair, is
siguro alam na ng publiko ngayon na makakapagtago ka sa umpisa.
Pero there is a way pala of tracing you. Mate-trace ka.
MR. NIETO. Opo.
SEN. SOTTO. Kahit na mag-bump sila, dahil itong kay Cocoy
Dayao may mga bump, ano?
MR. NIETO. Opo. Medyo careless po sila. Sorry po, Mr. Senator.
SEN. SOTTO. Yes, go ahead.
MR. NIETO. Medyo careless po. Kasi po si Mr. Cocoy Dayao
claims to be web security consultant of the PCOO, Aquino-era PCOO.
Tapos kaya lang po kasi, no matter how careful you are, kung nag-
iiwan ko na nga mga breadcrumbs, and for people like me who enjoy
looking for breadcrumbs, madadale ka. So ganoon po ang nangyari
kay Mr. Cocoy at saka kay Mr. Pete Silva. So ano po, hihingi lang po
kami ng ilang araw, five days daw po, sabi po ni Atty. Ahmed(?), yung
counsel ko po, para i-prepare po yung mga documents.
72
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. I think marami nang na-raise
tungkol kay Cocoy Dayao. Obviously he is central to this hearing, but
perhaps we can also move on to other questions that would—
SEN. BINAY. Madam Chair, hindi pa ho sumasagot yung other
influencers if they got paid during the previous elections.
MS. PINEDA. Senator, no, I was not paid by anyone.
SEN. BINAY. Mayroon pa ba? No.
Siguro before we move to another point, alam niyo, right we are
in the middle of discussing TRAIN. Government is trying to raise funds
and apparently parang there is an industry that is not being captured
by the BIR which is itong industry ng influencers, parang you are
knowledgeable about it. More or less, magkano ba yung going rate if
you are paying an influencer or you are hiring somebody to pay
influencers?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Wala naman gusto kasing aamin na
nakikipag-usap at nagbabayad sa influencer. Yung ads na lang.
SEN. BINAY. But Madam Chair, hindi ba imbes na taasan natin
ang excise tax, bakit hindi na lang natin habulin itong mga influencers
na ito.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Kung mahahabol natin, talagang dapat,
hindi ba? At kung pagmamahal sa bayan, baka naman hindi lang 30
percent ang ibigay nila, 60 percent of their income.
73
SEN. BINAY. Because apparently this is already an
underground economy na hindi ko alam if it’s a billion industry already.
Siguro si Ms. Angeles can shed light to us.
MS. ANGELES. Ma’am, I am not sure about the extent or the
ano. What I know is that in order to do my job, I have to talk to some
of them, at least to understand what’s going on, for instance, when
you spot trend, etcetera, if the strength is manufactured or not.
Before I continue, may I clarify?
The position of Asec Mocha’s office not to handle her accounts
but simply to feed to her priority government information that she can
put out in her blog. Now as to the—actually, madam, I find that an
excellent suggestion to tax social media influencers because it is
unreported, largely unreported. It would be nice if we see people
registering their companies and in that way, we also spot which
trends—it is easier to spot which trends are manufactured; which
trends are assisted. But at the same time, I think they operate in the
same way that public relations people operate. Some of them are
connected with public relations firms and are hired directly by them.
So I guess if we are going to investigate this, that’s where we can
begin.
MS. BANAAG. Also, Madam Chair, if I may? If I may add,
Madam Chair?
74
In addition to Atty. Trixie’s assertions, may we add also that if
the Senate could look into social media platforms in order to be able to
regulate them and be able to look into how we could not only make
influencers answer to, because definitely they would perhaps not
because, of course, that would not be beneficial to them. And if
government could look into and regulate social media platforms
because it is not only with—it’s not only about figures, it’s about
algorithms, it’s about business community also.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Technology really plays an important
part. But I would like to give a chance also to the mainstream media
to answer. I think they are unfairly being criticized also for certain
things and we wouldn’t have reached this far also without the support
of mainstream media in giving out the reports. And as I said, they are
accountable to their immediate boss, to their network, to the ratings
even which can play a good and a bad part in their decision to present
the news.
Perhaps, Ms. Ellen Tordesillas, because you are mentioned earlier
by RJ and then later on let’s ask Mr. Roby Alampay also.
MS. TORDESILLAS. Yes, many of us was mentioned by Mr.
Nieto. Just brief kasi ayaw kong malayo yung discussion.
Because VERA Files, we are a group of journalists that undertake
in-depth reporting. And one of our projects is we do fact check. We
75
track false claims and misleading statement of public officials and
figures and debunks them with factual evidence. We are accredited—
we are the only accredited group here in the Philippines by the
International Fact Checking Network at Poynter. It’s a global alliance
of fact checkers committed to advance accountability journalism.
Now, yung ano kasi, yung minention (mention) niya yung isang
fact, pinak (fact)-check namin siya kasi sinabi niya noong June 16 na si
Jess Aznar is a photo journalist, kilala iyan ng mga journalist natin
dito. Posted a live video of military operations in Marawi City while he
was imbedded with government troops. It’s a very serious accusation
and because of what he said--in fact, the reactions to that—there was
a report that the military was intending to sanction Jess Aznar for that.
So mayroon kaming—I don’t want to go to the technicalities of
how we do it because marami kaming—we really have a process on
how to fact check. But sa fact checking namin, ang lumabas—ang
question kasi is was the video posted by Aznar on May 25 live? Ang
ano namin, “No, it was not live; it was recorded.” Kumuha pa kami
ng opinion, personal opinion—at sinabi pa sa Poynter, it is recorded so
it’s not live. Tapos ang lumabas na-- ito, hindi na endanger ni Jess
Aznar yung troops because umalis sila—noong pinose (pose) yung
kanyang video noong nakaalis na sila, kasama siya ng troops na umalis
so wala siyang na endanger na troops. So iyon ang point doon.
76
Ngayon, ang ano ko lang kasi, nakikinig ako sa mga discussion.
Ako kasi uncomfortable ako sa phrase na “fake news.” Kasi oxymoron
iyon. Kasi one of the attributes of news is accuracy, truthfulness. So
pag sinabi mong fake news, ano iyan? I mean, paanong maging fake
ang totoo, hindi ba? Parang hindi tama yung word na “fake news.”
Kasi ang fake news are actually lies masquerading as truth. Ang
tingin ko sa sitwasyon kasi dito sa bansa ay may sapat naman tayong
batas para madisiplina kung may pagkukulang man o may
pagkakamali ang media. Na-mention na ninyo kanina lahat.
Ang nakikita kong problema ay ang mga opisyal ng pamahalaan
na siyang nagsasabog ng kasinungalingan. A number of government
officials, politicians and other public figures tend to play fast and loose
with the facts, in the process misleading the public. These lies spread
easily owing to the big following and wide reach of these public figures,
including a social media.
Social media, yung Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are just
platforms. Na-mention na ito kanina—I think na-touch ito kanina ng
Chairman, they are vehicles for communications, whether they are
constructive or obstructive, it depends on us on how we use it. Now
nakikita ko sa bill … cts
77
MS. TORDESILLAS. … Now, ang nakikita ko sa bill ng SB 1492,
iyong kay Senator Villanueva, “An Act Penalizing the Malicious
Distribution of False News and Other Related Violations,” iyong
platform ang sinisisi at maparusahan. Parang hindi yata tama.
Accountability should be on the sources of falsehood. Ang mahirap ng
dito minsan sa mga reporters, kapag nagbigay ng sinungaling na
pahayag iyong isang opisyal, siyempre iko-quote namin iyan as
accurately as we can. Magagamit pa ngayon ang reporter sa pagkalat
ng kasinungalingan at ng fake news, hindi ba? Now, what is deplorable
in officials spreading falsehood is that they are doing this in taxpayers’
money. If there has to be a new legislation on fake news, the onus
should be on government officials who are the sources of falsehood
who use government resources to spread them. And this should cover
the personal blogs of officials because—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Ma’am, which? Like who, please cite.
MS. TORDESILLAS. I will cite to you the—Iyon na lang kay
President Duterte, iyong bank accounts ni Trillanes. Ayun, inamin niya
later on na fake pala iyong ginawa niya but it was reported, hindi ba?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Sino po “niya”?
MS. TORDESILLAS. Ang Presidente.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Pero ginamit ng--?
78
MS. TORDESILLAS. Siyempre, pag magsasabi kasi ng
sinungaling iyong Presidente, kasi kami sa Vera Files we track false
claims. Ang dami niyan, everyday. Every week at least ang makakaya
namin siguro mga three or four na mga false claims ng mga public
officials at saka, not necessarily—basta public officials and
personalities. So, pag sinabi kasi ng isang official iyan, pag ikaw
reporter ang ano mo talaga is you quote as accurately as you can,
hindi ba? Ang problema nga ay kung lies pala iyong binigay sa iyo ng
official, ‘di you quote the lie accurately and then you make a news
report out of it ay lie pala iyon, hindi ba? So, ‘di kasama ka. Ang
mangyayari ngayon it’s a challenge to reporters.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So, ma’am, when the President uttered
that and then later on it wasn’t verified properly, did they make a
correction in that site?
MS. TORDESILLAS. Kaya niya inamin na figment daw of his
imagination iyon, noong nabuko na siya, hindi ba? So isipin mo,
nagkalat ka ng kasinungalingan. Tapos, ayon ginamit mo pa iyong
reporter sa pagkalat mo. Iyan ang problema ng reporter. Kasi, we are
supposed to write to report truthfully, iyong accuracy. And isa kasing
element ng news is that it has to be accurate.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Pero, ma’am, you know what? You
already reported accurately what the President’s uttered at that time.
79
MS. TORDESILLAS. But your report was a lie.
THE CHAIRPERSON. But what you reported—but you didn’t
commit that lie. So later on you can do further research to substantiate
or to disprove.
MS. TORDESILLAS. Oo.
THE CHAIRPERSON. No, but I know what you mean, ma’am,
your predicament. And especially the PCOO will have to report live or
to report word for word what is uttered by the President because they
are under the Office of the President.
MS. TORDESILLAS. So iyon ang point ko.
THE CHAIRPERSON. But should they make the correction
also?
MS. TORDESILLAS. Iyon ang point ko is that ang problema ng
legislation should—the burden should be on the source of falsehood
because there is no—We should not be spreading lies in the first place.
SEN. SOTTO. Madam Chair, Ms. Tordesillas, Ellen, hindi naman
ikaw ang nag-lie. You have a source. You quote the source, hindi ba?
MS. TORDESILLAS. Kahit na. Ginamit ako.
SEN. SOTTO. So whether lie or hindi iyong sinabi, that’s a
different story. Ikaw, hindi ka nag-lie, hindi ba? All right.
MS. TORDESILLAS. No. Pero—
80
SEN. SOTTO. So many times our revered Senator Miriam
Defensor-Santiago has done that not only twice but thrice and when
you confront her with something else, she said, “I lied.”
THE CHAIRPERSON. No. But I understand—
SEN. SOTTO. Ganoon lang iyon. Hindi iyon ang problema. The
problem is—
THE CHAIRPERSON. I understand your frustration, ma’am.
You have to report these things as they come and a lot of people are
not necessarily forthright. Okay. But, of course, it doesn’t really—
SEN. VILLANUEVA. Madam Chair, my name was mentioned.
May I just make a –
THE CHAIRPERSON. Your name was mentioned?
SEN. VILLANUEVA. Yes. May I just—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes. Please go ahead, and then GMA-7, I
think your name was also mentioned. Wala bang ABS dito?
VOICE. Si Chie Almario.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. ABS and then TV-5. Go ahead.
SEN. VILLANUEVA. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My name was mentioned, and I just wanted to point out iyong
Senate Bill No. 1492, as mentioned a while ago, na kapag kinowt
(quote) nila ang isang public official, they become liable. Of course,
not. There is nowhere in the bill, Madam Chair, that states pagka mali
81
iyong kinowt (quote) nila, they are liable. Ang masama alam nilang
peke iyong news, ire-report nila nang irereport at pagkatapos
dadagdagan pa nila ito. Magko-cause pa ng panic, magko-cause pa ng
pagkakawatak-watak. Just to quickly mention part of the bill that we
wanted to espouse, Madam Chair. And I’d like to hear also kasi kanina
I was listening attentively to PCOO about their interest on defining
what fake news is. Iyong fake news pwede nating i-leave sa courts
kung ano ang gusto nilang i-define. But still if you want to define it,
let’s do it.
But in Senate Bill 1492, we’d like to come up with elements of
what fake news is. And right here, Madam Chair, we figured out four
elements. One is iyong operative word dito, “malicious intent.”
Malicious intent to offer, to publish, distribute, circulate. So iyong
pagpapakalat ng false news or information, tumutulong sa publication,
distribution, circulation.
Pangalawa--and all these elements must be present. Ito iyong
pinu-push po natin. Just for the information of the body, ito po ay
nailathala sa dyaryo, television, radyo maging sa online media.
Pangatlo, ang impormasyon po ay nagko-cause ng panic,
pagkakawatak-watak, kaguluhan, galit, nagpapakalat ng propaganda
na layong siraan ang reputasyon ng isang indibidwal o grupo,
organisasyon.
82
At pang-apat, iyong huling elemento, Madam Chair. Iyong may
alam siya--not necessarily full knowledge but mayroon siyang alam na
iyong kanyang ginagawa at pinapakalat na balita ay mali. Alam niyang
mali. Alam niyang hindi inalok para pirmahan noong pitong senador.
Alam niya iyon.
So, Madam Chair, and kanina, nabanggit na rin ng ating Minority
Leader iyong issue ng libel and I just want to point this out, Madam
Chair. While there are some perhaps overlaps on libel and fake news,
gusto nating ipakita, sa libel--habang sa libelo pinaparusahan iyong
pagpapakalat ng malisyosong statement na nag-aakusa sa isang
indibidwal na talagang nakakasira ng reputasyon o pagkatao nito, ang
fake news sa panukala pong ito na ating isinusulong dito, ang
pinaparusahan po ay ang malisyosong pagpapakalat, paggawa athe
paglathala ng maling balita. Mali, na maaaring magdulot ng kaguluhan,
pagkakawatak-watak at panic. Madam Chair, sa libelo po kahit na
totoo iyong isang impormasyon ninyo, kung mapatunayan na walang
mabuting motibo, kahit totoo pa ito, walang mabuting motibo para
ipakalat, maaari po kayong makasuhan. Kanina nga binanggit ng
Minority Leader natin, may na-convict na sa ganitong pagkakataon.
Dito sa fake news na sinusulong po natin sa panukalang ito, ang
katotohanan po ay itinuturing na absolute defense. So kung ito ay
katotohanan kahit na nakakasira pa ng reputasyon, etcetera, pwede
83
niyang maging depensa dito sa fake news. Hindi siya magpo-fall under
libel. I just want to put that on record, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you for the information.
SEN. HONTIVEROS. Madam Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Risa, very quick manifestation
because we have–Next, I think, is Senator Pangilinan.
SEN. HONTIVEROS. Yes, Madam Chair, very briefly. Salamat
po.
Just pursuant po sa tanong ng Chair kay Ms. Tordesillas kanina
later, in fact, I’ll be raising questions about fake news that has
reportedly emanated from the Philippine News Agency itself and also
from PCOO. Just to pursue the question that the Madam Chair was
asking earlier.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Thank you. And I am glad that you
have that information but I would like to give even just for two
minutes the members of the mainstream media here. Kasi tinira rin
kayo, GMA, ABS. Panahon pa ni FPJ noon, kami na mismo ang
nagsasabi na iyong ABS ay ganito or iyong GMA ay ganyan. So
pagkakataon na ninyo.
84
MR. TORDECILLA. Yes, ma’am. Jay Mark Tordecilla po from
GMA News online.
Ia-address ko lang po iyong sinabi ni Asec Mocha Uson kanina
tungkol sa pagpapalaganap raw ng fake news ng GMA. Actually ni-
report po namin noong September 12, nauna po sa online na criniticize
(criticize) po siya ni Zia Alonto Adiong…/jadc
85
MR. TORDECILLA. … Zia Alonto Adiong ng Lanao del Sur, 1st
District assemblyman ng ARMM, iyong kritisismo ng pagse-selfie niya
umano, nanggaling doon sa assemblyman. So we were reporting the
criticism of her supposed selfie. After—
THE CHAIRPERSON. So it’s not her actual selfie but the
criticism of somebody?
MR. TORDECILLA. Yes, ma’am.
SEN. SOTTO. Did you get her side?
MR. TORDECILLA. We tried to get her side.
MS. USON. Excuse me, sorry. Hindi niyo po kinuha iyong side
ko at iyong ipinakita ninyo sa telebisyon, maling-mali po iyon. Mali po
iyong ipinakita ninyong video habang sinasabi ninyong nagse-selfie ako
at hindi hindi ninyo kinowt (quote) na “diumano.”
THE CHAIRPERSON. Did you verify it if it’s an accurate
assertion, a criticism?
MR. TORDECILLA. Yes. We had the quote from the
assemblyman and then there are photos also of—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Who provided you with the photos?
MR. TORDECILLA. The photos were from her blog.
THE CHAIRPERSON. From where?
MR. TORDECILLA. From her blog.
MS. USON. Madam Chair, hindi po photos iyon, video iyon.
MR. TORDECILLA. Okay.
86
MS. USON. Hindi ko po alam kung ano iyong sinasabi ninyong
sources diyan. Hindi po kayo accurate.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So the video was of her in the mosque?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Taking a video of herself?
MR. TORDECILLA. Ma’am, again, the story was not about her
video but about the comment on her video by the assemblyman.
MS. USON. Pero, Madam Chair, hindi po iyon ang ibinalita nila.
They assumed na I was taking a selfie at ipinakita niyo pa na nagse-
selfie ako na parang ipinalalabas na sa mosque. Maganda po ipapakita
natin iyong video at mapapahiya po kayo sa sinasabi ninyo.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So ang sinasabi mo, Asec Mocha, nandoon
ka, you were documenting what the situation in the mosque?
MS. USON. I was documenting the President po. Kasi tuwing
pumupunta po siya ng Marawi, vini-video ko po at ang sinasabi nila,
picture ko daw na nagse-selfie. Hindi po ako nag-selfie doon. Hindi po
ako bastos na gagawin iyon doon.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So papaano mo vini-video? With your
phone, were you like this? Ito? Ganyan?
MS. USON. No, Senator Bam, you weren’t there. Ako po ay—
SEN. AQUINO. No. I saw it, hindi ba? Nakataas iyong kamay
mo, nandoon iyong mukha mo.
MS. USON. Hindi po, hindi po. May kumukuha po ng video.
87
THE CHAIRPERSON. It doesn’t matter because as a reporter, if
you’re documenting it, the purpose of your documentation is to show
what’s happening. That’s your job.
MS. USON. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. I’m not saying it’s—It can be interpreted
kasi that way. Others can be malicious by saying you were taking a
selfie when, in fact, you were documenting the visit of the President.
MS. USON. Yes po and I was not holding the video camera.
Mayroon pong kumukuha sa akin. Humingi po ako ng favor, Senator.
SEN. AQUINO. Mr. Chairman, just on that point lang.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Go ahead.
SEN. AQUINO. Hinihingi mo sa GMA News Online na hingin
iyong side mo. Sa dinami-daming mga blog mo tungkol sa amin dito,
may isang beses ba na humingi ka ng side namin?
SEN. SOTTO. Hindi, ako ang nagsabi noon. Ako nagtanong sa
GMA News Online …
SEN. AQUINO. Kaya nga. So Asec Mocha—
SEN. SOTTO. Because ang mga journalists, pag mayroong isang
balita na makakasama sa isang tao, dapat kukunin mo iyong kabilang
side.
SEN. AQUINO. That’s right.
SEN. SOTTO. Pag hindi mo kinuha iyong kabilang side, ang
totoo niyan, hindi ka dapat ano.
88
SEN. AQUINO. That’s right. I agree.
SEN. SOTTO. Itong sinasabi ninyo, iba naman iyan, blog iyan.
SEN. AQUINO. No, no, I agree.
Asec Mocha, sabi mo kay Mr. Tordecilla, “Hiningi mo ba iyong
side ko?” And sabi niya, you tried. At sabi mo, hindi.
MS. USON. Senator, hindi ko po siya tinanong kung hiningi niya
iyong side ko. Ang sinabi po—Si Senator Sotto po ang nagtanong.
And also po, ang pinag—
SEN. AQUINO. So sa tingin mo ba, dapat hiningi niya iyong
side mo?
MS. USON. Natural po, journalists sila; trabaho po nila iyon--
kunin iyong both sides.
SEN. AQUINO. In your case, never ka humingi ng side ng lahat
ng mga nilagyan mong blog dito. In fact, just the other day, may blog
ka sa minority. May isang beses ka bang humingi ng side namin?
MS. USON. Senator, with all due respect, hindi po ako journalist.
SEN. AQUINO. Yes or no? May isang beses ba na humingi ka ng
side namin?
MS. USON. Blogger po ako, hindi po ako journalist.
SEN. AQUINO. Madam Chairman, can you instruct the resource
person to answer yes or no, please?
So may isang beses ba na hiningi mo iyong side namin sa mga
times na binatikos mo kami, may inilabas kang mga pekeng balita?
89
MS. USON. Ano po iyong pekeng balita na iyon, Senator Bam
Aquino?
SEN. AQUINO. Maglalabas ho kami mamaya.
MS. USON. Okay.
SEN. AQUINO. But can I ask lang, Asec Mocha, humingi ka ba
ng side namin, ni isang beses, all those times na you blogged about
us? Yes or no, ma’am?
MS. USON. Senator Bam Aquino, ang ginagawa ko po ay
blogging at hindi po ako journalist.
SEN. AQUINO. Yes, I know. Ang tanong ko is yes or no.
THE CHAIRPERSON. I think maybe the answer is no. But then
your reason is because—
SEN. AQUINO. Wait. I’m sorry, Chairman. I want to hear it
from Asec Mocha herself. Yes or no?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay, go ahead.
SEN. AQUINO. May isang beses ba na hiningi mo iyong side
namin?
THE CHAIRPERSON. You can say yes, no or that you refuse to
answer but you have to justify why.
MS. USON. I refuse to answer that question.
SEN. AQUINO. Because on the grounds of?
MS. USON. I have the right to refuse that question.
90
SEN. AQUINO. No, you don’t have the right to refuse. You
have the right to self-incrimination.
MS. USON. Okay po. I have the right to—
SEN. AQUINO. So ibig sabihin noon, kung mapaperwisyo ka,
puwede kang hindi sumagot.
MS. USON. I have the right—ano po?—I have the right agianst
self-discrimi—self-incrimination. Pasensiya na.
SEN. AQUINO. Anong krimen ang tinutukoy mo, Asec Mocha?
Self-incrimination presupposes may krimen na ipinapataw sa iyo. Ano
iyong krimen na iyon?
MS. USON. Senator Bam, I refuse to answer that question at
lumalayo po tayo doon sa usapin ng fake news po ng GMA 7 na ginawa
sa akin.
SEN. AQUINO. I’m asking a simple question, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Bam, I think it’s been made
clear.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Madam Chair, I don’t think we should embarrass
our resource persons here whoever they are, whether they are from
the other side of the political camp or not.
SEN. AQUINO. No. Mr. Chairman, let me just finish my point.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Migz, I think—
SEN. ZUBIRI. I believe—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Order. Senator Migz.
91
SEN. ZUBIRI. Yes.
Each and every senator should address the Chair rather than—
including her, Secretary Asec Mocha, should address the Chair so that
we have order here so that we don’t embarrass each other. This is not
a—
THE CHAIRPERSON. I agree. Okay.
So, Senator Bam, address me and then I will ask her.
SEN. AQUINO. Madam Chairperson, if I may finish. The
resolution filed by our colleagues, which is their right to file, talks
about grievances. Pero palagay ko, hindi puwedeng pag-usapan ang
grievance lang ng iilan. Because in our manifestation, we talked about
fake news in general. We talked about wanting to push a law. Senator
Villanueva has been good enough to file a bill on fake news. So
palagay ko, Madam Chairperson, lahat ng ito ay puwedeng pag-usapan
sa hearing na ito. Hindi lang naman iyong iisang resolusyon.
Now, my question is, and it’s a very simple question, sa mga
panahon na nag-blog si Asec Mocha tungkol sa minority, tungkol sa
opposition, tungkol sa aming lahat dito, it’s a very simple question, yes
or no lang po, hiningan ba niya kami ng side in the same way na iyon
iyong hinihingi niya mula sa GMA News Online? So fairness ang
hinihingi mo, Asec Mocha. You’re asking that these agencies be fair to
you.
92
So ang sinasabi ko lang, hinihingi mo iyong fairness, puwede
bang bigyan mo rin kami ng fairness? So ang tanong ko po, Madam
Chairperson, which you may ask her and which I insist that she
answers, humingi ba siya ng side ng mga opposition? Humingi ba siya
ng side ng minority?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Asec Mocha, ganito lang, kaunting payo
ukol dito, hindi naman incriminating iyan kahit sagutin mo kasi it
doesn’t imply a crime.
MS. USON. Opo, ma’am.
SEN. AQUINO. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. It might be—others can probably say that
it’s incompetence or negligence or opinionated blogging…
MS. USON. Okay po.
THE CHAIRPERSON. …but you can answer it.
MS. USON. Madam Chair, I would like to apologize for my
reaction kanina. Dapat po pala kayo lagi ang ina-address. First time
ko po kasing maka-attend ng Senate hearing at medyo malungkot po
ako dahil wala dito si Senator Trillanes. [Laughter]
Unang-una po, sir, karapatan po ng blogger iyon sa kanyang
opinion, Madam Chair, kung gusto niyang hingin iyong side ng isang
tao. Opinion-based po ang blogging. Unlike po sa mainstream media,
mayroon silang obligasyon bago nila i-report iyong fake news na
ginawa nila.
93
THE CHAIRPERSON. So Usec Egco, do you employ the
services of Asec Mocha as a blogger for PCOO?
MR. EGCO. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Number one, I am not her employer. And like her, like all of us
here, we serve at the pleasure of the President.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. So who defines your official duties
and functions?
MR. EGCO. Her official duties and functions?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes, all of you. Sabi more, you’re not her
employer but you must know or she must be answerable to you.
You’re the usec. So blogger ba siya? Kasi kung ganoon—
MR. EGCO. All right. She is assistant secretary for social media.
Okay, ma’am.
To answer you, I was a journalist for more than two decades. All
right. So I’m now with government. That’s where the problem lies. I
was talking about earlier today that iyong blogging, especially now na
nandito kami sa government, problema namin dito, have we lost our
right under Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution, the right to speak,
to express our opinions?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes, you have. If you speak officially on
a government side, you have unless you clarify that it’s your personal
opinion but you should not use the government portal.
MS. USON. Yes.
94
MR. EGCO. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Now, I just want to make it clear. So
GMA, hindi niyo daw nabigyan si Ms. Mocha ng pagkakataon na
sumagot. Pero ito rin, iyong sinabi ni Mr. Nieto dito—kaya nga natin,
hindi ba—
MR. EGCO. Yes, ma’am.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Kaya nga ito legislation, iyong right of
reply. Mukhang ngayon, baka nakikita natin iyong pangangailangan
nito para pag may nasiraan o may gustong sumagot, dapat bigyan ng
pagkakataon.
So ganito na lang kasi ayokong nag-iimbento … /cda
95
THE CHAIRPERSON. ... ayokong nag-iimbento ka ng sagot
dahil mukhang hindi mo alam iyong clear definition ng mga trabaho
ninyo. Bago pa lang kayo—I’d say bago, one year and a half. Submit
ninyo sa akin iyong job description ng bawat sa inyo. Sabihin kay
Secretary Martin para alam kasi that’s my Committee, Public Info, and
you’re a government agency. Your liabilities are different than a
common blogger or a private individual.
So now, Roby and then ABS—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Sinu-sino ang nagsalita?
SEN. HONTIVEROS. Madam Chair, just very briefly dahil
nabanggit niyo rin si Sec. Andanar and to the point we are discussing
now. Noong August 12 po sa Philippine Star, sinabi ni Sec. Andanar,
bloggers have to follow journalists’ code of ethics. So straight from
the horse’s mouth, Madam Chair.
Salamat po.
THE CHAIRPERSON. O sige. I-submit ninyo uli iyan with your
signatures as employees of the PCOO.
MS. BANAAG. One minute, Chairman.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes, Asec Banaag.
MS. BANAAG. One minute, Chairperson.
96
Yes, ma’am. That is the opinion of Secretary Andanar but it is
not yet a policy and, of course, it is not a policy of PCOO, ma’am. That
is his opinion, yes, Honorable Senators.
THE CHAIRPERSON. But isn’t he the secretary, the overall
secretary for PCOO?
MS. BANAAG. Yes, ma’am.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So when he uttered it, that is his opinion
but he has not directed it to be a policy yet.
MS. BANAAG. In writing, not yet in writing, ma’am. And it is
not yet—
THE CHAIRPERSON. But don’t you agree that that’s actually
quite important?
MS. BANAAG. It is. It is very important, ma’am. We do
agree.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So you personally, you agree that you
should have that, right?
THE CHAIRPERSON. So let’s make it a policy soon.
SEN. SOTTO. So that this guy Cocoy Dayao should get our side
first before he say we refused to sign. Hindi ba?
97
MS. BANAAG. And, of course, ma’am, if I may comment on
Asec Mocha’s status in our office, as reiterated a while ago, Asec
Mocha’s blog is personal to her. When Senator Trillanes filed a case
against Asec Mocha, it was not the PCOO. And she will always be
liable to whatever contents her post would have.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So you’re saying that she can be held
accountable for her personal views?
THE CHAIRPERSON. So now you have to probably make a
clear distinction kasi nga you carry the term “Asec”.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Pero iyon ba iyon nasa PCOO blog? Nasa
PCOO site ba iyon?
MS. BANAAG. No, ma’am. It is not in the PCOO blog. She
has—
THE CHAIRPERSON. But did you carry it?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Did you carry it?
MS. BANAAG. No, ma’am. It’s a personal blog by Asec
Mocha...
THE CHAIRPERSON. But were you linked in that?
98
MS. BANAAG. No, ma’am.
THE CHAIRPERSON. No. Okay. I just want to clarify.
SEN. BINAY. Madam Chair, siguro for clarification na lang.
Since we’re all government officials, we are bound by R.A. 6713
and under Section 4, nakasulat doon na we cannot use the excuse of
doing things in her capacity as a private individual. So parang
malinaw na malinaw na, at this point in time, Asec Uson, hindi mo na
puwedeng ihiwalay iyong pagiging blogger mo sa pagiging Asec mo. I
guess, hindi ba, para malinaw na talaga baka it’s high time for you to
