Less chatter, more work by atty ian vincent manticajon

I have an unsolicited piece of advice for 5th District Representative Duke Frasco regarding the burning issues he is facing right now: fewer words spoken and more work done would serve him and his constituents better.

I do not know who is advising him at the moment, or whether he is confronting these political and recently legal challenges on his own, but he is beginning to sound irritating, and the more he opens his mouth, the more he figuratively buries himself in the mud, whether of his own making or that of his opponents.

It is part of public service to be criticized, even unfairly at times. The more visible you are, the more criticisms will come your way. In this regard, it is worth recalling the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in United States v. Bustos, a case decided in 1918 during the American colonial period. The decision states: “Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts.”

I always discuss United States v. Bustos in my Media Law class as a seminal case on free speech in the Philippines, frequently invoked in more recent Supreme Court decisions to justify the wide latitude afforded to criticism of public officials. Our Constitution and statutes require heightened protection for speech relating to official conduct, and the Supreme Court, in interpreting these guarantees, has consistently cautioned that public officers must endure even harsh commentary.

In the case of Rep. Frasco, many expected an apology from the congressman for being in London at the time Typhoon Tino hit mid-north and central Cebu --at the very least, a sincere and unconditional one without counterattacks on critics. Legally, I do not believe he had a duty to be physically present in Liloan during the November 4 calamity and its immediate aftermath. He is the representative of the 5th District, which includes Liloan, not Liloan’s mayor.

As a congressman, his work is to legislate. Given the prominence of his name and photos on tarpaulins throughout the district, however, the public may expect him to show up during disasters. To be clear, his work is basically policy making. Under the Constitution, members of the House of Representatives are tasked with crafting legislation, shaping national policy, and exercising oversight over the Executive, not executing laws or directing frontline operations.

With all the chatter on social media these days, the worst a politician could do is add to it. It is better to focus on the work that can and should be done. This also means communicating with purpose, not posting every move for the clout or staging public relations stunts for the cameras. Social media ought to connect government to the people it serves, helping mobilize volunteers, relay accurate information, and gather feedback, rather than functioning as a platform for ego and curated images.

* * *

After a calamity, social media naturally fills with emotional expression and argument, which is understandable and even psychologically necessary. But this also generates “information noise”, not necessarily for the purpose of information-sharing. In many cases, it is rumors, misinformation, and “slacktivism” that dominate online platforms. The latter refers to “low-threshold” political talk on social media, where people express anger, share opinions, and signal identity, but which does not automatically translate into real-world participation, with many feeling they have “done their part” simply by posting, liking, or sharing (Št?tka and Mazák, 2014).

Research shows that politicians who simply add more opinionated, partisan, or speculative content into social media chatter “risk deepening confusion instead of helping citizens understand root causes, evaluate policy choices, and organize toward solutions” (Vaccari, et al., 2015).

At the same time, much of this noise now circulates through anonymous pages and “freedom wall” accounts that allow unverified, nameless posting. On the surface, some of these posts may sound valid or even factual, but they seldom add real value to public discourse because they don’t have credibility.

Anonymity can encourage what scholars call the “online disinhibition effect,” where people feel freer to attack, speculate, or exaggerate precisely because their real identities are hidden. In this sense, no matter how legitimate the grievances aired on anonymous pages may appear, such exercises of free speech are prone to abuse because without real names behind every opinion or piece of information, there can be no accountability.