Senate hearing on Mocha?

Disclaimer: What you are about to read does not reflect the views or opinions of PCOO. I am also not writing this in my capacity as Assistant Secretary but merely as a simple Filipino who believes that freedom of speech should be for everybody.

Does becoming a government official limit one’s freedom to express political opinions publicly? While it initially has no relation to the Senate hearing on fake news last Jan. 30, it became one of the burning topics discussed by the individuals who took part in the debate. It even came to a point wherein Sec. Martin Andanar was asked whether the Mocha Uson Blog should be shut down due to conflict of interest. However, I find it curious that in this line of questioning, as well as the insinuations of some of the senators who led the hearing, the Mocha Uson Blog was the only one in their crosshairs.

Conflict of interest. This was their main reason as to why I should choose between being a blogger and a government official, and why I should tone down my personal opinions whenever I post on my blog. It also seems that they conveniently forgot to mention that in Republic Act 6713, which they have been repeatedly citing during the hearing, it also states that:

 “‘Public Officials’ includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount.”

The keyword here is “elective,” which means, in my interpretation, that this law also applies to elected government officials like senators.

Now, how many times have we witnessed some senators use their position to make tirades against the President? How many times have we seen them use hearings as a venue to attack the current administration, including the President’s family? The question here is, isn’t this a more concrete and more apparent form of “conflict of interest,” by using one’s power and position to fulfill a personal vendetta? Why is there no suggestion for them to choose only one role, either to be a critic or be a senator? Do their attacks, allegations, and opinions against the President embody the whole Senate in the same way it is being emphasized that my personal opinions may represent that of the entire Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO)?

We are all familiar with the saying that “the law must apply to all or to none at all,” and in line with this, I hope that if the Senate is going to enforce the law on a particular public official, they must enforce it on all government officials, both elected and appointed. If they are suggesting that I limit my expression of opinion, then they must say the same to all. If they don’t, then isn’t this a concrete example of bias? Isn’t this another case of the Senate using its powers to silence their critics? Doesn’t this lay down a clear “conflict of interest” which they conveniently use during hearings and discussions on fake news?

I am against “fake news,” and all the misinformation and disinformation that come with them. But at the same time I also believe that not all political opinions can be tagged as misinformation or disinformation on the mere ground that the viewpoint of the writer is not shared by everyone. It is likewise my hope that in the next Senate hearing on fake news, “fake news” would finally be defined and that the purpose of the hearing be clarified – whether it is to be held to tackle “fake news” per se, or if it will be a venue to pinpoint public officials and their supposed display of conflict of interest.

In the end, we are all government workers, regardless of our differences in ranks and titles. I believe that as part of the government, it is our duty to protect the freedom of speech and expression of all, not just of chosen individuals. We must not tolerate the notion that government workers have a limited capacity and are not free to express their political viewpoints. And lastly, I believe that the freedom we are fighting for is for each and every Filipino.