decide kung gusto mong maging blogger o kung gusto mong maging
Asec.
Thank you, Ms. Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Let us proceed now with the—
MS. USON. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Do you want to respond?
Iyong pagba-blogging ko po, I think I’m just exercising my right
to freedom of expression, freedom of speech, at lahat naman po tayo
ay may kalayaang ipahayag ang ating mga sarili. And also, gusto ko
lamang pong linawin na si Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles ay hindi po—she
doesn’t handle my social media accounts kasi po ito iyong kumakalat
99
ngayon sa Twitter. So wala pong kinalaman si Atty. Trixie Cruz-
Angeles sa aking social media account.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Siguro din dahil napaka-epektibo ni Asec
Mocha at alam ko umpisa pa lang, noon naman, you’re very
transparent, you’ve been a supporter of the President. Perhaps, she
will also be more effective as—I don’t know—like a PDP Laban blogger
or somebody like—because it’s political. I mean, whether we admit it
or not, it will be viewed as something political unless you just report
straight policy without comments. Okay. So this is a thin line that we
really need to thread carefully and be very cautious.
Roby, baka you have something to add to this?
MR. ALAMPAY. Maraming salamat po.
Maiksi lang naman.
I don’t have a prepared statement. Honestly, my agenda here
was really just to listen because katulad po ng sinabi ni Usec Egco and
sinususugan ko iyong karamihan ng sinabi niya, it’s very hard to
define. And I agree with that premise that it starts with that we don’t
really know—maybe we know, we have ideas but one thing that I think
is obvious at this point, in this hearing is that nobody really agrees on
one definition.
100
I’d also like to start off on what you said, Madam Chair, that in
giving us this time to speak, that mainstream media has been unfairly
criticized as well. I just want to start on that premise, and I think I
speak for all my colleagues.
No, it’s not unfair. You know, pinasok namin itong industriyang
ito, araw-araw, oras-oras and now with social media, minute by
minute, we know we are fair game. So with everybody who has
criticisms on any of us—today, I think I speak for everyone. That’s fair
game, tanggap namin iyan. I mean, we wouldn’t be here if we didn’t
accept that as part of reality. Nonetheless, in that spirit, I do say that
we try our best. We’re not perfect. We have lapses. We have
apologized many times. I speak for myself. I’ve apologized on social
media many times, in public pag talagang mali kami at nagkulang and
so on.
But moving on to the issue at hand which is trying to legislate
against fake news, again, I would take off on what Usec Egco said that
it’s hard without any definition. Our highest concern, of course, is free
expression and press freedom. The imperfections and the problems
arising from our imperfect practice and the imperfections and the
trouble and the harassment that can arise from this new technology
and how it has empowered all of us and created this new platform in
101
this new world that a lot of us don’t understand, we understand where
it is coming from, where people say—you know, we need to control
this. We need a way to have some control over this, and I agree. Not
all expression is free. There has to be accountability and discipline and
liabilities.
That said, we do believe that, at this point, it is safer to err on
the presumption that there is more than enough laws and regulations
right now. I have not heard any concern, frankly, raised in the past
couple of hours. I’m not a lawyer but I would think that everything
that has been raised even on a conceptual level, we can start pursuing
on a conceptual level. The question, for example, of what’s a digital
influencer. Even I, we’re in media, we would like to know the magic. I
mean, some of them are doing much better than us in terms of
reaching media. We’d like to know the magic as well. But I turned to
the lawyers beside me and I asked, I mean, “Is there a law on
regulating the lobby industry?” for example. And you would think that
there are avenues to start pursuing all of these questions logically and
dispassionately and so on.
When it comes to libel and cyberbullying and so on, I think,
again, it is there. The bottom line I think is the interest for everyone.
And the one thing that everybody actually agrees on in the past two
102
hours is that we want our free expression, we want our platforms. I
think we will all disagree once we start talking about and start going
down the slippery slope of what irresponsibility triggers a new law or
what irresponsibility or malpractice should trigger a new policy. That’s
where we start on—I think we should start with where we agree. And
we agree that press freedom and free expression for everyone
regardless of how you call yourself, a blogger, influencer, even
officials—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Mr. Alampay, your position is very much
noted and appreciated. I think that I need to clarify that we are here
actually because we respect freedom of expression but we know and
you’ve also stated that there are limits also and we have a
responsibility to bear. So that’s noted.
I would like to hear also from ABS. I would like to hear from
the former chair of MTRCB on self-regulation. But very short, I’ll give
you like three minutes each because we also have our bloggers that I
want to hear from and especially from our legal resource persons. So
three minutes each.
MR. ALAMPAY. Ma’am, thirty seconds lang just to finish my—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay.
103
MR. ALAMPAY. Again, I started with concurring with Usec
Egco ... /cmn
104
MR. ALAMPAY. … Usec Egco and I will end with concurring with
him also. The one program or campaign that I will unequivocally
support and I do believe that is the ultimate solution is finding a way
to institutionalize information literacy, not just news literacy but
information literacy starting as early as grade school. As soon as
children are handed a cellphone or have access to television or have
access to a computer and the Internet, children should immediately be
part of a program to—
THE CHAIRPERSON. You can start with your network as your
station public service. With a new law and franchising, you can put
something like, ito ang mga dapat ninyong gawin, pag may narinig
kayong balita, tanungin ninyo iyong magulang ninyo, i-check ninyo
iyong dyaryo, o iyong ganoon. I mean, you can do that also. We can
start but definitely, this is something that we need to explore on an
institutional basis.
MR. ALAMPAY. Madam Chair, just on one thing you said
kanina. You said, “Ito na tayo ngayon.” Ang isang nakakabahala is
ngayon ang instinct ng bawat tao ay tuwing may makikita sa
Facebook, immediately, tinatanong, “Anong agenda nito? Saan
nanggagaling ito?” Sa akin po, maganda iyon. Hindi po nakakabahala
iyon. Ang sa akin, lahat tayo dapat ganoon. Mula bata haggang
matanda, lahat tayo, that is information literacy.
105
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes. But we should not stop from there.
MR. ALAMPAY. Yes, exactly. We should start with a
questioning—
THE CHAIRPERSON. No. But, see, people ask that and then
they stop. But sometimes there are good points that are raised by
your opponent. Never mind. I don’t wanna give due credit anymore
later on.
Ms. Gonzalez.
MS. GONZALEZ. Yes. Chi Almario Gonzales from ABS-CBN.
I’d like first to echo what Ellen Tordesillas said, iyong “fake
news” term. I think it is not the right term because news means
accuracy, so probably the right term should be “misinformation.”
Because professional journalists and professional news organizations
are—you know, our job is to produce news and that is to be accurate.
But, of course, it doesn’t mean that we don’t make mistakes. That’s
why when we make mistakes, we have these self-regulatory
mechanisms that we go to. So, for ABS-CBN, for the broadcast
industry, we have KBP. And we have our network ombudsman and
also our news ethics unit. So, if we make mistakes, people—like Mr.
Alampay said, we welcome criticisms.
THE CHAIRPERSON. I know you have ombudsman.
MS. GONZALEZ. Yes.
106
THE CHAIRPERSON. Hindi ba, in TV5 and also in ABS.
MS. GONZALEZ. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. But Ms. Uson, you were saying, na-fake
news ka ng ABS?
MS. USON. Yes po, Madam Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Anong ginawa sa iyo?
MS. USON. Hindi pa po ako opisyal, sinabi po ng ABS-CBN, isa
sa mga reporter nila na ako daw po ay in-appoint na consultant ng
Bureau of Customs. At dahil po doon, na-bash po ako online.
Inungkat na iyong pagkatao ko at iyon po, Madam, BOC consultant
daw ako.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Pero nabigyan ka ng pagkakataon
namanna mag-answer, na sumagot.
MS. USON. Hindi rin po, ma’am.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Hindi?
MS. USON. Hindi po, Madam Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Ma’am, are you familiar with this?
MS. GONZALEZ. I am not personally familiar with it but kanina
nagtanong ako and I think—first, this is what I want to say about fake
news kasi for traditional media, those who are aggrieved, they can
avail of the mechanisms that we have. Now, I am not saying—I can’t
really say kung na-interview si Ms. Mocha Uson kasi I haven’t talked to
107
the reporter but what could have been done is easily complain or call
us, actually even by call or by email and we would launch an
investigation on that. And if we make a mistake, we will always
correct it through, however, format that we do—that we have. And I
think particularly for this lang, doon sa initial questioning ko, ma’am, I
think the reporter quoted Commissioner Faeldon, he was the one who
said that Ms. Mocha Uson was going to be appointed. And then, yes, it
was wrong and then, I think you gave aq statement in your Facebook
account and we published that it was a wrong information and we
corrected it with that statement. So, that’s how we handled that
situation.
THE CHAIRPERSON. All right. It’s good to know that you
correct yourselves, hindi ba, and you don’t leave it at that.
MS. GONZALEZ. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Now, before I ask for the—MTRCB first
and then Senator Pangilinan na. Pasensiya na po.
Nakikiramay din pala kami sa inyo, Chair Toto.
MR. VILLAREAL. Thank you po, Madam Chair, and good
morning to all the members of the Committee.
From where I am, former colleagues in government, well, looking
most especially at Senate Bill 1492, I think, Madam Chair, my
recommendation there would be to integrate really a system of self-
108
regulation where there would be empowerment measures given to
those who are engaged both in the handling and dissemination of
information. As a law professor, I agree with Senator Drilon, what he
mentioned, we already have definitions as to what false information
is. I believe that it is not healthy or productive to find a definition of
fake news but what to do with information. That would be what you
call in criminal law as the gravamen of the offense. And with this, my
recommendation is for the bill to include not only—to not only include
malicious distribution but distribution itself because another aspect is
that, do we have one who has a blog, one who has any outlet via
social media. Do they have any vetting system as to whenever they
receive information. For instance, you make a conclusion, you make a
judgment with respect to actuations of a government official, or let us
say, the life of a person, then sometimes there is a degree of
competence. Who are your sources, if you will say this person is sick
of a certain disease, did you consult the New England Journal of
Medicine, for instance, because everybody has the right as well as duty
to honor and bear witness to the truth. Ang basic po dito ay how to
handle the truth.
So, I agree, Madam Chair, that there should be a vetting system
and then as a matter of addressing any question as to equal
protection of the laws, the norms for journalists should equally apply
109
to those who handle, circulate information because after all, those in
social media, they call themselves media. I have other things to say
but I would just follow the norm indicated by Madam Chairperson to
just speak on the matter of self-regulation and having a vetting
system at this time.
THE CHAIRPERSON. And thank you for being a proponent of
self-regulation.
MR. VILLAREAL. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. This is very important. But as you said,
we should correct ourselves but there should be a vetting process
before we post information on our blogs.
Okay. So, thank you, Chair Toto.
I would like now to continue. Before we ask Professor Hilbay and
also Dean Laviña and then Mr. Mabanta and Mr. Nieto, we will have
Senator Pangilinan.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
Chairperson.
I think Dean Tony and Prof Florin might be able to answer some
of the questions that I will be raising in terms of legal expertise on the
matter of laws that we are possibly going to craft on addressing these
matters.
110
The data that we have is that 97 percent of Pinoys, Filipinos on
the net are actually on Facebook. And only 3 percent are not on
Facebook. So, that is number one.
Number two, the data that we also have is that Facebook
actually is the biggest carrier of fake news. And they earn from it
because of the shares, the number of—So, I just wanted that clarified.
I guess, Dean Tony, please answer so that we place it on record.
MR. LA VIÑA. Yes. In fact, when I am asked later on, that’s
where the regulation should be and globally that is what is happening.
You do not go after the blogger, you do not go after the individual, the
traditional news outlets already have ways of going after them but it is
the disseminators that are earning a lot of money here. And I am not
really caring about whether it is true or not and gets hurt or not, it’s
just a business proposition for them that you can do. So, the global
tendency is actually to do that. Some harder than others … /admasicap
111
MELNOVERO IV-3 October 4, 2017 12:02 p.m. 1
MR. LA VIÑA. … Some harder than others. China, you know,
very hard. Germany, movement towards very strong financial
measures, sanctions, for those things.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Could you say the Germany experience?
MR. LA VIÑA. Well, they haven’t pass the law. They just had
the elections but their proposal actually is where there is criminal
content, Facebook, Twitter and all, they have to remove it within 24
hours. For not criminal content but fake news that can be annulled(?),
they have to do it in like two or three days.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Okay. How is that not—
MR. LA VIÑA. So it doesn’t disseminate.
SEN. PANGILINAN. How is that not violative of the right to
free speech and expression?
MR. LA VIÑA. Well, I don’t think that’s violative of the right to
free speech because you’re not—the person who is speaking can still
speak. But what you’re stopping is the means of propagating it. In
traditional media, they also do that. Right? They also stop fake news
through verification.
SEN. PANGILINAN. And editorial—
MR. LA VIÑA. Yeah. They do that all the time. When they
hear news and they verify and they say it’s wrong, you know, it’s not—
this news is not right, then they would right away not do that already.
So they actually do that already in practice. But, you know, in the
112
past, Facebook used to say, “We don’t care about content, we’re not a
news organization. We’re not—” And they’re not. That’s also true, I
think. But even if they are not a news organization, you can actually
regulate them to get that to happen. But you have to make it in terms
that they understood—that they understand and the term is actually,
the way is actually through sanctions or economic sanctions.
SEN. PANGILINAN. For example, nabanggit mo po kanina na
kapag mayroong criminal …
MR. LA VIÑA. Content.
SEN. PANGILINAN. … content.
MR. LA VIÑA. May criminal libel or …
SEN. PANGILINAN. Criminal libel.
MR. LA VIÑA. … or sex abuse, that type of thing.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Yes. Si Zuckerberg is probably one of the
wealthiest people in the world. I mean, hindi ba, one of the richest. In
other words, they are earning a lot from Facebook and ads at marami
rin silang kinikita kahit fake news pa. So halimbawa, may criminal
content, Congress can therefore come up with a law saying, “Within 24
hours of that criminal content uploaded, Facebook must bring it out.”
MR. LA VIÑA. Yes.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Otherwise, they will face—Baka nga 24
hours is masyadong mahaba.
113
MR. LA VIÑA. And by the way, I want to put a third ano
because a lot of the fake news is also happening in blog groups that
are created. So Reddit has done a very good job of eliminating hate
language. They just dismantle groups using analysis. When you curse
people, when you hate … you just—and so again, it’s not anyone. I
can say anything I want. I can put anything I want. My freedom of
speech is not affected. But the infrastructure for spreading hate is
dismantled. That’s my point. We have to be really smart.
The same thing I think with online media services. I have to say
that when I write an article and, honestly, I struggle to be really
nonpartisan and subjective and you know that as much as possible
because I feel that’s my role. But when I post it in, you know, like
Rappler or InterAksyon or wherever I post it, the comments are just
really bad, I mean—and I think that, you know, the website should do
that. Just delete them. Any curse, any hate language, just delete
them. I do that with my own. I mean, I’m lucky because I have a lot
of students that are helping me with this. So when I’m attacked by
trolls, my students attack back and they just help and the trolls are
overwhelmed quickly. But that’s what you have to do—to do this
without violating freedom of speech. I think that is sacrosanct in my
view. But there’s a way to be smart about dealing with it.
SEN. PANGILINAN. What about the mainstream media who
have their portals, would you have any comment on that particular
114
take-down requirement, for example, for Facebook? Kayo ba ay
sumasang-ayon ba kayo sa ganoong klaseng batas o panukalang batas
o magiging batas?
MR. ALAMPAY. Hindi pa po doon sa antas ng batas ano but
just on daily practice. There are some fairly obvious, you know, nagpi-
P.I., iyong talagang bastos, madali iyon. But part of our interest is not
just to prove the value of press freedom and prove the value of free
expression, it is also to educate the public on engagement and so on.
I’m an optimist when it comes to press freedom and free
expression and I would like to think that the majority of the Filipinos
who take part are taking part on a new platform. They find this very
liberating. It’s a new way of communicating and some—frankly,
honestly and obvious naman sa ating lahat—don’t have the same
sensibility, the same language as other people. It’s very hard to make
that decision on who is deliberately being a troll or who is new to this
and thinks that the only way to communicate is with all caps and
exclamation points. You have to imagine at the other end of that
platform—is this a kid? Is this a child? Is this somebody coming into
this democratic environment for the first time and voicing out for the
first time? We didn’t have that. We grew up in a generation where
you sat down and took maybe one or two days to write a letter to the
editor, and then once it’s there, an editor actually reads it and vets it
and so on.
115
So that’s a dilemma. Like I said, it’s not really an answer but
that’s the dilemma.
SEN. PANGILINAN. What about self-regulation, absent the
law?
MR. ALAMPAY. Yes.
SEN. PANGILINAN. KBP is here? Could you come up with a
memorandum of agreement among all news agencies that you will
take a strong position on fake news? You know, this is, of course, self-
regulation. You can say, “No, we don’t want to take a strong position
on fake news.”
MR. ALAMPAY. No, we do take a position on self-regulation.
We subscribe to self-regulation—
SEN. PANGILINAN. Meaning, a strong position on mainstream
media saying, “We will come together, unite, coordinate efforts on
opposing, unmasking and taking down fake news.” Posible ba iyon? Is
that in the realm of the possibility?
MR. ALAMPAY. Mr. Senator, this is always the dilemma for us.
We can agree up to a certain point on, you know, things are bad,
things need to be controlled, things need to be reined back and so on.
We always hit a wall on the question of, who’s to say? We can define
it. We can define fake news.
SEN. PANGILINAN. ABS will have its own set of policies. GMA
will have, News 5 will have.
116
MR. ALAMPAY. Yes. And at the end of the day, we will be
back to where we are right now where you trust us to make that
editorial decision and people will ask, why do you have all that power?
It will go back round to the same situation where we are.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Madam Chair, I think let’s go ahead.
Tony, thank you.
MR. LA VIÑA. Mr. Senator, Madam Chair, I actually want to
say something here also related to that because I’m actually chairman,
for the last five years already, of the Philippine Press Council.
The Philippine Press Council is the print media, self-regulatory
system for the right of reply. Purely for the right of reply and only for
print media. And I’ve been chairing it—and we’re basically the
complaints body. If anyone feels that their right to reply was violated
by all the—most of the newspapers are members of that, they can
actually come to us. Guess what? No case for the last four years. I
think the last time was five years ago when we had a case. We only
meet when there’s a case, so there’s no—and, usually, the cases
before have always been about space. You were talking about that
earlier, Madam Chair, that most newspapers would print the reply but
they need it to be shorter because—
THE CHAIRPERSON. So, Dean, are you saying that for the
right of reply, we don’t need to legislate that?
MR. LA VIÑA. No, you definitely do not need to legislate that.
117
THE CHAIRPERSON. We don’t need, so you’re not in favor of
legislating that.
MR. LA VIÑA. Yes, I think a self-regulatory mechanism—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Why? You know, my initial position was
we don’t need to legislate because I don’t want to tell media what to
write. Kasi, hindi ba, even—Actually, Mr. Alampay, thank you for
always being in our hearings and presenting views candidly but we
don’t want to overlegislate. But is there a need for that? Maybe now
we do because there are some people who are not given the right also.
Maybe in your particular paper, they’re given the chance. But maybe
in others, maybe not.
MR. LA VIÑA. The Philippine Press Council is industry-wide.
It’s part of the Philippine Press Institute and—I’m just saying that it
didn’t seem to be a problem in terms of print media. My point was
that usually the restriction to the right to reply is more about the space
because it’s an editorial decision … /meln
118
ctsotto V-3 October 4, 2017 12:12 p.m. 1
MR. LA VIÑA. … it’s an editorial decision of what to put and
you don’t really want to intervene with that. But with online, as you
were saying earlier, I’m ready to modify my position, personal
position, not necessarily the Press Council because we haven’t met
about this, where these online versions already, well, at least you can
just--if not post the whole thing, the letter, you can at least put a link
to whatever the complaint is. So there are ways of doing that that
was not possible under print media before.
Usually when case would come to us, what we will simply tell the
newspaper, it’s up to them to obey us. What we usually do is you
print it but you can give this space, you know, X words based on your
own policies. They also have their own policies for letters to the
editor, so without any violation of editorial content.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Actually--Dean, thank you for your
position.
Here’s the thing. This is the hazard of our job. For example,
may lalabas na balita, Ombudsman finds so and so guilty of this or
Ombudsman recommends a case. And then later on mayroong good
news na o kaya may sinabi a particular public figure is—well, let’s say,
failed to pay the BIR taxes or showbiz personality. Iyon pala mali.
Kunyari front page yung una, biglang ang correction na lang nasa page
8. I mean, iyon talaga. That’s the prize of being in the public eye.
If you are not news anymore, you are there. So you can also
119
understand the frustration. This is where your power is. You get to
decide where to put it, how much attention is given to it, that’s why
it’s important also because these onlines, we can have our own site
that will do the correction and will put it in the front. So mga ganoon
lang. But anyway, we will continue.
Senator Pangilinan.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Yes. I have a few more--
MS. TORDESILLAS. I just want to add to the Facebook
discussion.
I think it’s important to give a background on how Facebook has
changed the way we consumed news. In the past, when you want to
read about last night’s basketball game, you had to buy the whole
newspaper. You can’t just go to the newsstand and say, “I want to get
the result of the Ginebra-Purefoods game last night.”
Unlike today, when you’re on Facebook, you can actually click
directly on to that article. So that is actually the top story on your
news feed. So I think as media organizations, we also acknowledge
that part of our editorial powers have been ceded to the audience.
The thing that comes out on your smart phone on top of your feed are
the stories that are being clicked, being likely shared. And so part of
that editorial judgment doesn’t lie with the editors anymore, but also
with our users and for most online user organizations in the
120
Philippines, more than 50 percent of our graphic already come from
social media.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes. You know what, there are two
sides of the story there. One thing is you are accountable to your
viewing public, but on the other hand, they are also dictating to you
what to write, when sometimes what is relevant is not necessarily
popular. So you also have to balance that. You have a responsibility--
you have a franchise that is a privilege given by the government. So
you need to be able to fully exercise that right to serve the public. So
it shouldn’t just be dictated by ratings.
And I would like to acknowledge the presence of Senator Sonny
Trillanes.
MS. BANAAG. [Off-mike] Ma’am, she just might be on the
toilet. Sorry. She didn’t want to disturb, interrupt, ma’am, so I am
asking an apology.
THE CHAIRPERSON. You know, I thought that she would be
pleased. But anyway—
MS. BANAAG. She is so pleased, ma’am. She was so happy,
so—
THE CHAIRPERSON. She’s very pleased she had to go to the
powder room.
MS. BANAAG. Yes, ma’am, and prepare.
121
THE CHAIRPERSON. So Senator Trillanes just had his name
listed. We will be asking in the order of arrival, so we will excuse you
first, Senator Trillanes.
MR. TORDECILLA. Madam Chair, just two points.
MS. TORDESILLAS. Sorry. Can I finish my--
MR. TORDECILLA. I am sorry, sorry.
MS. TORDESILLAS. So part of the editorial is already the user.
And in the Philippines, we have a unique case of having free Facebook
users so they access in the site but they are unable to click through to
our website, so all they see is the headline.
Now I don’t know if you’re familiar with it, but when you are in a
free Facebook mode, all you see is the title and you don’t even see the
thumbnail photo. So it’s very easy to be fooled into thinking that it
was the legitimate site in reading the headline and assuming it’s true
and sharing it without even going into the article itself.
In India, they already outlawed—they had regulations to outlaw
free Facebook offerings because it violated net neutrality principles.
So I don’t know, it might prove to be unpopular in the Philippines
because everyone wants free Facebook but it might be something that
we might consider. Because in India, what they are pushing for is that
everyone should have good internet access to all sites and not just
Facebook.
Thank you.
122
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Well, thank you. Please submit
the position paper. You’ve made some good points.
Senator Pangilinan, you still have a few more minutes left.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Thank you.
I’d like to move to another subject matter. Kasi nabanggit
kanina ni Mr. Nieto si Ms. Tirol who was connected with my office
and—Ang tanong ko lang, did you find any direct connection between
the posts of the seven senators and the role of Ms. Tirol in such
posting?
MR. NIETO. Good morning, Senator.
The post about the seven senators came from Silent No More PH.
SEN. PANGILINAN. No, no. I am asking you, did you find any
direct involvement of Ms. Tirol in the posting of the Silent No More
post? Did you find her direct involvement?
MR. NIETO. No, and I have never proved any.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Okay. Thank you.
So you did not find any direct involvement of Ms. Tirol?
MR. NIETO. None so far.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Thank you. That’s clarified.
You mentioned, Mr. Nieto, your blog is Thinking Pinoy.
MR. NIETO. Yes, sir.
123
SEN. PANGILINAN. And in one of your blogs, I think in 2016,
you said that—you wrote an article about the reasons why LP needs to
assassinate Duterte.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Did you have--That’s an opinion, right?
MR. NIETO. Yes, it is. Thinking Pinoy--
SEN. PANGILINAN. You had no facts to buttress that opinion?
MR. NIETO. Mr. Senator--
SEN. PANGILINAN. Because that is a serious statement.
MR. NIETO. Yes. Thinking Pinoy, sir, is a political—
SEN. PANGILINAN. So were there facts? Did you provide facts
for you to be able to somehow conclude that we need—the LP needs to
assassinate President Duterte?
MR. NIETO. Actually, sir, I can answer that if you will just let
me talk, with all due respect.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Yes. I will let you talk. Go ahead.
MR. NIETO. Thank you, sir.
SEN. PANGILINAN. That’s why I am asking.
MR. NIETO. Thinking Pinoy is a political opinion blog and I like
imagining scenarios based on what I think is how people would act. I
try to understand human nature. So when I wrote that particular post
about why LP would need to assassinate Duterte, I am not saying that
LP will assassinate Duterte. What I am saying here is, what are the
124
incentives behind doing that? So it’s basically more like—for a
business, it’s like continuity planning, seeing contingencies, preparing
for the worst. But I am not saying that it will actually happen. And I
am not saying that LP intends to do that.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Yes, I understand.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Of course, I am saying this in the context
of many events that have taken place in the last several months
