POGO, NARCO
Lifted from Krizette Laureta Chu
Content of my “excuse letter” to HOR that Dan Fernandez didn’t read on air.
REP. DAN S FERNANDEZ
Lead Chairperson
Committee on Public Order and Safety
Feb. 4, 2025
Dear Rep. Fernandez,
Hope you are well.
This is in reference to your invitation to the joint inquiry / congressional hearing on social media regulation, held upon the request of Rep. Ace Barbers to question POGO and NARCO vloggers, and those who spread fake news.
After careful consideration, I would like to respectfully turn down your invitation due to these following reasons:
1. I am not a vlogger. I do not do Lives, I do not have Youtube, and my Facebook--where I have a significant following (all organic, no paid follower or boosted content) is not monetized, and never have been ever since I began writing on Facebook in 2008. So on the basis of me being invited as a social media vlogger, I am not qualified.
2. I am, however, a professional journalist. Ever since 2005, I have been working in publishing, and my articles have appeared both in local and international media.
I am currently an editor at the Manila Bulletin, and the editor of Balita, the Filipino language newspaper also owned by Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation. What I am is a professional journalist with a social media following. Not a social media vlogger. There is a distinction.
3. I am not just protected by the 1987 Constitution, Article III, Bill of Rights, Section 4, Section 7, and Section 18, as with any Filipino, an extra layer of protection also covers me because of my profession. The Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) provides journalists the right to demand transparency and accountability from public officials. Apart from this the Sotto Law allows me to protect my sources.
4. With all due respect, I would like to say that an inquiry whose main aim is to regulate social media is unconstitutional. I do not support, cannot tolerate, and will fight against the idea of muzzling free speech. To appear before Congress is a confirmation that I agree to social media regulation, and I do not. Government interference should not be allowed in the area of free speech, especially because free speech is one of the very few liberties the ordinary citizens have to protect themselves from the abuses of those who have power.
I would also like to remind the House that power is not forever--which means an abusive administration (or a vengeful one) after yours can ironically use these very same tactics on you and your supporters. We cannot allow any government to have power over, and the right to interfere, with free speech--not now, not ever.
5. I take deep offense at Rep Barbers saying he will invite narco vloggers, POGO vloggers, and fake news spreaders to the hearing, which he has repeatedly said not just in the halls of Congress, but also in various interviews done by media--which, done in his home, is not covered by parliamentary immunity. He has pre-accused those who are invited now as narco and POGO vloggers.
I would like to ask Rep Ace Barbers if he has proof that I am any of those, because why I am invited to a hearing to regulate these kinds of vloggers. The burden of proof is with the Congress. In this regard, we may petition the court for Habeas Data so that the Congress will be compelled to release any document that show why we’re suddenly accused as narco and POGO vloggers.
This is damaging on my part as a Filipino, a private citizen, and an editor who has been working for 20 years, to be called a vlogger funded by narcos and POGOs. I have never been sued for libel, defamation, cyberlibel in my 20 years writing professionally, so even the allegation of fake news spreader is also deeply inaccurate.
The term "fake news spreader" is very liberally used by anyone to diminish the opinions of those they do not agree with. Let the courts decide who the fake news spreader is if they have been sued for libel.
As for calling us narco vloggers, I am willing to undergo all kinds of drug tests, alongside ALL the public officials of this country who derive their salaries from our taxes. Let’s all take a drug test together.
6. We have legal remedies already provided by the laws of our land. And these remedies are available to both regular Filipinos and powerful politicians such as yourselves.
Fake news? We have libel. Defaming someone, even a public official, can get you sued with defamation. Our cyberlibel law is one of the strictest in the world.
We already have Libel and Cyberlibel (Revised Penal Code & Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, R.A. 10175. Cyberlibel is also a criminal case.
Again, to reiterate, we already have very strict laws on libel, cyberlibel, and defamation. We also have protection in place even against hate speech and false and misleading information. All these laws are provided for Filipino citizens like you and I, which we all can use in our favor when we want to sue someone for besmirching our name because they called us POGO Vlogger or thief or plunderer.
