Speech of 3rd Speaker:

Atty. Obieta, the Opposing Counsel, Members of the House; Good afternoon.

As it has been mentioned by the previous speakers, the government is in favor of the
regulation of false news in Facebook. The first reason given by the second speaker, is that false news
does not fall under the speech protected by the Constitution. Our second reason is that current laws
do nothing to curtail the spread of false news. The Freedom of Speech mentioned in Article III,
Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution is not absolute. It can be subject to regulation coming from the
government. In the case at bar, the regulation of false news is also made possible by the so-called
Facebook Community Standards. With this regard, there is a form of consciousness coming from
Facebook; it is aware that there is the existence of false news, and because of that it created its own
standards in order to regulate it. The government proposes that the regulation of false news be done
as a national policy, in which it shall be harmonized with the Facebook Community Standards.

One of the main ways that the government can regulate false news through policy, is by
amending the Cybercrime Act of 2012 by defining fake news as a cybercrime, particularly false news
that are found in Facebook. Currently, the Cybercrime Act of 2012 does not have an existing provision
on fake news. The government can therefore amend such Act in order to qualify false news as a
crime. If the false news are related to public safety, order and national security, it shall be punishable
under the said Act. In addition to this, people who are to suffer the penalties that shall be provided
under the said provision shall be the author(s) and all persons sharing, promoting or distributing such
false news. The government can impose various ways to regulate such false news in Facebook, that
shall be in accordance to the Facebook Community Standards.The creation of this provision that can
be added in the said Act, falls under the clear and present danger test which was mentioned by the
previous speaker.

They Cybercrime Act of 2012 aims to protect the netizens and to regulate the space of online
interaction. Since its approval on September 12, 2012, the changes in technology, particularly the
swift transition of Facebook merely as an avenue to communicate and keep in touch with friends and
loved ones, has changed; Facebook now emerges as a leading social media site, that has become
diverse and versatile. It not only gives netizens the opportunity to keep in touch with their friends, but
it also gives them the chance to stay updated. One of the main ways people use Facebook is to read
news. According to an online article written by Andrew Hutchinson, he mentioned that there is a
growing number of people that do rely on Facebook for news content. A new study released
by Pew Research shows that 62% of the Facebook users now get their news on social media,
particularly on Facebook, up from 49% when Pew last conducted the same study in 2012
(http://www.socialmediatoday.com/social-networks/new-study-underlines-growing-reliance-facebook-
news-source).

With the growing reliance to Facebook being used as an avenue to check news, and since
the approval of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, it can be possible for the government to
include false news under such Act in order to regulate it. With this regard, the government finds the
regulation of false news not only as a need, but rather as a necessity. Apart from the Filipino netizens
heavy reliance on Facebook as a way to get news updates, the necessity to regulate is grounded on
the point mentioned by Ms. Tolentino, wherein which the regulation of false news is considered as a
compelling state interest. The necessity stems from the fact that there is a need for the government to
protect the people from being misinformed. It is not just any type of misinformation, but being
misinformed in governmental matters can have detrimental effects on the netizen.

To summarize our points, I would once again like to reiterate our statement that that we are in
favor for the regulation of false news in social media, specifically Facebook due to two main reasons.
The first reason being that the freedom of speech stipulated in the 1987 Constitution is not absolute.
Therefore, speech such as false news can be subject to regulation by the government, due to the
clear and present danger rule, as well as it being a compelling interest. The second reason that we
mentioned, is that regulation is possible. It is necessary that the government shall create a national
policy, or amend the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and harmonize it with the Facebook
Community Standards, since there is no current law that curtails the spread of false news.