wherein the LP has been the whipping boy of those who feel that
threatened by our dissent or our criticisms. Lahat na lang sa amin
sinisisi. Noong hindi na-confirm si Secretary Yasay, may LP destab
daw. Mayroon daw 100 million pondo na para daw sa mga testigo, sabi
ng Department of Justice, LP daw ang gumawa noon. Napaka-
kombenyente. So ito, somehow falls into that kind of framing that the
LP needs to assassinate Duterte.
Also, here you said Thinking Pinoy 2016 …
SEN. PANGILINAN. … an alleged plan by Liberal Party to take
over government.
MR. NIETO. Which particular article was that, sir?
SEN. PANGILINAN. It says: “Oust Duterte, Leila, Leni, Lourdes,
Loida, LP people power Duterte.”
MR. NIETO. Yes.
125
SEN. PANGILINAN. So you confirm that you also wrote this
article?
MR. NIETO. Yes, I wrote that article but it’s also an analysis of
possibilities. So basically, what I am trying to—I tried to do with that
article is to look for possibilities. I am not saying that they are
certainties but in the viewpoint … cts
126
JADELACRUZ V1-3 October 4, 2017 12:22 p.m. 1
MR. NIETO. … in the viewpoint of information that’s available to
the public, that’s what a normal thinking person on the street would
conclude. But as far as I can see, I never made allegations there of
people plotting whatever.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Well, another question, earlier Senator
Binay raised the question of being compensated, and all of you said
you were not being compensated during the elections.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Are you being compensated now by
government?
MR. NIETO. Right now I am a consultant for the Department of
Foreign Affairs. I am the head of Strategic Communications (Content)
of the Office of the Undersecretary for Migrant Workers Affairs.
Initially, I wanted to work there pro bono because I don’t want to get
hit just like how Mocha got hit when somebody says she earns like a
hundred thousand a month.
SEN. PANGILINAN. How much are you receiving?
MR. NIETO. Right now it’s just P12,000 a month, a very
nominal amount.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Uh-huh. So you are now a consultant?
MR. NIETO. Yes, just a consultant for DFA-OUMWA.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Head of the strategic communications?
127
SEN. PANGILINAN. So, in the same discussion earlier, you
know, you are now a consultant working in government?
MR. NIETO. Yes.
SEN. PANGILINAN. And, therefore, arguably—well, no, not
arguably, I would say you are also covered by the Code of Conduct of
Public Workers and Public Officials and Employees. In the same way
that Asec Uson is also covered by the code of conduct.
You are receiving P12,000 a month as a consultant, do you have
people under you?
MR. NIETO. No.
SEN. PANGILINAN. So you work on your own?
MR. NIETO. Yes.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Okay. Do you have an office?
MR. NIETO. No, not really.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Okay. So you work
MR. NIETO. Basically, what happens here is I just help
communicate the updates of OUMWA to OFWs, and that’s it.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Yes, okay. You know, you are now a
consultant in government…
MR. NIETO. Yes.
128
SEN. PANGILINAN. …I would raise the same issues as earlier
raised with Asec Mocha Uson, hindi na pupuwedeng blogger lang na
pupuwedeng kahit ano isulat. Dahil nga head ka na ng strategic
communication nang isang sensitibong departamento ng ating
gobyerno.
MR. NIETO. Ano po?
SEN. VILLAR. Consultant ka lang?
MR. NIETO. Ma’am, Sir, consultant lang ako. Iyong sinabing
head, pa-cute lang na position title iyon. Pero I don’t have
SEN. PANGILINAN. Sorry. Kasi ang nakalagay dito is, “the
head of the Strategic Communications under Office of” galing sa blog
mo ito.
MR. NIETO. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Senator, I think I
don’t lose my right to free speech when I joined—if and when I joined
government.
SEN. PANGILINAN. No, wait. Let me clarify. Before we go
through that, this is in your blog. You said you are head of strategic
communications under the Office of Undersecretary for Migrant
Workers, right? This is your blog.
MR. NIETO. Yes. Yes.
129
SEN. PANGILINAN. Okay, thank you. And now you are
saying, “yes, I am the head of the strategic communication, but I can
still blog.” That’s your position.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Okay. Well, we disagree because,
obviously, since you are now earning from taxpayers money, you are
now part of our government bureaucracy as a consultant, you will have
to be you are covered by the laws. Just as we, senators, are
covered. Free speech is not absolute.
SEN. PANGILINAN. And we, in the Senate, can be held
accountable through an ethics case if we abuse—pagka inabuso namin
ang aming pananalita; if it is unparliamentary; if it is offensive. In
fact, our rules say, pagka mayroong offensive language, this is
unparliamentary and we can be subjected to an ethics case.
MR. NIETO. Mr. Senator, and with all due respect, I think it’s
not a crime to hurt feelings. If the good senator feels that I have
broken any law, or if I am going to…
SEN. PANGILINAN. May I correct that misimpression? I’m not
saying you’ve broken any law. I am just clarifying your position in
government, and the possible consequences, and the obligations, and
duties and responsibilities. That’s all that I’m saying.
130
MR. NIETO. Okay po.
SEN. PANGILINAN. I have one more minute.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Pangilinan, you can always ask,
you know, in between—
SEN. PANGILINAN. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON. …but we want to ask the ones that have
to go to the CA to ask most relevant--don’t finish your 10 minutes,
after Senator Pangilinan, so you can come back later. Okay.
SEN. PANGILINAN. We got this post on—where is this?
Facebook.
MR. NIETO. Alin po?
SEN. PANGILINAN. This is you, ano?
MR. NIETO. Alin po ba iyon?
SEN. PANGILINAN. “Doing our ocular in the Senate on the eve
of the hearing.” You posted this, ano?
MR. NIETO. I did not say there was an ocular. I just say,
look—it’s not posted on my Facebook.
SEN. PANGILINAN. It’s “with RJ Nieto…” Sorry.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
SEN. PANGILINAN. “…Mike Acebedo Lo.” Who is Mike
Acebedo Lo?
MR. NIETO. So I did not post it.
131
SEN. PANGILINAN. So where is Mike? Is he here?
VOICE. Yeah, he’s there.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Can you
MR. LOPEZ (MIKE). [Off-mike] I shared it.
SEN. PANGILINAN. You shared it. Okay.
But you were here? You confirmed that you were here and this
is authentic.
MR. NIETO. Yes. Yes.
SEN. PANGILINAN. And it is about--you were in the Office of
Senator De Lima.
MR. NIETO. In front of her door.
SEN. PANGILINAN. And then you were outside, and you put
the numbers “222”
MR. NIETO. No, they put it there, Leila’s staff, Senator De
Lima’s office.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Ah and you were saying, “Doing our
ocular in the Senate.”
MR. NIETO. No, it was Mike who said that, not me.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Sorry, yes. But, no But you were
together with him?
MR. NIETO. Yes, I was together with him.
132
SEN. PANGILINAN. So, you know, you are head of strategic
communications under the Office of Undersecretary of Migrant
Workers, you do not see anything wrong or—Let me qualify.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
SEN. PANGILINAN. No, let me rephrase my statement. Has
this anything to do—this is a social media site, somebody uploaded it.
I assume you Somebody shared it, rather.
MR. NIETO. Him, yeah.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Yes.
MR. NIETO. So, what exactly, sir, is the question…
THE CHAIRPERSON. Were you administered an oath, BM
Lopez?
Would you like him to?
Secretariat, please.
Please raise your right hand.
THE COMMITTEE SECRETARY. Do you swear to tell the truth
and nothing but the truth in this proceedings? Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Sorry, Sen.
SEN. PANGILINAN. So, RJ, Mr. Nieto, you shared this…
MR. NIETO. No.
SEN. PANGILINAN. …in your own page? You shared this in
your own page?
133
MR. NIETO. I was tagged in my page and it automatically
appeared.
SEN. PANGILINAN. So you didn’t share?
MR. NIETO. But I was not the person who wrote the caption.
All that I did there was to pose with him in the photo. So I think I
cannot be held accountable for what’s written.
SEN. PANGILINAN. It appears on your page, ano?
MR. NIETO. Yes, it does. Uh-huh.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Okay. So now that it’s appearing on your
page, you can take it down if you wish?
MR. NIETO. Oh, yeah.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Yes. I’m not saying you should take it
down, but I’m just saying, you can?
MR. NIETO. Yeah, I can if I want to.
SEN. PANGILINAN. And it’s also on the Thinking Pinoy?
MR. NIETO. Yes. The thing is…
SEN. PANGILINAN. Which you shared?
MR. NIETO. …that picture was shared two times. The first was
when Mike shared it and there was the accompanying caption that, you
know, “ocular.” But that’s Mike’s problem, not mine. Now, for the
Thinking Pinoy Facebook page, I also posted that picture—one second.
I will just get the accompanying caption.
134
SEN. ZUBIRI. Madam Chair, with the permission of Senator
Pangilinan?
SEN. PANGILINAN. Yes, I am just wrapping it up. Sige.
SEN. ZUBIRI. I have to leave kasi for the CA. You can
continue.
Madam Chair, we just ask to be excused for 10 minutes? We will
just vote at the Commission on Appointments, and I’ll be right back. I
speak for myself only, Madam Chair, not for…
THE CHAIRPERSON. Is your vote important, Senator Migz?
SEN. ZUBIRI. This is on the confirmation of Secretary Cimatu,
Your Honor.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay, go.
SEN. PANGILINAN. I have to go also in a while.
SEN. VILLAR. [off-mike] …I’ll just ask one question.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay, Senator Cynthia would like to ask
one question.
I think, Ma’am, he won’t yield. He’d like to finish his
SEN. PANGILINAN. Yes, I can yield but he hasn’t completed
his answer.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Ah, your answer.
135
SEN. PANGILINAN. Just to complete his answer, then I will
yield.
MR. NIETO. On October 3rd, 10:01 a.m.—when is October 3? I
think my phone is still using New York time so anyway. Wait. Don’t
coach me. All right. I posted the picture, and the accompanying
caption is, “When you see it.” It shows a picture of me in front of
Senator De Lima’s office…/jdlc
136
CDAstrero I-4 October 04, 2017 12:32 p.m. 1
MR. NIETO. … Senator De Lima’s office. There. So I don’t have
to describe it anymore. All right.
The next post will be, “Oh Yeah” and that’s it.
Now, I think that I am entitled to free speech and I am allowed to
express my political ideas. And if anybody thinks that there is something
objectionable about that, I think they could just write a complaint; send it
to me and we’ll talk about it. Otherwise, I think I am entitled to be free
from prior constraint.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Well, actually, that’s the precisely the point
that I raised earlier and this is my last point and I have no follow-up
questions.
Being now a consultant in a sensitive position in government
heading a strategic communications for migrant workers, you know, you
are now bound by the code of conduct.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. You know, you may have to rethink your—
You have to choose. We’re not saying if you want to do this, then you
have to make a decision, hindi ba? If you want to continue doing this and
be a blogger, my view is, precisely, you have to decide. Do I want to be
a consultant or do I want to just be a blogger? You don’t have to answer
137
that, Mr. Nieto. I’m just saying that acts such as these from a
government consultant holding a sensitive position would be, at the
minimum, unacceptable.
MR. NIETO. [Laughter] It’s not about you, sir. I just heard a very
funny comment from Senator Villar.
But with all due respect, Mr. Senator, that which is not prohibited is
allowed. So if the good senator can find a law that I broke or I violated by
doing those two things, you know, being someone in OUMWA and then
I’m doing those things in the pictures, then, again, just like what I said,
please send a complaint, let’s talk about it. If it’s wrong, I’ll stop doing it.
Now, if I were just given a choice, I don’t want to work in DFA.
Parang alila lang kami doon and I only get 12,000. It’s not even enough
to pay for taxi. It’s just that DFA needs me more than I need them and I
want to help the government succeed. Hindi po ako nagyayabang. I’m
just helping them because I have 700,000 followers and my engagement
is equal to about Inquirer plus Rappler—my engagement on Facebook.
And I basically want to lend my platform so that we can reach out easier
to OFWs. So basically po pittance lang iyong 12K. But if you somehow
think or anybody here can prove na I’m breaking laws by doing those two
138
things, then let’s talk about. Then if it’s necessary I’ll resign. Iyon lang
po.
SEN. PANGILINAN. Well, when you are part of the government
bureaucracy, in a department, in the executive, one is political neutrality.
The code of conduct requires that and you must observe standards of
personal conduct in the discharge and execution of your duty. So these
are some of the provisions that you may have to visit and then be guided
by.
MR. NIETO. Noted, Mr. Senator.
SEN. HONTIVEROS. Madam Chairman.
SEN. AQUINO. Mr. Chairman, I think it will be very difficult for Mr.
Nieto to rethink his position because then he would be called Rethinking
Pinoy and not Think Pinoy.
[Laughter]
MR. NIETO. All right. That was funny.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Let us give a chance to—Wait.
Senator Villar would like to ask just one question because she
needs to go directly to the Committee on Appointments.
139
SEN. VILLAR. I am a victim of fake news but I never asked my
people to practice fake news except what happened to the seven senators
becoming victim of SilentNoMorePH.
I just want to ask our Chairman if we cannot force the people
behind SilentNoMorePH more to come here to explain to us why they did
that. So I hope the Chairman in our next hearing will not allow them not
to come here. I think the only thing you can do for us so we will feel
better, that they come here and face us and explain to us why they did
that. Iyon lang ang aking manifestation.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Actually, Senator Villar, when I received
information about the possible administrator of SilentNoMore, that was
around evening of Thursday and we tried to get in touch with him. We
think—
SEN. VILLAR. Not only him but the people behind that Silent No
More PH.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes. Some of them are here …
SEN. VILLAR. I gave a list to you kung sino ba iyon.
THE CHAIRPERSON. … or affiliated.
SEN. VILLAR. Mayroon ba dito? I didn’t see them.
140
THE CHAIRPERSON. But the list I received from you yesterday.
But I would like to assure you that if they do not show up and then—Well,
we are now sending them a subpoena to appear …
SEN. VILLAR. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. … because we sent them an invitation
already and they did not come. So, definitely, we need to hear from him.
First of all, may—
SEN. VILLAR. Not only him but the people behind that
SilentNoMorePH. We just want an explanation why they did that.
SEN. VILLAR. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Kasi may pagkaduwag rin ang hindi
nagpapakita pero tira nang tira kahit na anong side ka.
SEN. AQUINO. [Off-mike] Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Pero, ma’am, sino ba iyong mga pangalan
na iyon? Can it be stated for the record the ones that are behind—
SEN. VILLAR. I will give it to you. Okay.
SEN. VILLAR. Or you want me to state for the record?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes, ma’am, just so for the record.
141
SEN. VILLAR. This is a research and it was given to me but I did
not do this. It was given to me. It’s, of course, the operator is—what’s
the name? Cocoy Dayao, Melissa Limcauco, Edwin Lacierda, Abigail Valte
and Leah Navarro.
THE CHAIRPERSON. The two of them are here.
SEN. AQUINO. [Off-mike] Let them respond.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Secretary Lacierda.
MR. LACIERDA. Madam Chair, I’m here. I think the basis of your
research, if it can be called research, is a low level …
SEN. VILLAR. I did not ask for this.
MR. LACIERDA. Yes.
SEN. VILLAR. It was mailed to me. So I never interfere with these
bloggers because I’m not into it. So it was sent to me. And if you can
explain that you are not the people behind it, then you explain to us.
MR. LACIERDA. I think, Madam Chair, the more prudent thing to
do is that particular—
SEN. VILLAR. She’s asking for the names. I don’t want to give
the names.
MR. LACIERDA. That’s why I’m addressing, Madam Chair. I think
that thing was floated in the social media and I think there’s someone
142
there who identified us as the owners of SilentNoMore. I think prudence
would dictate that the person who floated our names should also be
invited because obviously—I think—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Who floated your name?
MR. LACIERDA. That research, there’s a name there. It’s on social
media. There’s a Mark Lopez or someone.
SEN. VILLAR. [Off-mike] They sent to me.
MR. LACIERDA. I didn’t even see that.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Mike Lopez?
MR. LACIERDA. But you can see that. Mark Lopez.
Is there a Mark Lopez here?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Mike Lopez is here seated.
MR. LACIERDA. It’s Mark Lopez.
MR. LOPEZ. Mike po ito. Mark po iyong sinabi ninyo, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So is it you, Mr. Lopez?
Yes, please come now.
MR. LACIERDA. So let him—
THE CHAIRPERSON. We have to administer his oath.
143
MR. LACIERDA. Let him take the stand. You know, he has the
burden to prove his allegations. He just cannot just … of some names
without basis.
SEN. VILLAR. You’re denying that you’re part of SilentNoMorePH?
MR. LACIERDA. Categorically. I mean, if you say that—Did I write
the “7 Sens”? No, I did not.
SEN. VILLAR. So for the record, you’re denying it.
MR. LACIERDA. For the record, I am not. I did not write the “7
Sens.”
Madam Chair, like what Senator Grace Poe said—the Chair said—I
have my own Facebook page. Abi has her own Facebook page.
THE CHAIRPERSON. You are not denying or are you denying?
MR. LACIERDA. I’m denying.
SEN. VILLAR. No. I am asking you if you are denying that you
are part of the SilentNoMorePH?
MR. LACIERDA. What do you mean by—I’m part of a lot of
groups. They just invite me to join.
[Laughter]
THE CHAIRPERSON. Silence, please.
So are you part of—
144
SEN. VILLAR. It’s for the Chairman to determine this.
MR. LACIERDA. Look.
SEN. VILLAR. I’m just—
THE CHAIRPERSON. You may not have written about the seven
senators that did not affix their signature in the resolution but are you in
any way affiliated with this SilentNoMore.PH?
MR. LACIERDA. What I know is that I am a member of the TSM.
I heard that there’s a SilentNoMore and there’s a TSM SilentNoMore. I
have no idea—
THE CHAIRPERSON. What’s TSM, again, for the record?
MR. LACIERDA. “The Silent Majority, Silent No More.” I have no
idea what—
THE CHAIRPERSON. So TSM is affiliated with—
MR. LACIERDA. No, no, no, Madam Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. No.
MR. LACIERDA. There are number of groups out there.
SEN. VILLAR. Ms. Chairman, can I please go because I have to
vote sa CA?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes, please, go ahead.
145
SEN. VILLAR. I have nothing against you. Just clear everything
with our Chairman.
MR. LACIERDA. And I would categorically say that I have nothing
to do with the “7 Sens.” Abi has nothing to do. We are not owners. We
are accused and I’d like Mark Lopez to show proof—
SEN. AQUINO. That they are owners?
MR. LACIERDA. I am owner of—
THE CHAIRPERSON. You are categorically stating that you are
not part of what the seven—
MR. LACIERDA. Wait. Mark Lopez accused us of being--not
members, not followers--as owners.
MR. LACIERDA. That is a very categorical accusation. Prudence
dictates that he proves those allegations … /cda
146
CMNERY II-4 October 4, 2017 12:42 p.m. 1
MR. LACIERDA. ... he proves those allegations.
THE CHAIRPERSON. But you may be a member.
MR. LACIERDA. I have no idea. You have to look again to my
Facebook page because there are number of page.
Can I just refer to—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Ms. Abby.
MS. VALTE. Madam Chair, I would like to categorically state
that I do not own the blog. I do not contribute to the blog. All my
assets are named; my face is always there. When I write for
newspapers, my name is always there. My Facebook accounts are all
verified, same thing with my Twitter. If and when I have spoken about
government and about political personalities, I have done it through
my named assets. I am not the owner of SilentNoMore. I am not an
administrator. I do not contribute. I do not know the people behind
this particular group.
THE CHAIRPERSON. You don’t know Cocoy Dayao?
MS. VALTE. I know Cocoy Dayao from 2009 because he
volunteered for the campaign of then Senator Aquino. But that is it.
THE CHAIRPERSON. You don’t see each other in Malacañang
during your tenure?
MS. VALTE. No, ma’am.
THE CHAIRPERSON. All right.
147
MS. VALTE. As the same as Edwin, I also would like the
gentleman to provide unequivocal and categorical evidence of my
involvement and the rest of those people because it just—You know,
you’re entitled to your own opinion but you cannot be entitled to your
own facts. And I think that’s very clear. And that entire discussion
that we’ve had today, people ask about defining what fake news is.
On the other part, ma’am—Senator Binay, I will be short. The
other part that we have not spoken about is how people make money
from these fake blogs and that really if—We’re worried about media
literacy. We’re worried about kids not being able to tell the difference
between official news and fake news. We should start talking about
how much money bloggers make by putting ads on their sites and
putting content that they know that will draw readers to their sites.
And it’s about time—it’s a good proposal to start talking about taxing
not just their incomes but, again, whatever that we can get because,
you know, we’re looking after the TRAIN anyway.
SEN. BINAY. Madam Chair, nabanggit po kanina iyong Cocoy
Dayao.
Have you ever hired directly or indirectly this Mr. Cocoy Dayao?
MR. LACIERDA. Thank you, Madam Chair.
148
In my invitation, I was described as a former head of PCOO. I’m
not a former head of PCOO. I have my own office, Office of the
Presidential Spokesperson. Manolo Quezon here was also invited. He
has his own office, PCDSPO. The one who headed PCOO is Secretary
Coloma. So if anyone is trying to make a link between me, Cocoy
Dayao because of the PCOO--has he ever been employed by me? I can
categorically say that the OPS has never hired Cocoy Dayao.
SEN. BINAY. How about Mr. Quezon or—
MS. VALTE. No, Madam Chair, I have never hired Cocoy Dayao
indirectly or directly in any professional or whatever capacity there
exists.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. I think Mark Lopez was mentioned.
MR. QUEZON. Sorry, Madam Chairman.
MR. QUEZON. Just for the senator, I was head of PCDSPO which
is separate from PCOO. We were on other executive office as you will
recall from our budget hearing. We never employed Cocoy Dayao.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Mark Lopez, nanumpa ka na ba?
Mark, hindi Mike.
VOICE. Mark, Mike. Same Lopez.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Dito ka na lang umupo, Mark Lopez, para
hindi ka katabi ni Mike Lopez.
149
Please raise your right hand?
MS. LAO. Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the
truth in this Senate hearing.
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). [nodded]
MS. LAO. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Do you have a question for him?
Can you answer the question of Senator Villar?
Well, it wasn’t really a question but apparently the source is from
you.
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). Actually, ma’am, if you read my
Facebook post, it was a Facebook post.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Are you a blogger? Are you a reporter?
What is your profession?
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). I am a blogger. But I am an
independent one.
THE CHAIRPERSON. You don’t have any political affiliations?
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). I don’t have any affiliation. I’m not
connected in any PR company or whatever. I’m just an ordinary
citizen po.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. But are you a supporter of the
policies of the government?
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). Yes.
150
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. So tell me, how did you come up
with this research?
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). Actually, ma’am, as a blogger, I am also
being fed information and this information was given to me privately.
And then, I wrote about it and if you read my post, it was also in a
form of a question. I did not say that Mr. Lacierda, Ms. Valte, Ms.
Limcaoco and Ms. Navarro are the ones behind. I was also asking if it
is true that they are the ones behind. And I just wrote it and it was
viewed and probably shared by about—I don’t know—a thousand
people.
THE CHAIRPERSON. But you have certain assertions here
like, for example, Ms. Limcaoco—Well, you gave the background and
then the Xabine Incorporated is an office.
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Can you explain what this is?
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). The information was also given to me
that there is an agency, a digital agency called Xabine Incorporated
which has offices in BGC (Bonifacio Global City) and also a branch in
the US, in California, somehow connected with the SilentNoMore page.
THE CHAIRPERSON. But how is that connected?
It’s just hearsay. Sinabi lang sa iyo na connected.
151
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). Yes. That’s why in my post, ma’am, I
was trying to clarify it also.
THE CHAIRPERSON. And who owns Xabine Inc.?
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). That was also I’m trying to find out. I
tried to check with the SEC but there’s nothing that is appearing.
THE CHAIRPERSON. I think in your report you said a certain
Lewis owned it.
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). It was said there that Xabine in the US is
being handled by Christina Lewis-Halpern who is the daughter of Loida
Nicholas Lewis.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. So these are just in the form of
question.
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). Yes, ma’am.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. See. That’s why we have to be
very discerning. Mr. Alampay noted this. We have to be discerning.
Saan galing at—
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). Ma’am, excuse me. Iyon pong kay Ms.
Limcaoco actually even the resume of Ms. Limcaoco was also sent to
me and in the said resume, it is clear there that she is also connected
with the Liberal Party campaign. She handled the office of then
Senator Noynoy Aquino during the 2010, I think, presidential—
152
THE CHAIRPERSON. How about her connection to this site?
Hindi naman clear.
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). Hindi po clear. Kaya nga po ako
tinatanong ko rin.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Pero iyon nga based on what was told to
you lang. So these are all—Well, still, at face value, this is just
hearsay.
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). Yes, ma’am.
I did not categorically state or did not accuse those persons that
they are the ones behind. I was asking also the very same question.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. So Ms. Limcaoco is married just
for the record, married to—
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). Ms. Limcaoco as per the information is
married to Timmy Limcaoco who is the former DOTC undersecretary
during the Aquino administration and whose family also owns the
Luzon Development Bank.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes. Because these are the things that
you put in your research.
All right. Thank you for clarifying that this is just the information
that you received, it is not verified.
MR. LOPEZ (MARK). It is not, ma’am. That’s why I threw it
there in Facebook.
153
THE CHAIRPERSON. Iyon nga iyong nakakatakot din eh kasi
kung kunyari it’s not verified pero parang the question is very vague;
we might be misled also to think it’s fact.
Secretary.
MR. LACIERDA. Madam Chair, I share your concern.
I think also what has been emphasized in this particular hearing
is the role of government officials vis-à-vis the role as bloggers. I think
for any private individual, there’s no problem with those ... but for
someone like Asec Mocha or Nieto working for government, you carry a
heavier burden. In our case, when we were still in government, we
were very, very particular about making sure that we just convey facts
and information. In fact, PCDSPO, PCOO just killed that site, it’s the
official gazette where everyone was able to access information from
government. That’s our role of conveying information not from
particular personal blogging sites because, obviously, bloggers are
allowed a certain tolerance for opinion. But as government officials,
you have to be very circumspect with your opinion.
THE CHAIRPERSON. You didn’t have your own personal
Twitter, blog when you were in government?
MR. LACIERDA. I did, I did.
THE CHAIRPERSON. You did, right?
154
MR. LACIERDA. Madam Chair, we have to because we were
involved in social media and social media is the new media .../cmn
155
ADMasicap III-4 October 4, 2017 12:52 p.m. 1
MR. LACIERDA. … social media and social media is the new
media as you said. And it is incumbent upon us to try to convey all
the necessary information online, Twitter, Facebook but in all those
posts we were very, very cognizant of the fact that we are
government officials. And nowhere in that role and our Facebook page
would show that we did not go beyond what is necessary. We have
our own opinion but not to the point of foisting fake news, false
information. We were very, very particular. In fact, we have a social
media standard we wanted to propose and we did propose. It went to
the various offices but we asked for the review also of the Commission
on Human Rights. They said that there seems to be a question on
certain human rights so we didn’t push through with that, Madam
Chair, but we were totally cognizant or our role and responsibility as
government officials doing their blogging, doing their Facebook page,
doing their Twitter.
THE CHAIRPERSON. That’s okay because I asked also PCOO to