Why regulate social media and send a chilling effect on our freedom of speech, when you have these legal remedies available? Is this new law aimed to silence dissenting opinions and scaring people from speaking up? Our Constitution will not allow this.
Filipinos have already fought against Martial Law and those who have tried to curtail our freedom of speech. To do so means we are regressing as a nation. Elsewhere, the veil has been lifted: Mark Zuckerberg and Meta, Elon Musk and X, are doing away with prohibitive social media mechanisms like FACT CHECKERS, which they have acknowledged as biased and unlawful.
Will we allow the Philippines to regress to Martial Law and authoritarian regimes with a hearing that seeks to legislate social media use? Legislating social media use is giving the government power to interfere with our free speech. Government interference is a no-no. We have to put our foot down.
Someday you do not want an abusive and vengeful government to use this against you when you are no longer in power. When Sara Duterte ascends to power, you and I both do not want her to use this legislation and this scare tactic against us. We both want ourselves and our children to have the freedom and right to call her out, without threat or intimidation.
7. I would also like to share my observation that the invite list is composed of anti administration bloggers, with two token pro admin bloggers . Does this infer that you only consider critics as fake news spreaders? Your colleague, Jude Acidre of Tingog Partylist, has maligned me on his Facebook account by alleging that I stole funds from a Gofundme created during the pandemic. Before maligning me, he has not double checked his sources, and that I have already given my accountability to my donors in 2020. I reposted the breakdown of my accountability, and he has not apologized to me—because I am not powerful? Why is he not considered a fake news spreader? In fact, shouldn’t we Filipinos hold him to a higher standard since he is a government official paid by my taxes?
Does this inquiry only serve the interests of those in power? Isn’t the sole purpose of government to protect its citizens? Does Jude Acidre get a free pass because he is one of your own?
May we remind the Congress that we the people are taxpayers.
Both Jude Acidre and I have the right to bring before the Courts our grievances against each other—and not for him to use his power to specifically target me.
8. I would also like to put it in writing that I have screenshots and evidence of troll farms in operation, including identifying the one who pays them, pushing for certain politicians, and yet they are not included in the invitation list. The head troll farm operators of certain politicians live in luxury, and we also have their names, and screenshots of the upgrades of their lifestyles, and yet they are also not on the list.
Who’s on the list are private citizens who just happen to be critics of this government. Whoever prepared this list of invitees should be questioned for their bias and discrimination and for deliberately targeting and attacking critics, as well as for blatantly omitting pro administration troll farm operators. This; by any standards, is an attack on our liberty as Filipinos who have every right to call out government officials. To reiterate, I refuse to be part of a deeply, blatantly biased hearing that is more an Inquisition rather than an inquiry.
If any politician has a grievance against me, a private citizen and a taxpayer, they are very free to sue me before the courts of our land, in the same way that if a politician oversteps their bounds, the ordinary Filipino also can go before the courts to call for justice.
That is the beauty and promise of a real democracy.
What the Constitution won’t ever allow is those in power abusing the power that ironically has been given to them by the very Filipinos whose rights they are now trying to remove.
To respectfully reiterate, the reason I am refusing your invitation is that this hearing to regulate social media is against the principles of free speech, it is against the Constitution, it is biased and targets only critics, and it is irrelevant to me, as I refuse to be identified as a social media vlogger--more so, a POGO or NARCO-funded vlogger.
Meanwhile, we will fight for the right of every Filipino, rich or poor, with 1 million followers or with 1, against the government or pro government, in power or exploited by the system, to never ever lose their voice. As Voltaire once said, and repeated often by President Duterte, “I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
We will exhaust all legal remedies to protect our right to free speech, our right to criticize, and we will use our voices, and we will not waver even in the face of threat and intimidation.
We are not Filipinos for nothing.
Thank you very much for your time.
Love,
KRIZETTE
MAHABA KAYA DI BINASA NI DAN. Thank you very much to my lawyers Atty D (not in photo) and Sec bebot Bello, to Harry Roque for being the group’s counsel, and to all my brothers and sisters in arms.
