With Uson’s exit, question on peddling falsehood stays

Mocha uson has left her job as assistant secretary on social media at PCOO (Presidential Communications Operations Office) or the p.r. department of Malacañang, still convinced that as a government-paid propagandist:

[1] She had not lost the right to write her private blog even if she was already a government official and employee;

[2] She could not be penalized as a government worker if she would publish fake news, officially or in her private capacity. On both, when she was still working for the government, she cited free speech and free press as guarantees of the Constitution.

Free to write

The first became moot when she resigned last Wednesday (Oct. 3). She is free to write now but, like any other person, there are legal restrictions such as the crimes of libel, contempt and inciting to sedition. She’ll have free rein on offensive language within the bounds of social media, which allows only a certain volume of garbage. She might use fake news again, but given her record on that, the public may be less trusting and fact-checkers more diligent with her published material. The question about her conduct as a government official has lost relevance only to Uson. But whether government officials and employees, especially those in communication work, can be punished for peddling fake news still needs to be addressed.

Roque’s defense

Propagandists in government were sheltered by Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque from a bill filed by Sen. Grace Poe last Feb. 6. Senate Bill 1680 seeks to penalize government employees who publish or disseminate news or information on any platform or publish their opinion during office hours. (The office hours cap seems limp and silly: Uson and her fellow propagandists could time release of their views after 5 p.m.)Last June 20, Roque tangled with Poe on the Senate floor regarding how the bill would or would not violate the equal protection clause in the Constitution. It would single out government officials and employees from the rest of the public, Roque said. SB 1680 would punish those working for government but not all the others.

Poe’s argument was basic legal precept. There are substantial distinctions between government and non-government workers. Thus the equal protection clause is not violated. Republic Act 1713, which Poe’s bill seeks to amend, governing the conduct of public officials and employees, attests to the difference.

If Roque were on Poe’s side, not the president’s mouthpiece that he is, he could’ve argued for the bill more forcefully as he did before he signed up with the government.

Still vulnerable

Restrictions on government workers, such as the ban on political involvement by appointed personnel and forced disclosure of assets and liabilities, show that each class is different from the other. Protection cannot be equal here.Uson will no longer be touched by any of that. But the crimes on abuse of media will. Like any other person who transgresses the law, she can be criticized for excess in language or disrespect for facts or even dragged to court for what she publishes with malice.