clearly define their functions and maybe we can have a hearing on the
responsibilities and programs of the PCOO.
Let’s continue with Senator Binay.
SEN. BINAY. Madam Chair, can we get a copy of that proposal?
Pati iyong sagot na rin ng CHR why they don’t agree with that
proposal.
156
MR. TORDECILLA. Ma’am, you may have to ask the
Malacañang Records Office because since their offices were dissolved,
their records are now with the—
SEN. BINAY. Usec Joel, can you retrieve those documents?
MR. EGCO. Yes, ma’am. I’ll take note of that and we will request
for whatever we can request. So, proper retrieval of the same.
SEN. BINAY. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mayroon bang move ngayon ang PCOO to do that? Because this
is ano ha—parang we are unfamiliar water because remember nagalit
iyong mga congressman kay Ms. Anderson because of post. But,
according to her, personal post, so nagkakaroon tayo ng ganoong
problema ngayon sa pamahalaan. May move ba iyong PCOO to set a
standard?
MS. BANAAG. Yes, Senator.
The PCOO actually is doing a social media policy for bloggers to
accredit them. And early this year, we had a social media policy
sharing at Bahay ng Alumni in order to get ideas or opinions or
sentiments from other social media bloggers on this matter. And the
policy actually is under review by the Office of the President, Madam
Senator.
SEN. BINAY. Pero for ano iyan, bloggers but for government
employees na may blog, kasama ba iyan?
157
MS. BANAAG. Yes, ma’am. That covers all bloggers, whether
private and public. Those who are in the government service na
bloggers.
SEN. BINAY. You can dictate private individuals?
MS. BANAAG. No, ma’am. If they would like to be accredited,
ma’am, to cover an event of the President, then they should comply
with the policy that will be coming up.
MR. EGCO. Proposed pa lang.
MS. BANAAG. Proposed. It’s a proposed policy, ma’am, it’s not
yet out.
SEN. BINAY. And when do you plan to have that policy?
MS. BANAAG. Soon that it is already approved by the Office of
the President, ma’am, then we would be ready. It is still pending po.
SEN. BINAY. Let’s start with iyong definition of terms. I don’t
know who can answer me, whether it is DICT or baka si Ms. Angeles.
Siguro, una, how do you define news sites? Iyong ABS—
MS. ANGELES. Yes, ma’am. Generally, right now, news sites
are all still mainstream. The exception here, I think would be Rappler
which characterizes itself also as a news site. But the standards are
different because they have no counterpart. As traditional media they
have no publications. They have no network to speak of, so
everything is mostly online. The difference kasi of mainstream and
158
online media is that online media has time to correct. They can
correct.
They can issue corrections immediately. They can take down, whereas
publications, even news programs will take more time before they can
issue corrections or disclaimers or all of that. So far, iyon iyong
standards. Right now, there are several online media that call
themselves, “news blogs.” There’s a difference. New blogs are also—
SEN. BINAY. After news sites, ano naman iyong blog sites.
And then we go doon sa ano iyong news blog site.
MS. ANGELES. Blog sites are clearly opinion and they can be on
any theme. Some blogs limit themselves to particular themes like food
blogs, lifestyle blogs, others are political blogs. Those are generally
famous ones. But we also distinguish, there are blogs and there are
microblogs. Facebook is mostly a microblogging site because you can
have pages and you can use your personal account.
SEN. BINAY. They both earn money, right?
MS. ANGELES. They can. Yes, but not necessarily. Some
people have their Google AdSense and then others just really don’t.
Some people just do it for fun.
SEN. BINAY. So, like how much would an ad placement cost?
MS. ANGELES. It is not much, ma’am. Google
AdSense doesn’t really pay much. Usually, you only get a percentage.
159
It’s Google who puts the ad based on an algorithm so the ads change
but the owner of the microblog will only get a small percentage.
Sometimes it’s about 10 percent, less than 10 percent. So, you really
earning just cents. You have to have a huge following to make any
kind of return.
SEN. BINAY. And then mayroon din tayong fake news site,
hindi ba, which—May authority ho ba iyong NBI to take down fake
news sites?
MR. EDUARTE. Actually, madam, we don’t have. We are
resorting to the websites requesting them to take down those blogs.
SEN. BINAY. But may mga na-take down na ho kayo na
websites?
MR. EDUARTE. Yes, madam.
SEN. BINAY. Pero voluntary lang din? Voluntary lang din
iyon kasi you request.
MR. EDUARTE. Yes, madam. Except for libel cases because as
you know, Facebook has an office in United States and libel in the US
was decriminalized. So, at times we are requesting sites to be
blocked, our request in most cases were not granted.
SEN. BINAY. So, ngayon, wala pang technology that can take
down fake news site or—
160
MS. ANGELES. Ma’am, because we consider these sites as
property, they cannot be removed without a court order or some kind
of due process.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So, I think, Attorney, we need to invite
Facebook and Google here.
MS. ANGELES. Yes, ma’am.
THE CHAIRPERSON. I mean, because they operate in our
country, hindi ba? Like Uber had to be liable for certain things.
MS. BANAAG. Yes, Madam Chair, I mentioned a while ago
about algorithms. And in other jurisdictions like Germany, they are
crafting a law in order to regulate primary social media platforms and
perhaps we can look into it.
And in relation to Senator Binay’s query, the DICT (Department
of Information and Communications Technology) has a proposed
social media policy for the government. So, this would cover all
government employees. And they have drafted this one and it’s
awaiting signature of the President and it’s under review, ma’am.
And, of course, with that also, we would like to reiterate our
PCOO s comment on If you wanted to put in order all these things
about fake news, perhaps we should look into policies also with the
DICT and the NTC that regulates Facebook or other social media
platforms. Because at the end of the day, are these laws enough to
161
protect all of us? Up to where could it go? Like, do we have to go to
court all the time about all these things? Is this the most that we can
do as individuals, as Filipinos?
THE CHAIRPERSON. We are trying to play catchup with
technology. Definitely, we did invite apparently Google and Facebook
and they send their regrets because they have prior engagements.
But I think they need to prioritize this because they are making a lot
of money in this country and they have a responsibility to the public.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Nancy, you know, we have such
a valuable resource here with Professor Hilbay. We want to hear your
views so that we have a direction. Somebody texted me na
naguguluhan na raw sa hearing kasi we have very opinionated people
here and maybe you can gi e us a irection on how as the ormer
OSG.
MR. HILBAY. Thank you, Madam Chair … /admasicap
162
MR. HILBAY. … Thank you, Madam Chair. Allow me to go
straight to my very short remarks and a legislative proposal.
Let me emphasize an important point of constitutional law and
that there is a difference between claims of false information provided
by ordinary citizens and false information peddled by public officials.
The problem is not private citizens in Facebook or Twitter exposing
government incompetence, dishonesty or corruption. The problem is
government dishonesty.
As a matter of constitutional law, it is worrisome for government
to engage in a witch hunt to expose private speakers on claims that
the citizens are being too critical or even dishonest. Such actions
inevitably produce a chilling effect on freedom of expression. As
stated by Senator Drilon earlier, you already have the libel laws to take
care of that. What I consider a threat to our democratic values and a
danger to the marketplace of ideas is the prevalence of false
information provided by public officials, whether deliberately or out of
sheer incompetence.
False information provided by public officials poses special
problems: (1) They are paid with public funds. It is an outrage that
they receive taxpayers’ money so they can lie; (2) The official status
provides official imprimatur to false information, whether posted in
private or official social media accounts; (3) Their public employment
163
provides them with access to government facilities creating a
semblance of credibility where otherwise there might not be any; and
(4) Their access to government facilities means that the false
information they provide gets widely distributed.
Ordinarily, Your Honors, the mechanisms of government for
responding to dishonesty by public officials are the disciplinary
sanctions under the Civil Service Law, the Ombudsman or by the heads
of agencies, including the Office of the President. Well, the problem is
when these mechanisms are not triggered.
The traditional constraints to government dishonesty, Freedom
of Speech by informed private citizens and Freedom of the Press have
exposed many of these instances of dishonesty and incompetence. But
they have also been dismissed by government as biased or unfair
political attacks rather than efforts to promote honesty in government.
Ordinary citizens, therefore, are confused by an environment where
officials of the Executive Department, in particular, are able to
disseminate false information while demonizing the press and activist
citizens.
Your Honors, this is a structural problem of the information
environment and a phenomenon where government disinformation is
able to hide behind the mantle of official action and protection on one
hand while Freedom of Speech and the Press are tagged as politically
164
biased on the other. The way to counterbalance government
disinformation is through the creation of a public institution whose sole
task is to identify and publicize government dishonesty. When public
officials become dishonest, it is the obligation of the state itself to
correct distortions in the marketplace of ideas.
I propose, Your Honors, that Congress enact a statute creating
the institute for the integrity of information. A sort of Ombudsman for
public information provided by the government or an information police
for government officials. What are the main features of the institute
for the integrity of information? (1) It should be composed of a board
whose members are academics, media practitioners, policy makers,
scientists, information technology experts of the highest credibility and
competence. (2) They should not be appointed by the President or by
any of his alter egos. In my opinion, this can be done without violating
the appointments clause of Article VII of Section 16 of the Constitution.
(3) Its function is four-fold: (a) to create standards for verifying
information provided by government; (b) to actually verify information
provided by government; (c) to publicize its findings; and (d) to issue
rewards to citizens who are able to spot fake information provided by
public officials.
The institute for the integrity of information should be able to act
either motu proprio or upon referral by citizens of a claim of fact made
165
by government office or official. I urge, Your Honors, to focus on a
metaphor that we should recognize false information as a calamity that
wreaks havoc upon a sensitive ecosystem, the information
environment or the marketplace of ideas. And so in the same way that
the government has spent resources informing and warning citizens
about impending or ongoing calamities through the PAGASA or
PHIVOLCS, etcetera. The government should likewise invest in
informing and warning citizens about government dishonesty which
distorts the information environment, polarizes conversation and
manipulates citizens.
There is a need to create the institute for the integrity of
information because the integrity of public information is essential to
opinion formation and therefore public discourse. If citizens think and
act on the basis of wrong assertions of fact by public officials, then our
marketplace of ideas will receive and produce wrong signals the
consequence of which is the impairment of the value of truth.
We live in an age of impunity and a fear that apart from the
thousands of killings on our streets, a tragedy that has received global
attention, we have also become witnesses to another form of impunity:
the death of truth.
Your Honors, so far as I know, there is no other special public
institution such as the institute for the integrity of information
166
anywhere in the world. I hope the Senate considers this proposal not
only as an urgent and practical response to government dishonesty but
also as an opportunity to create a model legislation for all democracies
around the world grappling with attacks on truth.
Thank you and good afternoon.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you, Professor Hilbay, for sharing
that view and the suggestion. It makes sense. We just don’t want to
add another layer perhaps of bureaucracy but if it will encourage
accountability, of course, it’s worth and thank you for your very
scholarly analysis.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes.
SEN. HONTIVEROS. Madam Chair, I’m sorry. I hope with your
indulgence, I would have wanted to raise some questions but I need to
go up for a briefing. May I just make one last comment before
leaving, Madam Chair, and then try to come back later?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Zubiri, are you okay with that?
SEN. ZUBIRI. I’m all right with that.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. You’re not coming back anymore?
SEN. HONTIVEROS. Thank you so much, Senator Migs.
I will try to come back po after the briefing.
167
SEN. HONTIVEROS. But I would have wanted to raise, Madam
Chair, among others the point that fake news also can lead to threats
and, secondly, Madam Chair, just to go back to the photo that was
projected earlier, if this had been done by mainstream media, by now,
nag-kick in na iyong internal Ombudsman mechanisms nila. What
bloggers like Mr. Nieto did is a demonstration that they want the
stature of mainstream media without similar limitations.
I’m very disturbed, Madam Chair, that a resource person invited
by the Senate has disrespected a member of the Senate and right at
her place of work to pose such poses and then to post such posts and
to share them gloating over the continuing misfortune of a person.
And I seek the good chair’s support to somehow make it right to our
colleague Senator Leila and to her staff who were disrespected in this
way last night. Thank you, Madam Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you, Senator Risa, for that
manifestation.
I can sympathize with your statement and your view. You know,
sometimes the thing that we admire in a person, their candidness and
their—well, their excitement sometimes has taken to a level where it
also transgresses on other people’s rights. So perhaps, we can ask for
a statement from Mr. Nieto with regard to this kasi alam mo, totoo rin
naman, kunyari ako iyong nakakulong at may gumanyan … /meln
168
THE CHAIRPERSON. … at may gumanyan sa office ko, masakit.
Although it does not really violate any particular law as I see it. So
maybe we’ll just hear it from—
MR. NIETO. First po, for the record, I think the issue of political
neutrality was raised earlier today. So I would just like to read a
statement po.
Political neutrality means serving everyone equally, regardless of
political affiliation. I am just a consultant and I am not constraint to
have political opinions. In the same way that two or three months ago,
I announced on my Facebook page that even it’s not part of my job
with the DFA, that I am willing to help OFWs who have problems.
They send their problems to me and I’ll look for the right guide in DFA
to help them. And there’s even a quote there which is a bit snarky, I
admit, but I said that even Senator Risa Hontiveros can ask help from
me even if I don’t like her. And I respect you as a senator, ma’am, but
I have my own opinions in life.
Now secondly, the Office of the Undersecretary for Migrant
Workers Affairs is not a sensitive office. It is a service-oriented office.
Hindi po siya gumagawa ng international policy. Bale po, para lang
siyang DSWD ng DFA for OFWs.
Being in the government does not stop anyone, including me,
from expressing my own opinion. And, well, politicians in particular,
169
you are public officials. And we just seriously say that, you know,
each one of you are politically neutral. I mean, let’s just be honest
here.
And then secondly, somebody, I can’t remember who raised an
idea that I may be a government official. Now according to the Civil
Service Commission Resolution No. 021264--what year is this? I can’t
see the year here but I’ll just read it for everyone’s guidance because I
am not testifying, I am just a resource speaker.
A consultant is one who provides professional advice on matters
within the field of his special knowledge or training. In my case, it’s
the field of social media. While I did not receive any formal training on
social media, I think I have sufficiently showed some competence in it
considering the amount of reach or engagement that I get every day.
Thus, there is no employer-employee relationship in the engagement
of a consultant but that of a client-professional relationship, thus,
consultancy services are not considered government service, and so I
am not a public official. So when I broadcast stuff on my Facebook
page, that is Rey Joseph Nieto speaking as the regular citizen, but
when I give advice to the OUMWA, to the Office of the Migrant Workers
Affairs, that’s where my job kicks in. So as to the question on whether
I should be nicer to people on my personal blog, I do not think so.
170
I mean, honestly, Madam Chair, I have criticized you several
times before but it was in the intent of telling you how you should act
based on my opinion. You don’t have to listen to it, but when that
opinion gain instruction, that means a lot of other Filipinos think the
same way I do or maybe agree to what I tried to say. So instead of
blaming me for what I say, maybe people should start to listen.
Because after all we’re a democracy and when a lot of people say the
same thing that I say, then maybe it’s time to stop complaining and
start listening. And that’s all I wanted to say.
SEN. HONTIVEROS. Thank you, Madam Chair.
SEN. BINAY. Madam Chair, siguro suggestion na lang kay Mr.
Nieto.
Since consultant ka, baka puwede alisin mo na lang yung head of
strategic communication.
MR. NIETO. Okay lang po iyon, sige po.
SEN. BINAY. … because it creates the impression that you are
part of the bureaucracy.
MR. NIETO. Opo, ma’am.
SEN. BINAY. It’s just a suggestion.
MR. NIETO. Thank you po, ma’am.
171
THE CHAIRPERSON. No, of course, when we get likes in our
Facebook it emboldens us, it empowers us. It makes us feel that we
are doing the right thing.
It’s not necessarily the case also that numbers will actually
justify what we do but, you know, I can respect what you are saying
about me. Yes, you criticized not only me but many of us here but in
being fair to you, Mr. Nieto, when the other camp open source came
out with supposedly an issue about me, you corrected it with research,
in fact.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. And you were a supporter of President
Duterte, I mean, you were very transparent but you came out with a
proper research, saying that what they were claiming is untrue.
MR. NIETO. I would also like to state for the record, that at
some point in the past, there was a picture that showed Senator Risa
Hontiveros allegedly holding the hands of Senator Kiko Pangilinan.
There was this tsismis.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes.
MR. NIETO. What I did was to post it on my page and tell
them this is fake. This is just an angle.
I am clearly not in favor of the Liberal Party but when false
information is shown on line and it spreads, I try to correct it. And in
172
the events that I felt that, you know, I did wrong, I issue errata. You
could just go to the Thinking Pinoy Facebook page and look for the
word “erratum” in the search bar and you could see that I actually
issue errata on what I post.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Yes, that’s why we—you know, we may
or may not agree with you. This is sometimes what we say is, hindi na
natin alam papaano mag-isip ang millennials. Pero pag pumupunta
kami sa mga blog, actually us here in the Senate, we should be
checking those sites so that we know how people think, not necessarily
that we will agree. But if there is anything, you do excellent research.
And that’s the truth. You do excellent research. Sometimes against
us, sometimes for us. So I hope you keep that neutrality, like if you
are in a board, you can be an independent director. You can be in
government but an independent consultant.
So I guess we can continue with our questions now with Senator
Migz.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, yes, I’d like to reiterate, in fairness, I’ve read their
blogs of Thinking Pinoy and many times, well, mistakes were pointed
out. He had corrected them and that’s highly appreciated by people
also from our side who gets flak from all other bloggers.
173
And I would like to go back, Madam Chair, on the mainstream
media. One of our ex-colleagues actually texted me and she asked me
to ask these questions. Because many times on the mainstream
media, you post the story as well online but sometimes it is not
corrected. Sometimes they post fake reports and accused somebody
online, then they take it down and the editor simply says, “Later the
one who posted it has no authority whatsoever to post.” And because
of that—but the damage has been done. What do you do? What’s
your policy?
Madam Chair, I’d like to ask the mainstream media, what’s your
policy on that? Do you actually penalize your members of the media
that post it online or post fake news on line?
Maybe we’ll start with ABS and after which Interaction.
MS. GONZALEZ. Yes.
SEN. ZUBIRI. … answers lang, ma’am, kung puwede.
MS. GONZALEZ. But I don’t understand. Are you saying, Mr.
Senator, that if there is someone who posted a story on our news site
and that person is not authorized to do it?
SEN. ZUBIRI. For example, Madam Chair.
MS. GONZALEZ. It does not happen.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Madam Chair, for example, there is one particular
site where it was posted the Duterte drug addicts, the number of drug
174
addicts. They quoted a 2004 number, figure, not the 2011 to 2012
figure which is the right figure that was supposed to be quoted. And
so, it was taken down but the damage has been done already. Parang
lumalabas na nagsinungaling yung Presidente and all that with the
numbers that it was quoted. But there was no punishment. There
was just—basically what the editor had said that the one who posted
had no authority to post that figure but the damage has been done. I
just want to get your sense of that if that happens.
MS. GONZALEZ. I am not very knowledgeable about that
particular story. But like I said, we have internal mechanisms where
the aggrieved party, whether private or public, can come to us and
complain. And we have handled a lot of cases like that and, yes, we’re
not invaluable like all other traditional media, so we could make
mistakes. And when we do that, we make corrections. And if we
failed to do that or anyone who is part of that mistake, we will have to
start an investigation about it and then provide the proper sanctions.
SEN. ZUBIRI. You have--I believe, the ABS has taken internal
ombudsman for that particular—
MS. GONZALEZ. Yes. We have two internal mechanisms. One
is the network ombudsman and the other is the news ethics unit which
handles all of the complaints.
SEN. ZUBIRI. How about with the other mainstream media.
175
MR. ALAMPAY. Doon po sa pagkakuwento ninyo, in a scenario
like that, mukha namang kung mayroon nag-post na hindi authorized,
that’s clearly something that even internally is an offense. It will be
investigated, the person involved will be dealt with and penalized … cts
176
JADela Cruz VI-4 October 4, 2017 1:22 p.m. 1
MR. ALAMPAY. … penalized if necessary. Do we have an
ombudsman at TV5? Yes, sir, we do.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Well, also this goes for all the outlets. We will
just start making an appeal that as mentioned by the Chair earlier,
iyong self-policing. Wala na po si Atty. La Viña. Because it has been
our experience that self-policing has not actually been the case except
for blatant mistakes done by the networks, then they come out and
then issue an erratum. But when it comes to—especially like
newspapers and online articles, Madam Chair, medyo may kakulangan.
That is why it is also important that we tackle again the issue of right
to reply. And the right to reply issue, maybe this day and age, might
be needed to be discussed thoroughly. Because now iba na, iba na.
You can be hit immediately online and I think it is not fair to many of
us in public service. We can take a punch but pag putik na at kung ano
na ang itinatapon sa iyo, that’s unfair. I think we have a right to reply
as well.
I’ve had particular experiences when I’ve written several dailies
and it would never come out. Our answers would never come out and
if there was once a time that it would come out, it would come out two
weeks after. The story has done, it is hidden in the editorial page and I
think that is not, you know--again, that is not fair to those who are
working in public service.
177
Also, Madam Chair, on the issue of the Cocoy Dayao and this
article, unfortunately the chairperson isn’t here—So I’d like to ask this
time the NBI, Attorney—is it Dr. Manuel? Are you also a lawyer, sir?
MR. EDUARTE. Sorry. I am an accountant, sir.
SEN. ZUBIRI. You are an accountant?
MR. EDUARTE. Yes, sir.
SEN. ZUBIRI. But you are chief of the Cybercrime Division.
What is your expertise on cybercrime matter?
MR. EDUARTE. Yes, Your Honor. I was taking the administrative
aspect, management ng cases being referred to us, assignment of
cases. So we have technical people from our digital forensics to assist
us. Our people are trained in the conduct of cybercrime investigation,
Your Honor.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Has Senator Sotto approached you to investigate
this particular issue on this—
SEN. ZUBIRI. Yes. Were you able to give information to
Senator Sotto and the Committee on this particular issue, sir?
MR. EDUARTE. We have submitted a progress report but we
asked him, if possible, not to reveal the result of the initial
investigation and not to jeopardize the future investigations that the
NBI will be conducting so that we can gather additional evidence.
178
SEN. ZUBIRI. But on your opinion, Dr. Eduarte—
MR. EDUARTE. Mister, sir.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Mr. Eduarte—the statements made by Silent No
More could be considered libelous in your experience of handling
cases?
MR. EDUARTE. Regarding what particular issue, sir?
SEN. ZUBIRI. The statements made against the seven
senators?
MR. EDUARTE. If it can be established, it is, Your Honor.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Yes. Thank you.
So mayroon na pong ongoing investigation?
MR. EDUARTE. Yes, sir. We started the investigation last
September 28.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Thank you.
When will you be able to finalize this investigation, sir?
MR. EDUARTE. Maximum of two weeks more, Your Honor.
On the other matter that I would like to take up with the KBP.
Because iyong self-regulation, sir, Atty. Jularbal. On the self-regulation
aspect, not all members of media are part of the KBP, is that correct,
sir?
MR. JULARBAL. Good afternoon, Your Honors.
179
Yes, not all members of broadcast media are members of the
KBP. There is GMA who is not a member and also PTV4.
SEN. ZUBIRI. And I believe also many other media outlets in
the provinces, if I am not mistaken.
MR. JULARBAL. Yes, Your Honor. There is a proliferation of
provincial as well as municipal level broadcast stations and not all of
them also are members of KBP.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Actually that is a big problem now and
something that we have to discuss again, maybe in the next
committee hearing, on the proliferation of so many media outlets in
the provinces. Kung may fake news doon, talagang—iyong mga
pulitiko. Kung sinu-sino na lang ang binabanatan doon, hinuhubaran.
Talagang, ‘ikanga, hinuhubaran. Wala po kayong police power dito sa
mga ito? When we say police power, do you have any sanction given to
these media men, sir?
MR. JULARBAL. Your Honor, on that matter, the KBP and
National Telecommunications Commission are cooperating on this. And
in fact last week I met with Commissioner Cordoba, and as a result, he
issued a circular, I think, yesterday requesting KBP to assist them in
getting information on these radio stations. So we will be providing
NTC information on their location, their frequency, who are the people
180
behind it. Because per our own investigation, it looks like a lot of these
stations are not even licensed.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Attorney, sandali lang, Attorney, mukhang
nagka-aksidente rito.
SEN. BINAY. Senator Migz, can we request the OSAA to
accompany Mr. Eduarte sa clinic.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Yes, we have a clinic. There was an accident. I
believe the tripod fell on our NBI chief of Cybercrime Division. We’ll
ask the OSAA, please escort him to the clinic. Mukha namang
aksidente. Kanino pong tripod iyan? PTV4 ba iyan? Sa RTV.
Okay. So, again, Attorney—sorry, I lost my train of thought.
What was that again, Attorney, on the—
MR. JULARBAL. I was saying, Your Honor, that on the matter
of these stations in the provinces that are proliferating. Based on our
own investigation, a lot of them are not licensed. That is why we are
coordinating with the National Telecommunications Commission and
our members are being asked under a memo-circular issued, I think,
yesterday to provide the information in these stations. Because the
NTC committed to close them down if they are unlicensed.
SEN. ZUBIRI. If they are licensed, I think, Attorney--Some of
them are also in other stations that are licensed, probably members of
181
the KBP. Is there a mechanism within the KBP that the public can
actually go to for complaints?
MR. JULARBAL. Yes, Your Honor. In fact, we have been
announcing this even years ago. All they have to do is to write a letter
or e-mail KBP and we will motu proprio take action on the complaint.
SEN. ZUBIRI. Of course, without sacrificing or without--how do
you say--stifling the particular victim from filing legal suits?
MR. JULARBAL. Yes, Your Honor. In fact, under our procedures,
if a victim of offensive broadcast or a broadcast that they feel offended
them or damaged them, files a criminal case or even a civil case, the
KBP will suspend proceedings to give way to the cases filed in court.
And just as a last statement, I think we’ve had our share of fake
news. As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, in 2013, I recall one week
before the elections, internet post came out saying that I will file a
bill—I was no longer a senator then—that I will file a bill to having HIV
as illegal—to be illegal. Some things stupid as that. Having HIV is an
illegal act. Of course, the LGBT community freaked out and they
attacked me. I don’t know. I think you remember that, Michael. I told
you, you defended me and said that that is not true. I would never say
such stupidity. Nevertheless, you know, that time of fake news has
been coming out lately more often than before. As a matter of fact, it
182
has already achieved this purpose in the last 2016 presidential
elections in the United States where admittedly fake news on the
hacking of the electoral map of the United States and all emails of
these voters were sent fake news and, therefore, could have possibly
moved voters to vote for a particular candidate. And so, therefore, we
have to do something about this, Madam Chair. I think Senator Bam
has his share of fake news. He is from the opposite side of my political
fence. I’ve had my share of fake news also from those that are friendly
to their side. I think it is about time … /jadc
183
NGDizon VII-1 October 4, 2017 1:32 p.m. 1
SEN. ZUBIRI. … I think it is about time that we be able to police
this on this particular case on “Silent No More,” Your Honor.
Madam Chair, I’d like to just put this on the record that we want
to see—We want to hear from Mr. Cocoy Dayao and in the proper time
if he does not attend, we will move for a subpoena duces tecum to
compel him to attend here and I hope we can go to the bottom of this
and I hope he tells us what motivated him to destroy the reputation of
seven senators. Okay lang po kasi pulitiko kami. We can take the heat.
We file a bill, people don’t like it, they can attack us. But huwag naman
iyong wala kaming ginagawa, tapos ginawa pang kwento, tinira kami.
I think that’s foul. Kasi as I said, I would have been willing to sign that
resolution. Senator Bam knows me when it comes to children, women
and issues of that, we fully support it. We fully support these types of
resolutions. Kaya napakasakit sa amin na ginawa itong pamulitika ang
klaseng resolution na iyan.
So, Madam Chair, with that, I’d like to end my interpellation and
I’d like to thank the Chairperson.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Migz, kung lahat ng tira sa atin
sasagutin natin, iyong mga walang basehan na, hearing tayo araw-
araw.
On the other hand, I mean, you will attest to the fact that media
has been calling for this hearing on fake news but I’m a little bit
184
worried about legislating nga when it comes to things that will affect
freedom of speech. But I think it’s timely now that all of your opinions
have come into the open and we need to discuss this freely.
And Senator Bam, thank you for your …
SEN. AQUINO. All right. Maraming salamat, Chairperson.
So magandang hapon po sa ating lahat. I know it’s getting a
little late but I’ll try to be as brief as possible.
Unang-una, iyong pahayag na fake news, it’s a generic term. I
think Ms. Tordesillas mentioned this earlier among other individuals
and Usec Egco also mentioned this. Pero sa pakiwari ko po mayroon
pong iba’t-ibang klase iyan. So we have outright falsehoods and later
we’ll show you some examples of some falsehoods. Mayroong hate
speech na iba rin, ibang category rin iyan. Senator Hontiveros isn’t
anymore but if you read the hate speech na nabato sa kanya, I mean,
it’s really terrible. Talagang hindi ho talaga acceptable iyan in a decent
society. “Sana ma-rape ka. Sana ma-rape iyong anak mo. Sana
mamatay ka na” and we should not countenance that. We should not
agree that that is within the bounds of freedom of speech kasi nga
may hangganan iyong freedom of speech.
Pangatlo. Mayroon din pong parody na may nagpapatawa lang
or mayroon pong kaunting, you know, it’s a—I don’t know. It’s a
satirical. But, unfortunately, marami ho sa mga kababayan natin
185
hindi ho nakakaintindi ng satire or ng parody. In fact, it’s quite funny
there’s this site called Pinoy Observer na patuloy na nagshe-share
iyong mga tao, patuloy nagko-comment iyong mga tao, galit na galit.
Grabe, galit na galit. I don’t even remember what issue it was
anymore. But if you look at there about us, aaminin nila that there’s
such a satirical site. We’re here to make you laugh. Parang ganyan.
So even that in itself is already problematic kasi iyong pinapalabas na
nakakatawa o parody ay hindi rin naiintindihan na parody ito. And this
happened a number of times during the campaign itself. And then
mayroon tayong mainit na komentaryo, mainit na opinyon. And I agree
with the bloggers here on both sides of the political fence na ang
panahon natin ngayon ay panahon ng mainit na komentarya. And as
public officials, everyone from the President to a barangay captain, an
asec and even a consultant, we are open to this. In fact, you know, si
Mr. Nieto always calls me a cosplayer of my uncle, I don’t mind. I have
high respect for cosplayers at pogi naman iyong tito ko. So I don’t
mind. Ganoon lang talaga. However, when your commentary or
opinion suddenly has, you know, may malicious intent o mayroon kang
pinu-push na agenda, and there are times even Asec Mocha, I see this
sometimes in your post “Nagtatanong lang po” mga ganyan, hindi ba?
186
Si Mr. Nieto, “Does Bam Aquino have anything to do with this?”
You can always hide behind saying, “I didn’t say it.” Mr. Lopez, hindi
ba? I didn’t say that it’s categorical. Pero iyong dating kasi niya, it
comes out as fact.
Now, you’re right. Wala pong batas stopping you from writing a
certain way and this has happened many times in the past. Kahit po
mga regular columnist, ginagawa naman talaga iyan. However, we
need to agree na wala nang space ang ganito sa ating lipunan ngayon
because we know better. Because nagkakaharap na tayo dito lahat,
hindi ba? Okay lang. Tell us if you don’t like our vote. Kung tumayo
kami laban sa EJK, sabihin ninyo. And some of you have said, “Hindi
tama iyan. Ginugulo ninyo lang iyong Presidente.” I think some of you
have said that. That’s fine because iyon talaga iyong position namin.
Ayaw namin sa mga bagay-bagay na ganyan and we’re clear on that.
And you can berate us to death regarding our side and regarding
what we’re trying to say. However, kung gagawa ka nang kwento,
magko-connect-connect the dots ka,—Mr. Nieto, sabi mo nga, you are
a political opinion maker. Is that correct?
MR. NIETO. Well, a political observer.
SEN. AQUINO. And you like to connect the dots.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
187
SEN. AQUINO. Paminsan-minsan, those dots don’t really
connect and paminsan-minsan, they do. Is that fair to say?
MR. NIETO. Oo. The thing here, Mr. Senator, is I am open to
criticism in the same way that when a commenter said that that link is
weak, I say, “Yes, it’s enough to raise reasonable suspicion but not
even enough to complete(?) probable cause.
SEN. AQUINO. Okay.
MR. NIETO. And that is why we have to ask more questions.
SEN. AQUINO. Mr. Nieto, you are right. You are not breaking
any law.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
SEN. AQUINO. But you look at the US. Within hours of the Las
Vegas shooting, mayroon na kaagad fake news connecting the dots
na, “Oh, this was a plan of the Democrats. Oh, this lady liked
democratic pages, etcetera, etcetera.” You can also say that that
person is just connecting the dots. He’s just making political
commentary but we know na hindi siya maganda, hindi siya tama,
hindi siya ethical. So ako ang pakiusap ko na lang sa inyo, I know that
you like to create these scenarios—your scenarios, Mr. Nieto,
nakakasama rin iyan. It does hurt real people. For example, kinonek
mo si Ms. Terol(?). Ms. Terol worked in my office for a while. She left
I think around 2014. She’s now working in a private company. Sa
188
pagkaka-alam ko wala na siyang kinalaman sa pulitika and you make a
very thin connection to Mr. Dayao with no proof, with no allegation,
with no evidence na may kinalaman siya, just to say na magkakilala
sila and she owned the ProPinoy site.
MR. NIETO. I think I’ve been very clear on the site and even in
my succeeding comments that I never implicated Ms. Tirol.
SEN. AQUINO. Okay.
MR. NIETO. And my stance was, invite Ms. Tirol and ask her
about it because what we need here is more information about how
does the entire propaganda machine works. Now, if the good senator
thinks that how I conduct myself is unacceptable based on whatever,
you know, hashtag, dissenter standards there are, I think he should
legislate against it.
SEN. AQUINO. And we probably will to be frank, Mr. Nieto. Ito
kasi ang nangyayari sa atin ngayon, blogging and the rise of our social
media demagogues. This happened before legislation was able to catch
up. So alam naman nating hindi ito maganda. Alam naman natin na
nakakasakit ito sa mga tao. Hindi ba pwede, can’t we on our own, try
to be more fair?
Let me go lang to Asec Mocha. Can’t we try to be more fair? Ang
rami mong posts regarding the minority, regarding the Liberal Party.
Not once humingi ka ng side namin, not even an attempt. And now
189
you’re an Asec of the PCOO, nasa position ka. And to be frank, I wish
Secretary Andanar were here para matanong natin directly. Kapag
mayroon kang post na, you know, mali iyong picture. I think we will
show it later. Kapag mali iyong picture, ano iyong consequences
niyan, Asec Mocha? Sinasabihan ka ba ng boss mo, ni Secretary
Andanar, na, “O, mukhang maling picture iyan. Fake iyan.”
MS. USON. Ano po ba iyong picture na iyon, Senator?
SEN. AQUINO. Can we show it? This is the—I think the
Honduras Army, if I’m not mistaken. You’re familiar with this.
MS. USON. Yes. Yes, Senator.
SEN. AQUINO. Ito, naglabas ka nang maling photo. So this is a
falsehood. Mali iyong photo. I’m not saying—Wala namang masamang
intention. Maganda naman iyong intention, pagdasal iyong ating mga
troops. Bakit mali iyong photo na nilagay mo?
MS. USON. Madam Chair, unang-una po, hindi ko naman po
sinabing sila iyong mga sundalo natin sa Marawi. Hindi ko po sinabing
sila ay sundalo natin. Shinare (share) ko po iyan mula sa isang page at
ang hangarin ko lang po diyan ay ipanalangin po ang mga sundalo.
SEN. AQUINO. Bakit hindi ka na lang gumamit ng totoong
photograph ng Philippine Army? Napaka-simpleng hanapin.
190
MS. USON. Kasi po napukaw po iyong puso ko dito sa caption
ng photograph na ito na ipanalangin po iyong sundalo. Kaya ishinare
(share) ko po iyon dahil nga pray for our soldiers.
SEN. AQUINO. Kaya nga. Ang dali-daling maghanap ng
photograph ng totoong Philippine Army. Bakit hindi iyong Philippine
Army iyong nilagay mo kasi mas gusto mo itong picture?
MS. USON. Kasi po shinare (share) ko po siya, sir, mula sa isang
page. …/ngdizon
191
BRHGonzales VIII-1 October 4, 2017 1:42 p.m. 1
MS. USON. … mula sa isang page. So shinare (share) ko lang
po siya. Hindi ko siya in-upload. At nakalagay po doon, “Pray for our
soldiers.”
SEN. AQUINO. So sino ang nag-upload noong photo?
MS. USON. Nakalagay po doon, “CinEmotion Digital Films.”
SEN. AQUINO. So it’s another group that posted the photo?
MS. USON. Yes, Mr. Senator.
SEN. AQUINO. Ah, okay. All right. So this was reposted.
This was not your photo.
MS. USON. Yes, sir.
SEN. AQUINO. All right. So in the course of your blogging,
ikaw ba lang iyan mismo or PCOO actually, you know—?
MS. USON. Ako lang. Ako lang po. Ako lang po, sir.
SEN. AQUINO. Okay. In the case, Asec, or maybe Usec Egco,
of allied bloggers like Thinking Pinoy and other allied bloggers, iyong
kasama sa iyong corps, iyong dinadala ninyo abroad, do you provide
talking points to them?
MR. EGCO. As far as I know, Your Honor, nothing is provided
to them—as far as I know.
SEN. AQUINO. Asec Ana, as far as you know rin ba iyong
sagot mo? Yes or no. Mayroon ba kayong pino-provide na talking
points sa kanila?
192
MS. BANAAG. Nakaka-intimidate naman, sir. [Laughter]
SEN. AQUINO. Kasi iyong “as far as I know,” it doesn’t mean
anything.
Yes or no.
MS. BANAAG. No, we don’t provide talking point, sir.
SEN. AQUINO. Okay. Not even press releases that you asked
them to talk about?
MS. BANAAG. No, sir.
SEN. AQUINO. That’s quite normal.
MS. BANAAG. Yes, sir. No, sir.
SEN. AQUINO. Doesn’t the Malacañang Press Corps really
provide press—even to the regular press? May press releases naman
iyan, hindi ba? I don’t know.
Roby, can you help me out here? The Malacañang corps of
reporters, they do get press releases from Malacañang.
Yes. Could you ano?
MR. ALAMPAY. Yes, they do.
SEN. AQUINO. So do you provide press releases to the
bloggers as well or no, not even?
MS. BANAAG. No, sir.
SEN. AQUINO. Not even?
193
MS. BANAAG. Yes, sir. We provide it to Malacañang Press
Corps, sir.
SEN. AQUINO. And they’re not part of the press corps?
MS. BANAAG. They’re not part of the press corps, sir.
SEN. AQUINO. Okay. All right. O, sige, let me go to my
presentation. So mayroon nga tayong apat. Mayroon tayong
falsehoods, mayroon tayong hate speech na potentially libelous and as
Drilon had said, mayroong remedy for that. May remedy diyan. Lahat
tayo puwedeng kasuhan ng libel—puwede kang kasuhan, puwede
akong kasuhan, puwedeng kasuhan iyong nagsulat noong “7 Deadly
Sens” post. That’s available to the public already. Mayroong parody
rin.
But let me just show some examples of some really outrageous
fake news. Firstly, we have been able to collate 87 sites that provide
fake news. We also have the list from the CBCP. The CBCP came out
with the pastoral letter a number of months ago talking about sites na
mayroong fake news na naglalabas. In fact, RJ, if I’m not mistaken,
thinkingpinoy.net is part of this list ng CBCP.
MR. NIETO. Actually, for the record, Mr. Senator, number one,
I wouldn’t really say that I am allied with the PCOO because the fact of
the matter is I’ve written two articles which attacked these two
people—Assistant Secretary Banaag when she cited something about
194
our Revised Penal Code and I was really disappointed in her. But I
love you, ma’am; number two, against Usec Joel Egco regarding the
PTFoMS statement on Aznar.
So will you say that—
SEN. AQUINO. That’s two out of—?
MR. NIETO. I’m sorry? Two viral articles.
SEN. AQUINO. How many articles have you had since the start
of the Duterte administration—everyday?
MR. NIETO. Well, since I started Thinking Pinoy in November,
I have about 200 articles.
SEN. AQUINO. Okay. Two hundred articles. If we do an
analysis now, ilan doon iyong against—Asec Banaag? Maybe we’ll find
one or two. If we do an analysis of how many are against the political
opposition, I’m sure it’s much higher.
MR. NIETO. Yes, of course, it’s much higher because I think
there’s more things wrong with you. So—[Laughter] That’s my
opinion, sir, and I might be wrong.
SEN. AQUINO. Exactly. But what I’m saying, RJ, is huwag
mong sabihin na because you had one article on Asec Banaag, hindi ka
na part of the Duterte groups. You self-professed to be a Duterte
supporter.
MR. NIETO. Yes, I said—
195
SEN. AQUINO. And you’re a member or you’re a consultant of
the DFA.
MR. NIETO. Well, number one, Mr. Senator, I say that I am
Duterte aligned but not Duterte ally because I criticize PCOO a lot.
And that’s why sometimes Secretary Andanar doesn’t even want to
talk to me anymore.
But the point here is to say that I am ally, there has to be some
sort of misunderstanding—
SEN. AQUINO. Okay. That’s your opinion.
The CBCP list of fake news websites, kasama si thinkingpinoy.net
diyan. You know that, right?
MR. NIETO. Yes. And GMA actually asked me about it.
SEN. AQUINO. Yes, please.
MR. NIETO. And my reply was, “Ask me the CBCP about what
news to believe or not.” It’s just like asking a lawyer if you have
cancer or not.
SEN. AQUINO. Okay. For the record, Madam Chairperson, I
just like to state that the resource person we’re asking to explain social
media belongs to a list of fake websites of the Catholic Bishops
Conference of the Philippines. So I ask the Chairman to please be
more—maybe in the future, we can be more discerning with who we
ask to present here as well.
196
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Bam, we’re talking about fake
news.
SEN. AQUINO. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So if he is categorized as a member of
those blogs that are in the fake news category, then you have him
right here and you can verify whether it’s true or not.
SEN. AQUINO. So kumbaga, mas alam niya ang tungkol sa
fake news?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Hindi. It’s for you to determine whether
he belongs to that category or not.
SEN. AQUINO. Anyway, Madam Chairman, I’m just saying that
he is on this list.
Now, we also did a research on more—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Maybe biased in some ways.
SEN. AQUINO. Well, he’s on the list. This is categorical. This
was read in all the churches on a Sunday.
Anyway, let me move on. So in Facebook, for example—and we
want to ask asec and usec on this point—kasama sa listahan na ito—
not yet this one—but on the ‘80s—not yet that one—rewind, rewind.
Maganda naman iyong photos ko kay Asec Mocha so okay lang
sa akin iyon. Hindi sa iyo iyon. Iba iyon.
197
Anyway, if you look at all of these sites that the CBCP has
pointed out as fake news plus our own research, umaabot na po ito ng
87 fake news websites.
Is it troublesome, Usec Joel, na marami sa mga sites na ito carry
the name of the President? Is that troublesome for you?
MR. EGCO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and Your
Honor.
Of course, it is. But pinag-uusapan din po namin iyan and I
think— ganoon po kasi talaga. Isang problema iyan—iyong ia-identify
mo. It’s so easy to put up a website, name it after Bam Aquino—
SEN. AQUINO. Or the President.
MR. EGCO. Or the President. And then pagka nabuking ka na,
you take down the site and you put up another.
SEN. AQUINO. Put up another one. Agree.
MR. EGCO. So iyon po iyong isang kuwan diyan. But,
however, the effect is iyon nga po—well, it’s alarming.
SEN. AQUINO. It’s alarming. It’s troublesome. It’s also bad
for the President. Is that safe to say kapag may mga fake news sites
that have his name there?
MR. EGCO. I suppose so, yes. Kasi that’s one form of false
information. So people would think that these websites are actually
allied to the President’s camp.
198
SEN. AQUINO. Okay. Not even aligned, just ally?
MR. EGCO. Not even aligned.
SEN. AQUINO. Okay.
MR. EGCO. So iyon iyong danger doon. So how to check that?
Iyon po iyong actually dapat we have to identify to determine.
SEN. AQUINO. You want to say something, Asec?
So, in fact, Madam Chairperson, you will also ask NBI to do their
forensic research kung sino ho talaga iyong may-ari ng mga websites
na ito on our research pati na rin iyong 40 fake websites na binanggit
ng CBCP. We also want to know who is earning from these websites.
Sino po iyong nasa likod ng mga ito because, you know, let’s be fair.
If we are doing an investigation, let’s go all out.
Asec Banaag, do you agree?
MS. BANAAG. Sir, I’d like to make a comment on how CBCP
was able to come up with something on fake news. First, what to
them is fake news; and, of course, second, where is silent no more. Is
silent no more?
SEN. AQUINO. No, this was released early on. I think, if I’m
not mistaken, this was released maybe four or five months ago.
What’s the date? January. So medyo matagal-tagal na.
So maybe we can invite them next time. They can be here and
we can talk to them ano iyong naging basehan nila.
199
MS. BANAAG. Yes, sir.
SEN. AQUINO. And maybe they have an updated list.
MS. BANAAG. Yes, sir. And—
THE CHAIRPERSON. You mean the CBCP?
SEN. AQUINO. Yes. Yes, Madam Chairperson.
SEN. AQUINO. All right. So kung makikita ninyo po itong mga
iba’t ibang mga sites, it does include the name of the President. We
have Duterte News, Duterte Defender, DU30newsblog.blogspot, DU30
Worldwide and some that don’t have his name—hotnewsfield.blogspot,
liberalpartysite.wordpress. Iba-iba rin talaga ito. Magkakaiba siya.
So if we are going to undergo this investigation anyway, we will
request NBI. Lahat ho ng—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator Bam.
SEN. AQUINO. Yes, ma’am.
THE CHAIRPERSON. May maikli lang sasabihin si Ms.
Tordesillas. Alam mo naman—
Ma’am, can you say it like in one minute? Opo.
MS. TORDESILLAS. Ang problem lang kasi sa listahan na iyan,
kasi they cited sites. Mayroong mga sites kasi na nagko-combine
iyong fake at saka hindi fake.
SEN. AQUINO. Aabot tayo diyan, ma’am. We will get there.
200
MR. NIETO. Madam Chair.
SEN. AQUINO. Just a second, RJ.
So itong 87 fake news websites natin, we went through it and
we’d like to share with you some of these posts. So the first major
one—and I’ll go over mine quite briefly kasi I’m sure alam ninyo na rin
iyan—the first major one about myself was really about our Food
Waste Bill. And it’s a pity kasi itong—although I think I look very
boyish here, Madam Chairperson, medyo boyish—
THE CHAIRPERSON. You look good there.
SEN. AQUINO. I look good there. Thank you, Madam
Chairperson.
That’s fake news ba or that’s real news?
MR. NIETO. No, you really do look good there. [Laughter]
SEN. AQUINO. Thank you, RJ. Salamat.
THE CHAIRPERSON. No filter.
SEN. AQUINO. This was the first fake news … brhg
201
MPMENDOZA IX-1 October 4, 2017 1:52 p.m. 1
SEN. AQUINO. … This was the first fake news. It came from a
site na Marcos loyalist site. Hindi siya outright falsehood. It was
twisted. The facts were twisted. At iyong Zero Food Waste Bill,
ginawan ako ng quote “Mga tira-tirang pagkain, ibigay sa mga
mahihirap” which, of course, is an outright falsehood. Hindi ko talaga
sinabi iyan and that’s not really the subject of the bill.
Alam mo, we all received—Senator Trillanes is here—We all
received negative comments. Medyo sanay na ho kami diyan. Ang
sayang lang ho dito, iyong bill namatay. Because of all of these fake
news around it, hindi na namin matulak-tulak iyong batas na ito. It is
a bill that will collect unused food from supermarkets, from different
areas and then it will be given to DSWD for usage of communities who
are hungry and which is done in many, many countries. But the bill
practically died because of this fake news. So isang casualty po iyan
ng fake news.
Next. Ito naman, kakaiba talaga. There was this rally in front of
the US Embassy na may nasagasaan, I think you all remember that.
In a blink of an eye, napakabilis, kami daw mga dilawan ang may
kagagawan niyan and it was quite outrageous.
Third, iyong kay Marawi. And this was really the one that hurt
the most because this was from Secretary Aguirre.
202
Iyong kwento ho niyan, Madam Chairperson, umikot na iyan sa
Internet—umikot na iyang balitang iyan, that fake news na may
kagagawan ako sa Marawi siege and it became even worse when
Secretary Aguirre mentioned it to his press corps. This is the worst
because this is about terrorism, this is treasonous already,
napakasama po niyan. Iyong kamukha mo si ganito, iyong kamukha
mo si ganyan, kilala mo si ganito na may kakilalang ganyan, okay pa.
Ito napakasama talaga. It’s really, really bad.
And, you know, our seven colleagues are so incensed that, you
know, they are being accused of not supporting the EJK resolution. I
think this is even worse because here you are being accused of being a
traitor to your country. So napakasama ho talaga nito. Now, it
became worse when an official of government broadcast it.
And this, I think, is where one of my points. Eventually, when
we craft the bill, who is really responsible? Unang-una, it’s the writer
pero mahirap pong hanapin iyon. Secondly, it’s the broadcaster. Sino
iyong nag-broadcast ng fake news. Because a number of—
Well, Asec and RJ, sometimes we used posts from other sites
that eventually turn out to be faked.
MR. NIETO. Well, if you can site on Thinking Pinoy, sir, I’ll say
if it’s fake or not.
SEN. AQUINO. Can we show that nga, please? Nag-erratum ka.
203
MR. NIETO. Alin po ba?
SEN. AQUINO. This one. “… the photo I posted earlier today
showing Robredo’s portrait allegedly being auctioned off on eBAy
turned out to be derived from a satirical post.”
MR. NIETO. Yes.
SEN. AQUINO. So you do make mistakes sometimes?
MR. NIETO. Yes. I do make mistakes. In the same way that we
do not expect infallibility in media as long as—
SEN. AQUINO. Yes. And in fact, I am thankful that you have
an erratum. Ang sinasabi ko lang is that sometimes you used posts
which are erroneous at nangyayari iyon.
MR. NIETO. Well, tao lang po.
SEN. AQUINO. Yes, exactly, nangyayari ito. Kahit naman
kami, nagkakamali rin kami.
MR. NIETO. Opo.
SEN. AQUINO. We say an erratum also right away.
Has it happened, Asec Mocha Uson, sa iyo, mayroon kang na-cite
na maling balita?
MS. USON. Opo, iyong ano, iyong dapat na tax code. Iyon po,
nag-erratum din po ako doon, Senator.
SEN. AQUINO. Okay. How do you find out na nagkamali ka?
MS. USON. Binash po ako.
204
SEN. AQUINO. Okay. And then tsine-check mo?
MS. USON. Opo.
SEN. AQUINO. Okay. And how long usually does it take you to
put an erratum?
MS. USON. Kaagad-agad po, Senator.
SEN. AQUINO. Agad-agad, hindi ba?
MS. USON. Opo.
SEN. AQUINO. So that can be part of the bill, Madam
Chairperson, na kung mayroong mali, may time limit ka na para
tanggalin iyon. Kung sumobra ka, pwede ka nang may penalty. And I
think that’s fair. That’s fair to everyone who posts.
But, third, Madam Chairperson, is really also the platform
because—
Can we go to the one about the other countries? If you look at
what other countries are doing, they are not just penalizing the author,
they are not just penalizing the broadcaster, they are also penalizing
the platforms. Because the platforms, the broadcasters and the
authors are all earning from these posts. So they have more
responsibility because kumikita sila dito.
And this is why, Madam Chairperson, maybe in our next hearing,
we can invite people from Google, from Facebook, from Twitter. And
we have initially invited them because they do have a responsibility
205
here. In fact, if you look what is happening in the United States, they
are at the center of the investigations on Russia-US collusion because
there were ads supposedly bought by the Russians that would have
affected the elections. So hindi lang ho ito problema sa ating bansa.
This is a worldwide phenomenon. And if we want to get to the bottom
of this, medyo marami pa po talagang kailangan tayong tahakin.
Now, if you don’t mind, Madam Chairperson, I also got some
fake news about our other colleagues—pinaalam ko naman.
On Senator Grace Poe—“Grace Poe siningil si Digong sa
pangakong magpakamatay para sa bayan,” Madam Chairperson.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Sinabi ko daw iyon?
SEN. AQUINO. Oo.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Ano ang sagot niya?
SEN. AQUINO. Ewan ko. YouTube ito, Tokhang TV.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Wala.
SEN. AQUINO. And “Pinakaayaw mabulgar na baho”—Mayroon
ba noon, Madam Grace?—“ni Grace Poe nagawang ibulgar ni Duterte
sa publiko.”
THE CHAIRPERSON. Mali kasi iyong drink, brandy daw, hindi
naman.
SEN. AQUINO. Ganoon ba iyon? [Laughter]
THE CHAIRPERSON. San Mig Light na lang.
206
SEN. AQUINO. Now, you look at the site, Tokhang TV and then
President Rodrigo Duterte update.
Usec Egco, that’s quite troublesome, right? Hindi iyan maganda
para sa Malacañang, hindi iyan maganda para sa ating Pangulo.
MR. EGCO. Yes. At a certain point, I agree with you, Your
Honor.
And I’d like to add when you asked me that question earlier.
Yes, I remember that I was given, I think, almost the same list that
you mentioned containing the names of the President et cetera and
somebody from PCOO, one of our colleagues, asked me if I can
actually bring the matter to the NBI for the same reason that we want
those people behind those alleged fake websites to be identified.
SEN. AQUINO. Palagay ko kasi, Usec, halu-halo na iyan.
Mayroong mga totoong sumusuporta kay President Duterte.
MR. EGCO. Yes, I would agree—
SEN. AQUINO. Mayroong kumikita lang.
MR. EGCO. Opo.
SEN. AQUINO. That’s my take. I don’t know if you agree.
MR. EGCO. Well, for me also, I would share the same view.
SEN. AQUINO. All right. So we all agree na whether it’s for the
opposition, for the administration basta peke po ito, this has no place
in our modern society. Is that correct, Usec?
207
MR. EGCO. If it’s—well, not always a lie. But if it’s malicious,
it’s unscrupulous and deliberately done with complete disregard to
what the truth is, then that’s the most sinister part of spreading fake
news.
SEN. AQUINO. Thank you.
With the bloggers or in the case of Asec Mocha, for example—ah,
wala pa palang social media guidelines. Sorry, you had mentioned this
earlier. We have a draft of the social media guidelines.
Was that released to the public? Not yet? Can the Committee see
a copy of that? Maybe we can provide comments on your social media
guidelines.
Why are we waiting for the President to sign it? Hindi ba
pwedeng si Secretary Andanar na lang pumirma niyan?
MS. BANAAG. Sir, the social media guidelines for the PCOO is
being reviewed by the OP. We are not waiting for the President to sign
it. But the DICT guidelines on social media is a draft for the President
to sign because it is an administrative order.
SEN. AQUINO. I see. Is that for all members of government?
SEN. AQUINO. All right. We would welcome that.
And could we see a draft of that, Atty. Muscoso? Are you
representing the DICT?
208
MR. MUSCOSO. [Off-mike] Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. AQUINO. Can I see a draft of that, please?
MR. MUSCOSO. [Off-mike] Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. AQUINO. For the record—sa record po. Just say yes on
the—so we can capture it.
MR. MUSCOSO. Yes, Your Honor, we will provide you a copy.
SEN. AQUINO. Thank you.
All right. Mayroon pa tayong iba dito. Of course, iyong kay Risa,
alam niyo na, at saka kay Senator Kiko. Ito, another interesting ito,
kakaiba rin ito, “Lagyan ng color coding ang mga tao sa MRT at LRT.”
You know, it sounds really fantastic but unfortunately, mayroon
talagang naniniwala.
Iyong nabanggit ni Senator Migz, napaka-fantastic naman noon,
ipagbabawal mo ang mayroong HIV, but mayroon talagang naniniwala
and it’s really maliciously done.
Now, kung titingnan niyo po, it’s the same picture, it’s the same
story on different sites. So it’s happening, nangyayari na iyan ngayon.
This is our reality right now.
Now, if I may just wrap up, Madam Chairperson, these are things
that are already here. And my take is that the political opinion, iyong
tagisan ng talino, iyong tagisan ng kuru-kuro mas tataas pa iyan—mas
tataas pa iyan. Maybe in the past year, I would say that the online
209
space was really owned by President Duterte supporters, maybe right
after he had won.
But now I think, with groups that have come out, ano na, it’s a
battlefield already. Everyone I think will agree, it’s a battlefield
already.
Ang tanong: Sa kahit anumang battlefield, mayroon pa bang
rules of engagement? And I think that’s what we’re trying to do now,
create some rules of engagement. Again, tawagin mo akong cosplayer
to death, wala akong problema. Tawagin mo akong terorista, may
problema ako diyan. Kasi foul na iyan, masama na iyan.
MR. NIETO. Hindi ko po ginawa iyon?
SEN. AQUINO. Hindi ikaw.
MR. NIETO. Okay.
SEN. AQUINO. Ikaw lang ang tumawag sa akin na cosplayer,
hindi ba?
Asec Mocha, wala akong problema kung hindi mo gusto iyong
mga batas ko. But if you accused us of destabilizing the government,
hindi rin namin gusto iyan kasi that’s a crime. Ang pinagkaiba niyan,
hindi mo gusto iyong sinabi ko, okay lang. Kasi hindi lahat ng
sasabihin ko magugustuhan mo talaga. Pero pag in-accuse mo ko na
destabilizer, any even innuendo of assassination, coup d’etat or
anything like that, I have a problem with that … /mpm
210
SMVilladiego X-1 October 4, 2017 2:02 p.m. 1
SEN. AQUINO. ... I have a problem with that kasi krimen po
iyon. So mayroon dapat tayong hangganan. Dapat alam natin ano
iyong komentaryo, ano iyong may sinasabi ka ng illegal? And dapat
malinaw sa atin iyon. And if you have five million followers, Asec
Mocha,--five million, seven million, five million, you have extra
responsibility. If you have 700,000 followers, you have extra
responsibility. Hindi na kayo pwedeng magtago na blogger ako, hindi
naman ako journalist. Sinabi na nga ni Mr. Nieto mas malaki pa daw
iyong reach niya sa Inquirer and Rappler combined. That’s what you
said, right?
MR. NIETO. Opo. Pero just to be clear, sir, ang gusto po sana
namin linawin natin kung ano iyong batas na naggo-govern sa amin.
SEN. AQUINO. Agree. And that’s exactly what we are doing
now. But unahan ninyo na. Be good citizens, unahan ninyo na. Alam
ninyo ng may responsibilidad kayo.
MR. NIETO. Sir, you cannot compel us—I mean, with all due
respect, you cannot compel us to do something that is not mandated.
SEN. AQUINO. We cannot compel you. That is true, RJ. And
eventually we might; but right now we can’t. So ang pakiusap namin,
tayo-tayo na mismo iyong mag-ayos, hindi ba? Iyong mag-ayos. You
know, we have opposition sites. There is nothing wrong with that.
Edwin is very outspoken. Great, he is outspoken; maraming taong
211
outspoken na ngayon. Maraming tao na ang nagagalit na rin ngayon.
Let people be outspoken. Let people challenge each other. Pero huwag
tayong mag-libelous speech sa name calling. Huwag tayong gumawa
ng mga balita na hindi totoo. Huwag tayong magsabi ng threats.
Huwag nating i-threaten iyong isa’t isa na “ma-rape ka sana,”
“mamatay ka sana,” “masunugan ka sana.” Huwag tayong gaganoon.
Pero itong usapin sa ating bayan, ano ba iyong resolusyon? We
forgot the resolution. The resolution was about killing of minors. Buti
nga sinuportahan ng Majority na ayaw na natin ng EJK. That could
have been something where the Senate would have agreed. For once
we could all have agreed na dapat itigil na iyong EJK sa bansa.
Instead, ang pinag-aawayan natin are, you know, we are here now. I
admit importante pa rin itong fake news. But we cannot allow
ourselves to devolve even further. And if it needs a law para
magkaroon ng rules of engagement, then gawin natin iyon. But siguro
naman bilang mga Filipino kaya naman natin na magkaroon ng sarili
nating rules of engagement. And, of course, if you are from
government like us, we are held to higher standards.
Usec.
MR. EGCO. Thank you, Your Honor, Madam Chair.
Yes, I agree na talagang malaki ang problema natin diyan sa
fake news na iyan. Going to that resolution po, ito iyong problema
212
natin that is why we have, again, I am going back to the discussion of
the need to define what fake news is. Kasi, for instance, iyon pong
inyong resolution, there was a resolution. It was disseminated but the
way it was presented was slanted. Kung sasabihin nating ganoon.
Maybe it was slanted, maybe it was a spin deliberately or otherwise.
But the question is, would that qualify that particular action as
distributing of fake news?
SEN. AQUINO. Well, our fellow Senators here consider the
name calling against them libelous because they were called certain
terms that have meaning, that are not true. Simply put, that are not
true. So I think it falls under libelous—possibly libelous speech. Now,
ibang category pa iyan, Usec, and that just goes to show kung gaano
kahirap itong tinatahak natin. And again, maybe there is—siguro
naman paisa-isa mayroon tayong mga bagay-bagay na pwede tayong
mag-agree. Na itigil na natin iyong fake news. Any site na fake news
whether it is for the administration or against the administration, dapat
itigil na iyan, hindi ba? If there is libelous speech, the people who
wrote it should be held accountable. Kung mayroong parody site,
kailangang malinaw na parody site. I mean, we need to undergo this.
This is the best—ako, for me, ito iyong best way. Now, habang
nangyayari iyan, my prediction is mas gugulo pa iyong battlefield
online. It will just get even more heated. Pero tama lang because we
213
are a democracy. At tama lang na iyong mga tao mayroon talaga
silang pananaw that they do have a point of view. And some will be
for the President, some will be against the President. And that’s how a
democracy is. Pero again, we have freedom of speech pero may
hangganan iyon. And ito iyong binubuo natin ngayon na mayroong
rules of engagement sana na lahat tayo susunod especially
government officials.
Anyway, this is a last point, Madam Chairperson.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Senator, we still have a few more
resource persons.
SEN. AQUINO. Last na last na talaga ito. We are just talking
about it. May bago na, “Bam Aquino, biglang nataranta sa mga
pasabog ni TO.” Dapat TP yata ito, Rey. RJ, this refers to you. Ang
bilis, namutla daw ako sa mga pasabog. Iyon ba iyong term? “Bam,
namutla sa pasabog ni TP.”
MR. NIETO. Hindi ako ang nagsulat niyan, sir.
SEN. AQUINO. I know. I know, syempre you are there. I just
like to mention maputi lang po talaga ako, hindi po ako namutla.
MR. NIETO. In fairness, sir, you are good looking.
SEN. AQUINO. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
So ganoon kabilis. As we are doing this, mayroon na kaagad.
And then if you look at the video, it is actually RJ and Tito Sen—and
214
Tito Sotto. I mean ganyan, that’s the world we live in. As we are
having this hearing, mayroon ng bagong fake news na lumabas.
So Madam Chairperson, thank you for your time and thank you
for your patience.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you for your research, Senator
Bam.
Actually habang nagsasalita ka, iyong isang sinasabing miyembro
ng grupo ng SilentNoMore, Leah Navarro, was already commenting and
saying that I am treating you guys with kid gloves and with deference.
Let me make it clear that I accord respect to every single resource
person in my hearing. I do not choose whether you are against me or
for me or for my views. And the reason why I am giving you this
chance is because this hearing is not for me. This hearing is for the
people. And supposedly purveyors of fake news are given the chance
to speak, well, because we are investigating fake news. So we will now
judge whether it is true that there is fake news or not. So I would like
her to come here to the next hearing and to speak up. She was a
member of my board and she said a lot of things about me that are
untrue. But I never called her out in social media but perhaps now she
can say it.
Anyway, I would like to give—actually, Mocha, ikaw may mga
nabibiktima sa iyo. Nabiktima ako.
215
MS. USON. Opo.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Ikaw ay nabibiktima rin.
MS. USON. Opo.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Dahil—papaano ka nabiktima? Dahil
nagko-quote ka ng news na galing din sa fake news site. Hindi ba,
iyong dito nga iyong sa US Ambassador Nikki, “We must give President
Duterte the space to run the nation.” Iyon pala galing sa fake Al
Jazeera website. Do you recall this?
MS. USON. Parang ini-report po iyan ng Manila Times. Manila
Times po.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Oo nga. Pero inilabas mo doon sa site mo?
MS. USON. Galing po sa Manila Times po iyong shinare (share)
ko. And then dinelete (delete) ko po noong sinabing fake po.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Pero kinorect (correct) mo na rin?
MS. USON. Opo.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Mayroon naman isa dito na sinasabi rin
na, “95 nations in 3rd UPR convinced no EJKs in the Philippines.” The
summary, apparently hindi naman totoo ito. So na-correct din ba ito?
MS. USON. Ano po iyong post?
THE CHAIRPERSON. The Philippine News Agency published a
story claiming that 95 nations in the 27th universal period review of the
Human Rights Council were convinced that there were no extra-judicial
216
killings in the Philippines. PNA’s May 15 story went viral after newly
appointed Communications Secretary Mocha Uson posted it in her blog.
In response, the UPR posted a clarificatory tweet on the matter saying,
“To the best of our knowledge, 95 states were not convinced that EJK
is non-existent.” So parang nagkaroon ng pagkakamali kasi sinasabi
nila na mayroong EJK, hindi na, it’s non-existent.
MS. USON. Opo. Iyan po iyong shinare ko from PNA.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So, siguro ganito na lang. I would like,
from PCOO, especially you have a government post, to vet your
sources. It doesn’t mean that if it is published by a particular site that
it would be reliable. So we have to do double vetting for those things
and I would like PCOO to submit to me your position on things like
this. You corrected yourself, in fact, sa BIR files tax evasion case
versus Mighty, you wrongfully cited Article 263 and you admitted your
mistake and corrected yourself by saying that she meant 263 of the
Tax Code. Well, mga ganoon. Na-correct mo naman iyong sarili mo.
Pero ito nga, dapat siguro nagtutulungan tayo na hindi dapat nagpo-
post ng hindi natin tsine-check. Kasi you have the government
resources in your hands to validate.
MR. EGCO. Yes. Madam Chair. May I expound to that?
I think that was the incident in relation to DILG Asec Epimaco
Densing’s statement but that was corrected ... /smv
217
Jmbaisa XI-1 October 4, 2017 2:12 p.m. 1
MR. EGCO. … but that was corrected later on.
And I would like to add also, Madam Chair, that I am the
appointed supervising undersecretary for the Philippine News Agency
and that the appointment came last September 9. So the PNA is now
undergoing an honest-to-goodness reorganization.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Actions speak louder than words.
MR. EGCO. Right.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So please submit to me—Kasi hindi ba
iyong mga logo nga ninyo. I am sure you have a lot of enthusiastic
employees na nagmamadaling ilabas ang information, hindi nave-vet.
Kagaya nga noong DOLE, hindi ba, Del Monte iyong nilabas na ano?
Iyong mga ganoon.
MR. EGCO. Yes. We investigated that also.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So we just have to be more careful.
Senator Trillanes will be our finale.
But in the meantime, I would like to hear—kasi kanina pa si Mr.
Mabanta—for a statement because you also have a certain following.
We would like to hear from you because, of course, the Internet has
really democratized information.
MR. MABANTA. Sure.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So you have your followers. Please go
ahead.
218
MR. MABANTA. Right. Good afternoon.
Thank you for inviting me. I will keep this really short.
Everybody has been here since 9:30. And I am sure everybody wants
to hear Mocha and Senator Trillanes speak to each other. I meant that
with respect obviously.
I think my participation here it was meant to be a little different
from the other resource people, in a sense that when Senator Grace
invited me to come here today, it was under the correct and logical
impression that with all these major Internet superstars coming here
today from both sides, both anti-admin and pro-admin, that the odds
of them attacking each other were very high. And she was right,
obviously, because there was a lot of tension that happened today.
So she asked me to come in neutral, Social Media Switzerland.
And I suggest and I intend to keep my word. Basically, what I am
trying to say is I am not going to attack anybody or I’m not going to
direct the trajectory of the blame or point any fingers at anybody
today. What I think my purpose is here today, if I understood Senator
Poe correctly, was to, is to address this rapidly growing community of
political commentators in the Philippines today, more specifically, it’s
all of us with substantial online presence. Basically, it’s all of us with
substantial online presence who comment on social and political affairs
on Facebook every single day. Because right now, there are so many
219
of us. Just here in this room alone, I think there is about 20 or 25 of
us. We are certainly in the hundreds right now. It’s a substantial
online influence. We might be in the thousands. And the fact of the
matter is this, we are responsible for influencing literally millions of
Filipino minds every single day. That is without question. Sass and
RJ, Out Engage,(?) ABS-CBN, GMA, Rappler and Inquirer, together,
that’s without the beast of an account that Mocha has who destroys all
of them completely, right?
So basically, what I have been asked to address are these
community of bloggers and political commentators. I think that if you
are one of the political commentators in the Philippines right now, if
you comment on a daily basis on Facebook, whether you are a small
fish or a big dog, I think that the very first question that would be
asked of you is also the most common question to be asked of you,
which is this: Are you pro-Duturte or you’re anti-Duterte? I
categorically hate this question. I hate it because it’s an attempt to
box you in. And I don’t like being boxed in. I think it’s an attempt to
box you in because it demands that you firmly plant yourself on one
side of a binary scenario, a scenario that demands a multilayered
nuance, you know, more complex approach. You know, I think that to
choose side strategically, it makes sense, you know, that you develop
friends and your friends will back you up and all that stuff. But I think
220
in terms of doing the right thing, I think it disallows analytical
flexibility, you know. I think that the main thing here, and I’m saying
this, I guess, to the younger bloggers, because they are so many now.
They’re, I’m guessing, you know, very likely to be in the thousands.
If you’re a younger blogger, instead of choosing to be loyal to a person
in politics, the best thing to do is to be loyal to a policy, you know
because if you firmly plant yourself from the beginning on one side,
then it becomes incredibly difficult to criticize, right? So I think I will
keep this really short. I prepared an entire speech, but I understand I
will keep this short so we can keep on going. But I think it’s a duty
and a responsibility of everybody to be able to praise and defend the
President when he is doing things that are right and to criticize him
when he is wrong.
So I think that—I guess, my advice today is to give your loyalty
and your focus not to specific people in politics, especially in social
media, but to give your loyalty and your focus to policy.
So that’s it.
MS. USON. Madam Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you for putting it in perspective.
You are right. The loyalty should not be to an individual but to a
policy or an ideology you believe in for the greater good.
221
MR. MABANTA. Right. Sorry. Really quickly, just so I can
drive on that point. Because if you don’t do that, if you don’t give your
loyalty to a specific person, then what happens is the odds of you
generating and publishing what could be inaccurate news, fake news,
misleading news becomes exponentially lower. That’s what I think so.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you. Thank you for your
manifestation, Mr. Mabanta.
Asec Uson.
Gusto ko lang pong mag-react po sa sinabi ni Senator Bam
Aquino kanina. Agree po ako sa mga sinabi niya. Pero sana po ay
applicable din po ito doon sa mga anti-Duterte pages. Nakikita ninyo
naman po andito kami, mga pro-Duterte bloggers, may mga mukha.
Sana po iyong hinihiling ninyo na walang maling balita, walang hate
speech, walang ganito, sana ay patas din, ganoon din sa kabilang side.
At sana po iyong si di-umanong may hawak ng mga anti-Duterte
anonymous FB pages na ito na si Cocoy Dayao, sana po ay mapapunta
din po dito.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Alam ninyo, Ms. Mocha, ganoon nga
iyong nagiging problema. Sinasabi na guilty na raw para sa akin itong
si Cocoy Dayao. Binibigyan nga namin siya ng pagkakataon na
pumunta dito. Napakadali naman na malaman na siya ay iniimbitahan,
222
hindi siya pumupunta rito. So ngayon, lumalabas na siya pa iyong
duwag at may tinatago.
Kaya para doon sa mga nagsasabi na pinaniniwalaan namin or ko
ang bali-balita tungkol kay Dayao, na wala naman daw siya talagang
involvement, di pumunta siya dito at patotohanan niyang hindi totoo
iyon, hindi ba?
Senator Bam.
SEN. AQUINO. Can I just respond?
Actually, I am hoping na wala na tayong anonymity on all sides.
Because panahon na, panahon na maglantaran, maglabasan. Say how
you feel about this administration. Say how you feel about the EJK.
Maging matapang. Iyon na iyong panawagan ngayon.
So ako, honestly, I agree—I can’t believe it—Hindi ba, Asec, I am
agreeing with you.
MS. USON. I am flattered po.
SEN. AQUINO. Thank you. I am agreeing with you. Iyong
panahon na anonymity, tama na. That is why we are providing this
fake news sites to NBI para malaman who were the people behind this.
And it goes for everybody. Now more than ever, kailangan tayong
tumayo at manindigan, wala nang tinatago, laban na kung laban. So
tama kayo, tagisan ng talino, tagisan ng kuru-kuro, tagisan ng
paninindigan. Ganoon na.
223
THE CHAIRPERSON. Tagisan ng ganda at—
SEN. AQUINO. Sa iyo, ganda at—
THE CHAIRPERSON. Hindi. Gandang lalaki.
SEN. AQUINO. Okay. But I agree. I agree the time for
anonymity is over. And it goes for all sides. Let’s be upfront. Kapag
may nagtatanong sa akin, you know, people, they say, “”How do we
help the opposition?” Sabi ko lagi, “Be more vocal. Use your real
name. Be more vocal.” Because if you use your real name, iyong mga
taong kilala ka know how you feel. It was the same way with President
Duterte’s supporters during the elections. Ngayon, kung may
pakiramdam ka na may mali, lumabas ka na rin, sabihin mo iyan,
sabihin mo sa pamilya mo, sabihin mo sa mga kaibigan mo, “Hindi na
panahon na magtago. Panahon nang lumabas at sabihin iyong
talagang nasa loob ninyo.”
THE CHAIRPERSON. That is why we wish to acknowledge also,
well, the courage, whether or not you believe in their views. Nandito si
Secretary Lacierda, Atty. Valte, Secretary Quezon.
You’re secretary, right?
VOICE. No, undersecretary.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Undersecretary. And then, of course,
Thinking Pinoy, Franco, Mocha—ginagamit ninyo talaga iyong pangalan
ninyo, hindi ba? So wala man kayong internal ombudsman in your
224
company dahil you are self-employed, your bashers will bash you if
they don’t believe in what you’re saying or if they think you made a
mistake.
So anyway, hindi pa natin nadidinig iyong Inquirer. Pero may
maikli kayong statement bago si Senator Trillanes.
Sir, thank you for your presence here today also.
MR. ULANDAY. Yes. Thank you also for inviting me. And it’s
actually my first time to appear in a Senate committee hearing and it
is quite an experience particularly with the exchanges that went on.
I really just wanted to say that as far as fake news is concerned
… /jmb
225
RJOrtiz XII-1 October 4, 2017 2:22 p.m. 1
MR. ULANDAY. … as far as fake news is concerned, the Inquirer
is very much concerned about this and is really bent also on trying to
stop or to stem fake news that might actually be posted on our site
and also might be published in print. We have actually set up
mechanisms for us to be able to double check, verify the stories that
we publish and also that we post online. And that we actually had set
up a so-called editorial council in place of the ombudsman. So
whenever there are complaints about some stories, the council is
convened. And, actually, I am a member of the council so we discuss
the merits and points brought up in the complaint. And then
sometimes, we actually come up with sanctions on, let’s say, our
reporter or photographer who probably took, let’s say, even some
misleading photos or wrong photos. So we would actually welcome,
let’s say, a legislation on fake news. But, basically, to help us define
also our scope of actually trying to control or minimize whatever fake
news that might come our way. And this hearing, actually, is a
welcome development for us. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you for your presence, sir, and
also for your work because, obviously, you go through a lot of vetting
process, internal checks. Eventually, maybe our bloggers will have
their own set up also on that.
MR. VILLAREAL. Madam Chair?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Chair?
226
MR. VILLAREAL. Yes, ma’am.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Very quickly, please.
MR. VILLAREAL. Yes, opo. As an addition and after hearing
what has been discussed so far, actually, there can be a mechanism
where all the players, I would like to call them, handlers of
information. They receive information, they can include mainstream
media with an online presence, it could also include the bloggers. And
all of them can be together. May mga mukha na po dapat sila, ika
nga, at may responsibilidad. And then this body because Senator
Pangilinan was asking, is there any way that mayroong proseso ng
adjudication na sila-sila po kung may magkakamali o bibigyan sila ng
guidance, pwede po iyan. There are industry-based councils or
organizations. Even the Motion Picture Association of America is like
that. It is inter-industry. It is also the industry kasi sila ang
nakakaalam, sila ang nagpapataw kung anumang sanction, kung
kailangan o gagabayan upang sila po ay mas mapabuti ang kanilang
trabaho.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Parang KBP.
MR. VILLAREAL. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So pwede nating ipagsama iyong iba’t-
ibang grupo, mayroon kayong isang organization of bloggers from
different political persuasions …
MR. VILLAREAL. Yes, please.
227
THE CHAIRPERSON. … that will police each other. Okay, thank
you.
MR. VILLAREAL. Yes, and one more thing. Pero dapat po,
Madam Senator, doon po mayroon silang—they have to agree on a
code of ethics para they all read from the same page. And ensuring
the dignity of the human person, iyong gender sensitivity. All of these
things po kailangan po nasa ethics nila.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Well, of course, this will all be voluntary
on their part and the mechanisms will have to be devised yet. But
thank you for the suggestion, Chair.
Senator Trillanes.
SEN. TRILLANES. Maraming salamat, Madam Chairman.
Actually, wala na sana akong planong um-attend dito kaso na-
miss daw ako ni Ms. Mocha.
MS. USON. Ang gwapo ninyo pala, Senator, sa personal. Hindi
po fake news iyon, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Mukhang na-disarm na si Senator
Trillanes. Mukhang tapos na ang hearing natin.
SEN. TRILLANES. Konti na lang at baka i-atras ko iyong kaso
ko—konti na lang bola.
Anyway, Madam Chair, let me address first the questions to Mr.
Nieto. So can you look at the projection?
228
SEN. TRILLANES. So ito iyong accounts—ipinost mo rin ba
iyan iyong fake accounts?
MR. NIETO. No, sir, ang pinost ko po diyan ay iyong news na
iyong sinabi ni Pangulong Duterte na accounts ay hindi iyong kumalat
na accounts. So ito pong—nasaan ba iyong picture?
SEN. TRILLANES. Hindi--nakalagay roon. Naka-post diyan
sa—iyan, that one.
MR. NIETO. Opo, screenshot po iyan ng GMA News.
SEN. TRILLANES. Hindi, no. Look at that one?
MR. NIETO. Opo.
SEN. TRILLANES. Ano iyan? Kanino naka—shinare (share) mo
iyan.
MR. NIETO. Kung makikita po ninyo, sir, sa baba
GMANetwork.com iyong nakasulat. So mayroon pong balita iyong GMA
noon about that picture so kinuha ko lang iyong screenshot and then I
shared it on my page.
SEN. TRILLANES. Walang ganyan na screenshot iyong GMA
News.
MR. NIETO. I will double check—sandali lang po.
SEN. TRILLANES. Well, anyway, ganito iyan--
MR. NIETO. Sir, ganito po. I will check on that at kung sakali
pong wala nga po talagang screenshot kasi I cannot just confirm it
right now, I will issue an erratum if it is incorrect.
229
SEN. TRILLANES. Well, anyway, we have already verified that
information and nag-file na ako ng case kay Ms. Uson. And being a
public official--are you a public official?
MR. NIETO. No, sir, I’m just a consultant for Civil Service
Commission ruling po. Wala pong employer-employee relationship
ang—
SEN. TRILLANES. I know how it works, Mr. Nieto.
MR. NIETO. All right.
SEN. TRILLANES. Pero knowing now na fake iyang mga
nilabas ni Mr. Duterte, how do you feel about that post now?
MR. NIETO. Again, I will stand by my statement na I will verify
it again and see if your claim holds ground. And if yes, I will issue an
erratum and if not, I will let it stay there.
SEN. TRILLANES. Okay, next one please.
So ito iyong ginawa mo diyan. Iyan, how do you feel about that?
MR. NIETO. So, basically, sir, I reported—well, it’s essentially
a report of what Krizette Chu said. So, basically, sir, if what Krizette
Chu claimed is wrong, then the accountability is, you know, the buck
stops at Krizette Chu. In the same way that when mainstream media
reports about what some senators said and it turns out to be wrong,
that mainstream media outlet will not be held accountable for what
that senator said.
230
SEN. TRILLANES. Well, in hindsight, ang pinag-uusapan natin
ngayon a lot of things have happened after that--alam ninyo, Mr.
Nieto, as mentioned by the Chairman, being an influencer, maraming
sumusunod sa inyo. Ngayon, it’s up to you now whether you want to
be a good or bad influence to the people following you. I am sure
lahat tayo pinalaki nang maayos ng magulang natin. You know what is
right and what is wrong. And later on I will be addressing this to the
PCOO. What makes you different is you are with government,
regardless the status of your employment relationship with DFA, still
andodoon ka officially. So along with that comes responsibility. May
ibang standard. You are not an ordinary blogger anymore. Iyon ang
difference mo. When you were still ThinkingPinoy that has no
connection with the government, you are free to do that. But you are
with government now, hindi ba? So nire-represent mo iyong principal
ninyo which is ultimately Mr. Duterte. So iyon ang sinasabi ko.
MR. NIETO. With all due respect, Mr. Senator, I respect your
opinions but at this point I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Should there be any law that I broke, then please site it, if there is
none legislate one and then I’ll follow the law. Other than that, sir, I
have to respect for the disagreement.
Thank you.
SEN. TRILLANES. Yes. I’m just saying na what makes you
different because you are with government, iyon iyan. You can’t be
231
lumped together with the other bloggers kasi they are ordinary
citizens. So there’s that difference.
Anyway, next slide please.
So iyan may mga ganyang ano ka—post na sinabi mo, basically,
iyong naka-link doon, cocoygate ano—parang you are implying na dati
gusto ko kayong patawag, ngayon hindi ko na kayo pinapatawag. So
that’s not accurate at all. And iyon na nga--
MR. NIETO. Sir, just to clarify. Your name was never
mentioned there and the picture--
SEN. TRILLANES. Yes, but tingnan mo iyong picture ko … /rjo
232
SEN. TRILLANES. … tingnan mo iyong picture ko.
MR. NIETO. Well, that is how you—In fairness, sir, maganda
naman iyong post mo diyan, hindi ba?
But with all due respect, Mr. Senator, ginamit ko iyong picture
mo diyan po dahil kayo iyong nag-file ng resolution.
SEN. TRILLANES. Precisely, and that’s why I am here.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
SEN. TRILLANES. And ako ang nag-request dito dahil sabi ko
nga, lahat tayo biktima rito and it’s getting bad.
MR. NIETO. Opo.
SEN. TRILLANES. Alam ninyo, probably, ako siguro iyong most
bashed na Pilipino ngayon. Pero, sa akin, what I do is I ignore them.
Hindi ko binabasa, hindi ba? Pero pagka may nag-overboard, talagang
kakasuhan ko ng cybercrime, libel. And I also agree with Senator
Sotto, aboveboard din iyon. Kumbaga, it went beyond the limits of
toleration. So hindi rin namin tino-tolerate. Hindi komo pro or anti-
Duterte kung sino, pero pag mali, mali. Kumbaga, it goes for
everyone.
Itong sinasabi mo rito, while hindi mo nga isinulat iyong
pangalan ko, pero iyong mensahe mo is basically, ako iyan, hindi ba?
MR. NIETO. Mr. Senator, with all due respect, how you interpret
what’s shown in front of you is not really my problem. But if you think
that I committed libel against you—
233
SEN. TRILLANES. No, no. It’s not my problem at all. In fact,
hindi ko nga binasa iyan, ngayon lang inilabas iyan noong staff ko. So
ngayon ko lang ina-address iyon sa iyo.
MR. NIETO. Yes, sir. But, respectfully, if you feel that I’ve
committed libel against you, I respect your option to sue me.
SEN. TRILLANES. Ang sinasabi ko rito is the intention to
deceive.
MR. NIETO. Sir, wala namang …
SEN. TRILLANES. Iba kasi iyong ano ko. Nagva-violate ka ng
batas, iba iyong nagde-deceive ka. Some smart people or those who
actually feel that they are smart tend to skirt around the law but the
end result is the same, they’re deceiving people.
Anyway, moving to the next slide.
Ito. What’s this? Ano iyong iniisip mo diyan?
MR. NIETO. Sir, si Mike ang nag-post niyan. Siya ang tanungin
ninyo, sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. Hindi. You allowed yourself to be
photographed.
MR. NIETO. Yes.
SEN. TRILLANES. Ano iyan? What’s the name of your
companion?
MR. LOPEZ (MIKE). [Off-mike] Mike.
MR. NIETO. Hindi ko po siya companion, kaibigan ko lang, sir.
234
SEN. TRILLANES. Anyway, ano’ng iniisip niyo diyan? What’s
that for? Please.
MR. LOPEZ (MIKE). Good afternoon.
SEN. TRILLANES. Ano’ng purpose mo noong pinost mo iyan?
MR. LOPEZ (MIKE). It’s open to interpretation, Senator
Trillanes.
SEN. TRILLANES. Then tell me your interpretation, please.
MR. LOPEZ (MIKE). That’s my own post and I don’t have to
tell you how it should be interpreted.
SEN. TRILLANES. Ayun pala.
MR. LOPEZ (MIKE). So it’s up to you because I never said
anything there that demeans Senator de Lima.
SEN. TRILLANES. Precisely. Okay. Iyan iyong sinasabi ninyo.
Ngayon, sa akin dito, parang it’s a sick joke, hindi ba? Natutuwa
kayo, nagdidiwang kayo doon sa isang taong nakakulong. Unjustly
huh. Let me just stress, unjustly. So that’s the kind of mindset that
you have. Iyon ang sinasabi ko na huwag tayong ganyan, hindi ba?
Alam ninyo, sabi ko—ako, nakulong ako and hindi magandang
experience iyon. I wouldn’t wish that to anyone. Pero ito, nagdidiwang
kayo. That’s my point dito, hindi ba? Hindi necessary iyan. You can
speak your mind out, you can promote Duterte, defend Duterte and
explain his policies pero those things are not necessary. That’s just
235
my point. Okay. Anyway, I have addressed my concerns sa inyo.
Alam ninyo ultimately what’s right and what’s wrong.
For that matter, just going back to that photo kay Senator de
Lima. Would you, at least, apologize to the senator for that?
MR. NIETO. No, sir, masaya po kaming naka-detain siya.
SEN. TRILLANES. Masaya kayo?
MR. NIETO. Opo and I’m entitled to my own political opinion.
SEN. TRILLANES. Yes. You are entitled to your own sick
opinion. Okay. I’m done with you.
MR. NIETO. And I respect your opinion, sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. I’m done with you.
Let’s now move to Ms. Mocha Uson.
So I want you to look at that. So, ito, hindi ba kanina na-raise
na iyan? Ano’ng naiisip mo diyan? Saan mo kinuha iyang picture na
iyan?
MS. USON. Shinare (share) ko po iyan mula sa isang Facebook
page po, Senator.
SEN. TRILLANES. Hindi. Pinost (post) mo talaga, hindi ba?
MS. USON. Share lang po, sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. Okay. So shinare (share) mo iyan?
MS. USON. Yes, sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. Ngayon, ikaw, are you aware that you’re a
senior government official?
236
MS. USON. Yes, sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. That you’re not an ordinary blogger
anymore?
MS. USON. Yes, sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. Mayroon ka bang filter? Mayroon ka bang
nagre-review noong mga pino-post mo or you just—
MS. USON. Ako lang po, sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. Ikaw lang.
MS. USON. Wala pong nagre-review.
SEN. TRILLANES. So walang nagve-vet noong mga veracity
noong mga pino-post mo?
MS. USON. Ano lang po naman iyan, personal opinion ko lang,
sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. Iyon na nga. Ang sinasabi ko rito, wala ka
nang personal na opinion being a public official na nandidiyan sa
PCOO. Iyon ang difference natin. Iyong ibang mga officials of
government, puwede, kaso ikaw—What’s the official title?
MS. USON. Assistant secretary for social media.
SEN. TRILLANES. For social media. Iyan iyong trabaho mo,
hindi ba? Mayroon bang dividing line as far as you are concerned?
MS. USON. Madam Chair, hindi po ako aware na wala na palang
karapatang ipahayag ang sarili kapag ika’y government official na.
237
SEN. TRILLANES. No. Sabi ko nga, hindi ka ordinary
government official. Senior government official ka na diyan mismo sa
PCOO, assistant secretary for social media, hindi ba?
MS. USON. Yes, senator.
SEN. TRILLANES. Yes.
MS. USON. Madam Chair, sa tingin ko po, kung si Senator
Trillanes may karapatan ding ipahayag ang kanyang sarili, siguro ako
rin po may karapatang ipahayag ang aking sarili. Freedom of
expression, sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. Elected official kami. Supposed to be
kinakatawan namin iyong mamamayan, whether minority iyan or
majority. Iyon iyong aming trabaho. Pero ikaw ang trabaho mo is to
draw the line, the official line of the government. Maliwanag ba iyon
sa inyo, Usec? Or hindi ninyo sinasabihan iyong mga tao ninyo? I’m
talking about PCOO per se.
MR. EGCO. All right.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Your Honor.
I think it had been discussed before between our Secretary
Andanar and Asec Mocha with regard to her blog post. But from what
I understand and from my own point of view, for as long as she is not
using government portal in her blog, which she has been doing ever
since, even before she joined government, I think iyon po iyon. Iyon
238
iyong sinasabi niya na she’s expressing just her own personal opinion
and all that.
SEN. TRILLANES. So how do you separate it?
MR. EGCO. Yes. Mr. Chair, Your Honor, iyon po iyong kanina pa
natin dini-discuss, even this morning, iyong how to separate nga those
two.
SEN. TRILLANES. Well, sa akin, as PCOO, you don’t have any
separate opinion. Parang, kunyari, Supreme Court justice. They cannot
just say anything. They need to be prudent in their pronouncements
because of the nature of their job.
MR. EGCO. Yes.
SEN. TRILLANES. Ngayon, ang nature ng job ninyo is to
communicate the official line of government, right?
MR. EGCO. Yes, Your Honor. And in the context again of Asec
Mocha’s blog, I’d rather not say that I defend her but I would rather
say that I defend her resolve to express her right under Article III,
Section 4 of the Constitution, come hell or high water. And I’m saying
that in the point of view as a former newsman.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Sir, for example, you have another
employee, who says something—utter something against the
administration. You will also do the same tolerance?
MR. EGCO. I’m sorry, ma’am.
239
THE CHAIRPERSON. Hindi kasi expressing your personal
views, there will come a time when, perhaps, an employee of yours in
the government will express his or her opinion against the
administration.
MR. EGCO. It’s happening actually.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So you will also tolerate that.
MR. EGCO. Actually, it’s happening now, Madam Chair.
MR. EGCO. It’s happening now, Madam Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON. It’s just clear … /cda
240
THE CHAIRPERSON. ... It's just clear what’s your position.
SEN. TRILLANES. Sa akin, sinasabi ko lang ito, Madam Chair,
dahil iyong mga sundalo, nai-imagine ko, adopting that line na puwede
silang freely mag-express. Anong itsura noon, hindi ba?
MR. EGCO. Mr. Chairman, they are under separate and distinct
military law.
SEN. TRILLANES. Precisely, precisely. Kayo, PCOO kayo. Kayo
ang nagko-communicate ng official line of the government. There is no
line. Isa iyan. If you don’t know that yet, then let me educate iyon na
ganoon iyan. As far as kayo—ngayon, kung lumipat ka sa ibang branch
of government, puwede iyan. Branch of the executive, puwede iyan.
Or any agency in the executive branch, you can express it. Pero kung
sundalo ka, ganoon iyon, mayroong mga limitations. Kung PCOO ka,
mayroong limitations iyan. So maliwanag ba iyon sa inyo?
MR. EGCO. Well, iyong blogging naman, Mr. Chairman, is a
process of distributing information. Although ang kanya nga lang hindi
official.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Siguro tanungin natin ang mga head ng
media companies.
Si Mr. Alampay. Sir, kunyari kayo, mayroon kayong personal
views. So you have your own Facebook account, I suppose. So would
you protect that that you are the head, the editor in chief of
241
Interaksyon but you have your own opinion? Is this something that
should be allowed?
MR. ALAMPAY. Yes, ma’am, we do. That’s our policy right
now. We let our people have their personal space and then we have
our official space as Interaksyon.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. But this is in the private sector?
MR. ALAMPAY. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Of course, it’s different in the
government sector. But I just wanted your opinion on that.
How about you, ma’am?
MS. TORDESILLAS. [Off-mike] May mga companies na pagka—
Well, you can have your blog. You can blog about your cat. You can
blog about your dog. Hindi ba, ganoon? But when it comes to—like sa
amin sa VERA Files, if you have already made a stand, dapat iyon ang
sundin ng—you cannot blog about a stand that is different from that of
the company. But by all means, you can express if you want to cheer
about—pag mag-boxing si Manny Pacquiao, mag-cheer ka, okay lang
iyan kasi hindi naman iyon stand ng VERA Files. Hindi ba, ganoon?
MS. TORDESILLAS. I mean, kahit iba tayo ng side na ganoon.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Kung ganoon iyong inyong principle
behind it, tama iyong ginagawa niya because she’s supporting what
242
the President says. But I’m not saying that it’s right in my opinion.
Okay. Because I really think there has to be certain sacrifices done.
MS. TORDESILLAS. Yeah. That means, okay lang kay
Presidente na Honduras ang pictures na nilagay niya doon?
THE CHAIRPERSON. Well, of course, it’s not damaging to him.
So I don’t’ think he really minds.
I’m not saying I agree, ma’am. What I’m just saying is—In fact,
my position is you have to let go of your personal opinions now when
you’re PCOO because that’s information central. Iyon lang iyong sa
akin. Of course, there’s no law against it now. So it’s really your
policy.
MR. ALAMPAY. Ma’am, just to add a bit.
That’s our policy and as you noted, we’re in the private sector, I
do think it’s different for the public sector.
THE CHAIRPERSON. So in your own opinion, you think that a
government official from the communications office should have
his/her own blog?
MR. ALAMPAY. I think it’s untenable. I’m not drawing a moral
line on it. I’m just saying it’s hard to distinguish for the public when a
public official particularly in the communications office is putting on a
private hat or a public servant’s hat.
243
THE CHAIRPERSON. I think you said the keyword there,
“untenable” because it will be hard to distinguish. That’s the thing. So
I think certain sacrifices should be made if some of us take a pay cut
by joining the public sector. Others will have to take a verbal cut. I
don’t know. Opinion cut. I mean, there’s something that we need to
let go.
MS. TORDESILLAS. [Off-mike]...Sabi ko kanina, dapat talaga
if you have to have a legislation, kasama iyong personal blogs ng
officials, dapat ita-touch niyo iyon sa legislation.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Well, anyway, but I think, Mr. Alampay,
you hit it right on the bull’s-eye. It’s very untenable.
MR. ALAMPAY. Yes.
MR. TORDECILLA. Madam Chair, just to add to Mr. Alampay’s
point, from GMA.
There’s also the question of which resources you’re using for—
because for GMA, we have our institutional accounts and then we have
our reporters accounts. But usually, we send out our reporters to
coverage and the materials they produce belong to the network.
So in this case, I think it should be made clear if the assistant
secretary posts a video on her blog, who paid for her trip? For
example, to Marawi, was that government that paid for that trip? And
if so, is that part of her official function? Because why would she be
244
broadcasting government activities on her own blog instead of on the
official government blog.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. I understand what you mean.
Yes. But that’s her job, I mean, as PCOO.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Again, the untenability of it nag-cross
doon sa personal blog kasi it’s entertaining, hindi ba? People like to
see it. But, again, we need to be careful and maybe that also has
legislation.
I’m sorry.
SEN. TRILLANES. I’ll just finish, Madam Chair.
Okay. Anyway, ito iyong post mo that got you in trouble.
Anyway, finayl (file) ko na iyong case diyan. At gusto nating mag-set
ng higher standards. Dapat alam mo what you can or cannot do.
Next slide, please. Okay. Ito. Can you explain about this? Iyan.
Anong nangyari diyan?
Ito iyong pinost (post) mo, nananawagan ka na sana bisitahin
din iyong pulis na namatay doon sa drug bust, nananawagan ka sa
amin. The problem with that is, iyon pala, last year pa namatay, iyong
pulis. So iyon ngayon. Anong nangyari diyan?
MS. USON. Bale, Madam Chair, alam ko naman pong nangyari
iyan two years ago. Ang pino-point out ko lang po diyan ay kung
245
kailan bibisita iyong mga nakasaad doon na mga tao sa mga ganito
pong mga namamatay na kapulisan.
SEN. TRILLANES. So are you sure that’s what you actually
meant?
Nakalagay kasi, “Kailan niyo dadalawin?” Meaning, puwede pa
silang puntahan.
MS. USON. Actually, Madam Chair, hindi man po maayos iyong
interpretasyon ko pero iyon po iyong ibig ko lamang sabihin.
SEN. TRILLANES. Bakit hindi na lang umamin, iyon nga, na
nagkamali, hindi ba? “Na nagkamali ako,” so ganoon talaga iyon.
Kaya nga ang sinasabi ko rito, iyong mga post na ganyan, hindi ka
sasabit if you have, at least, a friend or another staff na padaanan mo
lang bago mo i-up, hindi ba? Kasi nga iba iyong standard mo. And
ako—talagang maraming followers ka, ano, maraming humahanga sa
iyo at pinanghahawakan nila iyong salita mo. And we don’t want you
to get burned also pagka—if you get burned enough ay wala nang
maniniwala sa inyo niyan, hindi ba? So that is my suggestion. And sa
akin nga, ano, siguro puwede kang mag-maintain ng blog, as
mentioned by Ma’am Ellen, but don’t touch the subjects na
magkakaroon ng—or that would touch on the policies of your work,
hindi ba? Ngayon, you have to decide kung gagamitin mo iyong blog
na iyon, as I mentioned, to promote Duterte, defend Duterte or explain
246
his policies, by all means gamitin mo. Pero ang ayaw natin dito is
gagamitin mo iyong medium na iyan to spread this information tapos
may deniability na hindi iyan government kasi personal mo. Ayoko ng
ganoon. If ano iyan, pagka Mocha Uson blog ang nagsalita, since part
siya ng PCOO as a senior official, then it is part of the apparatus of
dissemination of PCOO. Wala namang problema doon.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Actually, Senator Trillanes, somebody
called my attention to this.
There’s somebody, an employee, si Ms. Anderson ng Customs,
hindi ba, kaya nag-umpisa nga iyong gulo niya because she tweeted or
she had a comment against the Speaker. So apparently, we don’t take
it very lightly when we’re in government to be criticized by somebody
also from government. But, of course, we shouldn’t stop that. But
particularly for PCOO lang, kasi nga information coming from you is
deemed official. This is where we need to do a study ... /cmn
247
THE CHAIRPERSON. … where we need to do a study on the
matter. We have a few minutes left, then we have our session but
Senator Trillanes will wrap up and then we have Senator Pacquiao.
SEN. TRILLANES. Maraming salamat, Madam Chairman.
And finally itong kay—anyway, ito iyan, noong campaign, hindi
ba? A part noong in-spread mo. Ito pala ay galing sa Brazil na
namatay. So, okay, noong campaign iyan.
Sige, next. So, ito naman ang kay—
MS. USON. Sorry po, Madam Chair. Iyong tungkol po doon sa
Brazil, shinare (share) ko iyon at hindi ko sinabi na sa Pilipinas
nangyari iyon. I just shared the sentiment doon po kay Peter Tiu
Lavina na nakakalungkot po na nangyayari iyong mga ganitong bagay
sa Pilipinas.
SEN. TRILLANES. So, pinalagpas ko na nga para ano—
MS. USON. Sinasabi ko lang, sir. Wala naman po akong
intensiyon na i-mislead, sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. Okay, sige. Okay.
MS. USON. Sir, puwede pong mag-comment lang po isa?
Madam Chair, puwede po?
Kasi po kanina nagbabasa po kayo ng mga tweets, may
binabalita daw na soft kayo sa amin, gusto ko lang pong i-call out
itong News 5. Nagpalabas sila ng fake news laban po sa akin. Sabi
248
niya, “Sinabi ni Asec Mocha Uson na kaya siya madalas ma-bash sa
social media ay dahil sa kagagawan ng mainstream media. Madalas
daw kasing magpakalat ng maling balita at pinalalaki nito ang mga
bagay na hindi naman dapat kaugnay sa kanyang mga pinost (post).”
Hindi ko naman sinabing madalas po akong ma-bash dahil sa
kagagawan ng mainstream media. Ito po iyong topic kanina na iyong
dalawang fake news na ibinalita. Pero hindi ko po sinabing lagi akong
bina-bash dahil sa mainstream media.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Noted.
SEN. TRILLANES. Okay, next slide. Ito naman, dito mismo
kay Secretary Andanar. Ito, iyan iyong kinalat niya. Media offered
$1,000 to cover Lascañas press conference. Ano, anong palagay
natin? Anong defense natin diyan?
MS. USON. Kay Rappler siya?
SEN. TRILLANES. No, no, no. But the information, we are not
talking about fake news being peddled but we are talking about the
fake information peddled that was captured by the mainstream news.
MS. BANAAG. Yes, sir. Senator, I think that was already
answered by the secretary, no less than the secretary then. Ang
nasabi po ng secretary noong time ng interview was, “May naparating
sa akin.” Which means, hindi niya sinasabi po na totoo na may
249
binigay sa kanila at may nanghingi or may nag-accept ng kung
anuman po iyon. Iyon po ang nasabi niya sa transcript ng kanyang
interview.
SEN. TRILLANES. So, puwedeng gawin iyan? Tell me. So,
given the opportunity to do that again, will you do that again or will
you recommend to your secretary to do that again?
MS. BANAAG. Sir, what I am only trying to say here, sir, and
what I am trying to explain here, sir, is that this is what the secretary
has said.
SEN. TRILLANES. But I am asking you, para lang ma-
determine iyong decision-making processes ng PCOO, if given the
same opportunity at tinanong ka ni Secretary Andanar, “Puwede ko
bang sabihin ito?” Would you recommend that, Asec?
MS. BANAAG. Sir, if the secretary would say na it is proper for
him to say so, then—
SEN. TRILLANES. I am asking you, is that proper? Puwede mo
bang sabihin iyan sa media na unverified information, sasabihin mo,
and then undeniably, “Hindi, may natanggap lang naman ako.” Alam
mo ang itsura ng mga media reporters dito na nag-cover, dito pag
nagpatawag iyong senador ng press conference, pupunta sila. Hindi
sila kailangang bayarang pumunta dahil iyan iyong trabaho nila. Dito,
250
wala naman tayong binayaran, nagko-cover sila. So, na-imagine mo
how unfair that statement was? So, is it proper?
MS. BANAAG. Sir, I am not to judge whether it is proper or
not. What I am trying to say is—
SEN. TRILLANES. No. I am asking you. Is that proper? I am
asking you as a person, as Asec Banaag.
MS. BANAAG. Yes, sir. What the secretary said during that
time—
SEN. TRILLANES. You are not addressing the question.
MS. BANAAG. Okay, sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. Please respond to the question.
MS. BANAAG. Okay, sir. I am trying my best to respond to the
question, Your Honor.
SEN. TRILLANES. It can be answered.
MS. BANAAG. Yes, sir. The answer is, sometimes people, even
officials, say unverified statements sometimes.
SEN. TRILLANES. Yes. Pero nga ang difference nga natin
PCOO kayo at nasa gobyerno kayo. Nasa administrasyon kayo, hindi
ba?
SEN. TRILLANES. You have all the resources to verify
information. Ayaw natin noong recklessness ...
251
MS. BANAAG. We understand that, sir.
SEN. TRILLANES. … na kakalat dito.
SEN. TRILLANES. Okay. So, can you apologize in behalf of
Secretary Andanar for that malicious statement, Usec Egco.
MS. EGCO. An apology, Your Honor, is for
Secretary Andanar to do if he wanted to, if ever. But if you are going
to address to me the same question that you addressed to Asec
Banaag, then I would defer to whatever information the Secretary
had that time. It’s like, if I were in that position and somebody gave
me an information that—I used to cover the Senate also. So, if
somebody gave me an information pertaining to whatever that is,
maybe I would say the same. So, siguro po ang kuwan diyan is,
kung ako ay nandoon that time and he would ask me, “Kailangan ko
bang sabihin ito?” Ang tanong ko lang doon ay, “May nagsabi ba sa
iyo, Boss? Sino ang nagsabi? Verified ba iyan?” Kasi iyon po ang
dapat nating malaman, that’s why we are here to determine nga. But
kung sabihin niya na, “Yes, may ganitong informant.” Go ahead. So
ganoon po.
SEN. TRILLANES. You need to qualify. Kasi nga sinasabi ko
ang difference, kino-compare ninyo, kunyari sa senador. Iyong
senador, talagang ano iyan, we are elected officials, we are
252
answerable to our constituents. Pag nagpe-peddle kami nang nagpe-
peddle ng wrong information, we will be made to account for those
actions sa next elections. Ngayon kayo, kayo ang talking heads ng
Presidente. Dapat naglalabas kayo katotohanan lamang, validated
information. Ngayon, if may ganyang information sa inyo, you can
stress it that these are unverified information.
MR. EGCO. Yes.
SEN. TRILLANES. Pero sabi ko nga, “Ito oh, ayan na, inilabas
na.” Hindi ba?
MR. EGCO. Yes. And, Madam Chair, Your Honor, I think after
that incident, the Senate media itself, the members of the Senate
media themselves came out with a statement denying the—so,
nagself-check naman po iyong issue.
SEN. TRILLANES. Okay. Anyway, I’ll end my turn, Madam
Chairman, by addressing this to Ms. Mocha Uson.
Ako, ito lang ang suggestion ko sa iyo. You have a strong
influence sa public, gamitin mo iyan in a positive way, be a good
influence to those following you. You can promote, again, promote,
defend and explain—explain ninyo iyong mga polisiya. That way
magiging iba iyong ano—hindi hateful na iyong cyberspace natin.
Dahil sa inyo iyan. Pagka nag-promote kayo ng hate, susunod sila,
magiging hateful sila, hindi ba?
253
So, iyon lang naman, Madam Chair. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Thank you, Senator Trillanes.
Asec Mocha, very short response.
MS. USON. Yes, I would just like to respond to Senator Trillanes.
I am going to consider all his suggestions para sa approach ko sa
pagba-blog. At kung naiwan ko nga po iyong propesyon ko sa
entertainment, iyong pagsasayaw ko para manilbihan sa bayan, I will
consider iyong suggestion po sa approach ko sa pagba-blog kung
makakabuti ito para sa bayan.
THE CHAIRPERSON. It’s Senator Manny Pacquaio’s turn.
My question is to Nieto of ThinkingPinoy.com.
SEN. PACQUAIO. In your research, sabi ninyo dito ay
maraming blog site na mine-maintain itong si Cocoy Dayao? Totoo ba
ito?
MR. NIETO. Opo. Madami po.
Hindi po mine-maintain, pero siya iyong webmaster. So,
pinakamaganda, sir, tanungin natin si Cocoy kung ano iyong exact role
niya roon sa mga websites.
254
SEN. PACQUAIO. Siya ang webmaster? Paano ninyo po nako-
confirm ito?
MR. NIETO. Kasi, sir, pag ikaw iyong may-ari Google AdSense
account, para po malagyan ninyo ng advertisements iyong mga
websites, kailangan makuha ninyo iyong source code noong mga
advertisement at i-insert iyon doon sa mismong website. So,
kailangan mo ng administrator access. So far po, ang ebidensiya po
ay nagsa-suggest na si Ginoong Dayao po iyong may hawak noon.
Pero siyempre, kailangan pa po nating linawin iyan sa pamamagitan ng
pagtatanong mismo kay Mr. Dayao.
SEN. PACQUAIO. Isa sa mga web sites na ito ay iyong We
wesupportbamaquino.com…/admasicap
255
SEN. PACQUIAO. … iyong wesupportbamaquino.com, tama
ba?
MR. NIETO. Yes, tama po. Opo.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Iyon iyong mina-manage niya?
MR. NIETO. Opo.
SEN. PACQUIAO. I just want to confirm that. Na-confirm
ninyo na itong si Cocoy Dayao ay involved sa dating Aquino
administration, hindi ba?
MR. NIETO. Opo. Nagtatrabaho po siya dati bilang consultant
ng PCOO ng Aquino administration po.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Paano ninyo na-confirm iyan?
MR. NIETO. Ipinagyayabang niya sa LinkedIn niya, sir, sa sarili
niyang personal profile sa LinkedIn.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Ang tanong ko, sa website na gaya ng
WeSupportBamAquino, maaari ba kayong gumawa ng website na
walang permission sa may pangalan o kailangan may permission?
MR. NIETO. Well, in theory po pwede po akong gumawa.
Halimbawa, WeSupportSenatorTrillanes, ganoon, pero siyempre
subject po iyon kung—pero siyempre fake site na iyon. Pero, in
theory, pwede po akong gumawa ng ganoong website.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Pag walang paalam?
256
MR. NIETO. Nandoon na po sa aggrieved party iyon kung
magde-decide—
SEN. PACQUIAO. Fake na iyon, hindi na totoo iyon. Tama ba?
MR. NIETO. Pwede po, pwede pong ganoon.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Okay. Sa paggawa ng mga ganyan, hindi
kailangang ipaalam sa—kung halimbawa, Manny Pacquiao website,
hindi kailangang ipaalam sa akin para gumawa ng Manny Pacquiao
website?
MR. NIETO. Sir, una po, hindi ako abogado so hindi po ako
qualified sumagot noon. Pero kung ang tanong ay kung kaya kong
gumawa noon, opo, kaya kong gumawa pero hindi ko alam kung legal
o hindi. So abogado na lang po siguro iyong sasagot.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Okay. Sa paggawa ng website, siyempre,
may gastos ba ito o wala?
MR. NIETO. Madalas po mayroon pero normally po minimal na
amount lang. Pero iyong pagbi-build ng content noong website at
pagmi-maintain noon, iyon po iyong magastos.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Magkano sa estimate mo ang gastos sa pag-
maintain ng website?
MR. NIETO. Ngayon po, if I will start a website, it will just cost
me maybe P2,000, even less, kung kukuha ako ng free hosting.
SEN. PACQUIAO. A day?
257
MR. NIETO. No. Iyong 2,000 po, iyon na iyon forever. Pero
po kung gusto ko ng madaming content at depende sa quality ng
content, doon po nagmamahal iyon. Kasi, siyempre, you have to do
field work, may mga babayarang subscription na mga extra services,
ganoon po.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Kumikita rin ba itong mga website na ito?
Pagka nag-open ka, kumikita rin?
MR. NIETO. Pag nag-open ka lang ng website o ng social
media account, wala pong kita. Kailangan mag-insert ka ng
advertisements o humanap ka ng mas creative na monetization
methods. So minsan po, halimbawa, kung ako po ay mayroong isang
anti-another party na website, pupwede po akong—mayroon po kasi
akong mga—hindi ko na lang papangalanan kasi gugulo pa, pero
mayroon pong mga tumatanggap ng suhol para magsulat laban sa
isang tao. Iyong mga ganoon po na mga modus operandi, pero iyong
mga aboveboard, normally, sir, una, monetization po via Google Ads,
iyong kamukha ng ginawa ni Cocoy; (2) pupwede rin po iyong mga
native contents, so magsusulat ng article about a certain product pero,
in reality, pinu-promote pala iyong product na iyon. Tapos po, marami
pa pong ibang paraan. Ganoon po.
SEN. PACQUIAO. In your research, you mentioned iyong
domain privacy protection.
258
MR. NIETO. Opo.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Can you explain to this—?
MR. NIETO. Ganito po kasi, sir. Pag, halimbawa, mayroong
isang website, sabihin nating silentnomoreph.com. Pag ginamit niyo
po iyong Who Is Lookup na tool, lilitaw po doon iyong pangalan ng
kung sino iyong may-ari noon. Pero mayroon po kayong
option na magbayad ng around $10 a year para sa domain privacy
services so that—
SEN. PACQUIAO. Magkano, magkano?
MR. NIETO. Mga $10 a year lang po.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Ten dollars a year?
MR. NIETO. Mga P500 a year.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Para magtago ka?
MR. NIETO. Para itago iyong registrant information.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Okay.
MR. NIETO. Okay.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Okay. I still have a lot of questions but we
lack time, so that’s it. We’ll have another one na lang next hearing.
MR. NIETO. Sige po, sir.
SEN. PACQUIAO. Thank you. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON. Okay. Before I suspend our hearing, just
a few points.
259
To summarize, with the advent of the Internet, mobile
technology and social media, news travels faster and wider by simply
copying, pasting and sending to all.
Kung gigising ka ng alas-kwatro ng madaling araw upang
makarating sa opisina ng alas-otso, at alas-nuebe na ng gabi nasa
kalsada ka pa, pawis, gutom, inaantok sa isang bus na hindi
gumagalaw sa traffic or ang MRT na nasisira, ang konswelo mo lang ay
may “Free WiFi on Board,” wala ka na sigurong gagawin kundi ilabas
ang iyong sama ng loob. It’s a reflection of what people feel now.
People are outraged because of their situation. And they express it
through social media.
So now we are saying, “Yes, you can express yourself but be
accountable.”
Fake news has preyed on the desperate, deceived the gullible,
and swindled the naïve.
The combination of automation and propaganda, also called
computational propaganda, allegedly has transformed, if not
destroyed, political debates.
Napakahaba pa nitong aking dapat sanang ibibigay pero kapag
tumatanggap ka ng sahod mula sa pera ng taongbayan, hindi ka na
naiiba sa ibang government officials and employees and, therefore,
should be more circumspect and should, therefore, exercise prudence
260
in sharing articles that instigate division among the populace. You are
bound by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees, or R.A. 6713.
But it’s not just about being proprietary or following the law. We
should remember how much influence we have in our fingertips in our
hands na talagang pinapanood kayo, kinokopya kayo. Ang mga bata
ngayon, Asec Mocha, mga 10 years old, eight years old, five years old,
gusto nila sexy sila.
Dati, gusto lang nilang maglaro. Pero nakikita—they are
emulating what adults are doing now. And I always say, “I don’t care
what you write as long as it’s not pornographic, it does not incite
rebellion or sedition and it’s not libelous.” Iyong lang iyong tatlo.
Then, otherwise, you could already. But we have to make certain
sacrifices also if we are government officials. And as I have said, not
only am I being bashed by the yellows, I am also being bashed by the
reds because I’m neither here nor there, right? But I would like to
assure you that I would protect your rights, at least, in this hearing.
And so I cannot, even if I want to, because I know that you’re all very
busy, I would like to thank you for being here today. But I’m sorry to
say that I cannot adjourn this hearing. I will have to suspend it
because one of the key persons that was mentioned, Mr. Dayao, is not
present here today and I would like to give him a chance to also, either
261
defend himself or to dispute what we have to say. So dapat maging
mapagmatyag ang publiko, lalo na ang mga kabataan na laman ng
social media sa kanilang nababasa at ibinabahagi sa kanilang followers
at friends.
Thus, we will consider the creation of a new government institute
to check the integrity of government information and police the
accuracy of information, if we think it is tenable. Kasi we don’t want
again to add that bureaucracy unless we really need it. But Mr.
Alampay said it, things can get very untenable. That’s why we have to
make certain choices and sacrifices. And even if they say—in fact,
there are different tweets and texts to me and they are saying, “Why
are people complaining? The other media or online is there to check
mainstream. Mainstream has been accused of being slanted and this
is the chance of people to air out their views.”
I agree, but then there should also accountability on the part of
bloggers and our online writers. And let us not also forget the sacrifice
of legitimate, I wouldn’t say legitimate, but mainstream journalists
that have to be accountable and that have to really collect materials.
Iyon nga, may isang nag-text sa akin from GMA 7, “Alam mo ba
napakahaba ng proseso para lang mag-produce ng isang show? Hindi
lang telepono ang kailangan. Ipapa-approve mo pa ito, kailangan
262
talaga na balanse ang lahat.” So, at least, we are there now to check
each other.
Dati, before President Duterte, pag ang media nagsalita, parang
ito na, hindi ba? Pero lumabas kayo and all of a sudden you’re
checking mainstream media. Mainstream media and you are checking
us. And we are checking the government, hindi ba? So it’s a cycle but
we just have to fix the imperfections as best we can.
So, in that, I think that there is one thing agreed upon in this
hearing, it is this: Misinformation should not have a place in today’s
democratic society, if we can prevent it. Speech, as long as it is not
libelous, seditious or does not incite violence, should not be curtailed
or inhibited. I’ll be the first one to speak against that. Therefore,
think before you click.
Maraming salamat po.
[THE HEARING WAS SUSPENDED AT 3:13 P.M.] /meln
263

Public Info - FAKE NEWS - 17!10!04 (Reviewed)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Public Info - FAKE NEWS - 17!10!04 (Reviewed)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Republic of thePhilippines

Congress of the Philippines

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION AND MASS MEDIA

Date : Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Time : 9:30 a.m.

Venue : Sen. Claro M. Recto Room

Agenda : PROLIFERATION OF FAKE AND/OR MISLEADING

P.S. RES. NO. 315 - RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE

P.S. RES. NO. 271 - RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE

P.S. RES. NO. 259 - RESOLUTION URGING THE

SENATE BILL NO. 1492 - AN ACT PENALIZING

MANIFESTATION OF SENATORS SOTTO,

HON. GRACE POE - Chairperson

HON. JUAN MIGUEL “MIGZ” F. ZUBIRI - Guest Senator

Hon. Joel Egco - Undersecretary, Presidential

Atty. Eugenio “Toto” Villareal - Law and Media Ethics Professor,

Atty. Antonette B. Cordero - Committee Secretary

(For complete list, please see attached Attendance Sheet.)

AT 9:32 A.M., HON. GRACE POE, CHAIRPERSON OF

THE CHAIRPERSON. This hearing of the Committee on Public

Information is now called to order.

Let me greet you first good morning.

Thank you for being here on time.

it by checking our Twitter, Instagram and Facebook accounts. We

check our Facebook, texts, notifications before we check on our loved

ones. And at night, instead of sharing stories over dinner, we share

with news, some fake, mostly, real, I think.

misrepresentation, misinformation or to put it more bluntly, outright

lies. So I think, that, first, we should differentiate news from opinion.

The term “news” is defined as a report of recent events, opinion. On

not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Currently, the term “fake news” as used by the public means a

wide array of things, from false reports to propaganda and to true

out fake news in an industrial scale that it seems that while

manufacturing is down, fake news factories are booming; and that

while agriculture output is low, that of troll farms is high.

civic discourse, affect social interaction and influence government. It

e-version of the “budol-budol” which many of our people unable to

that in the future, fake news can trigger wars.

Alam ninyo mga kababayan, the Internet is important to us but it

broadband should have made us broad-minded. But thanks to fake

news, it has kept many of us imprisoned in our own narrow political

beliefs. Hindi nga ba Internet is deemed to be an instrument for

liberation, technology. But now it is being used somehow to enslave

eye of the beholder. Who determines it through its colored lenses?

unang tanong kaagad ay kung saang kampo galing iyan.

Second, while the Internet also promotes connectivity, it has

dialogue dahil maraming natatakot baka ma-bully. And when

conversation does not happen, the forging of consensus so essential to

our democracy is affected.

Kaya nga, third, hindi lang usaping legal or political ang

pagsusuri ng fake news phenomenon. Dapat din pag-aralan ang

sociological impact nito. Has fake news doomed civilized debate

turning it into shouting matches, dividing families and friends? Has

fake news created a cynical citizenry, distrustful of authority and even

our very institutions? Has it embroiled us in a permanent state of

government in addressing the lack of news literacy? Should news

literacy be required by schools?

In Taiwan, school kids are now being taught media literacy in an

effort to help them identify news from hoaxes. Bagamat madali

free speech considerations. Media opposition to the government is not

new. In fact, media is nicknamed the fourth estate or the fourth

branch of government because it is expected to perform the role of a