Cancel Culture and Free Speech in the Philippines: Striking a Balance Between Accountability and Expression
By James Dennis C. Gumpal. MD., J.D.
In the Philippines, cancel culture has become a powerful force shaping public discourse, affecting celebrities, businesses, and even political figures. A notable example is the controversy surrounding Filipino singer Yeng Constantino. In a vlog, Constantino criticized the staff of a hospital in Siargao, accusing them of unprofessionalism, which quickly spiraled into accusations of “doctor-shaming.” The backlash was swift, as netizens rallied to cancel her, igniting debates about accountability, social media influence, and free speech (GradesFixer, 2023).
This incident highlights the growing influence of cancel culture in Filipino society, where actions and words are scrutinized in real-time. While cancel culture can serve as a tool for social accountability, it sometimes silences voices that do not align with the majority opinion. It presents a challenge: how can society hold individuals accountable without infringing on the right to free expression?
Free Speech in the Philippine Constitution
The Philippine Constitution guarantees free speech as a fundamental right. According to Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This enshrined right forms the bedrock of the country’s democratic values.
However, even the right to free speech is not absolute. Limitations exist when speech crosses into dangerous territory, such as inciting violence or promoting hate. The Constitution acknowledges the need for balance between individual rights and the protection of the public.
The rise of cancel culture has added a layer of complexity to this balance. While social media provides a platform for free expression, it also empowers collective actions that may suppress dissenting opinions. The challenge lies in navigating this space where individuals are quick to be canceled based on perceived transgressions.
The Evolution and Roots of Cancel Culture
Wilpixel/Getty Images
Cancel culture, the practice of publicly shunning or boycotting individuals or organizations for perceived offenses, has its roots in earlier forms of social exclusion. Historically, communities have ostracized individuals for violating social norms, with public shaming being a common consequence. In colonial America, the “scarlet letter” marked individuals as social outcasts (Friedman, 2014).
​In its modern form, cancel culture took shape with the rise of social media platforms in the 2010s. Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have allowed individuals to quickly mobilize against perceived wrongdoings, bringing attention to issues like racism, sexism, and corruption. The viral nature of social media amplifies these voices, often leading to real-life consequences for those targeted (Marwick & Lewis, 2017).
In the Philippines, cancel culture began to take hold in the mid-2010s as social media activism surged. Public figures and celebrities, increasingly faced scrutiny for their words and actions. With Filipinos being some of the most active social media users globally, platforms like Twitter and Facebook became venues for expressing discontent and calling out those deemed offensive.
​
Cancel Culture in the Philippine Political and Social Sphere
Cancel culture extends beyond celebrity controversies in the Philippines. Political figures have also faced the wrath of online canceling, particularly in cases involving corruption, human rights violations, and controversial remarks. Social media has become a space for the public to hold those in power accountable, with viral posts leading to public apologies or resignations in some cases.
While cancel culture has been celebrated for amplifying the voices of marginalized communities and pushing for accountability, it has also been criticized for fostering a “mob mentality.” Critics argue that individuals or organizations are often judged prematurely, without due process or the opportunity to defend themselves (Cohen, 2020).
The Philippine political landscape is marked by contentious social justice movements, where cancel culture plays a role in pressuring public figures to acknowledge their mistakes or face reputational damage. While this promotes transparency and accountability, it also raises concerns about the limits of free speech and whether cancel culture encourages open dialogue or stifles it.
Free Speech vs. Accountability: Navigating Cancel Culture
Free speech, as outlined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, remains one of the most important democratic rights. However, the social responsibility associated with it cannot be ignored. As cancel culture grows in influence, striking a balance between accountability and the protection of free speech becomes ever more important.
nycmuseumgallery.org
​​In the legal sense, free speech in the Philippines is not limitless. Libel, slander, and incitement to violence are all prohibited by law. This balance between freedom and responsibility is mirrored in the social consequences that cancel culture imposes on those who overstep societal boundaries.
The Constitution supports the notion that responsible speech is necessary for a fair and just society, where harmful rhetoric is curbed, but the free exchange of ideas is protected. Cancel culture, however, has raised concerns that the speed and intensity of online shaming can discourage people from expressing dissenting or controversial views.
Cancel Culture’s Impact on Free Speech
Cancel culture has undeniably reshaped the way people interact with one another, particularly online. The fear of being canceled may lead individuals to self-censor, avoiding discussions that could be perceived as controversial. This climate of caution threatens the robustness of free speech, where diverse viewpoints and challenging ideas are essential for societal progress.
In the Philippines, the rise of cancel culture has had significant consequences for public figures, from celebrities to politicians, and even ordinary citizens. Social media has become a platform for both empowerment and repression, where the risk of public shaming looms large. Those canceled often face professional isolation and personal vilification, leaving little room for debate or second chances.
The tension between holding individuals accountable and protecting free expression is at the heart of the cancel culture debate. For many, cancel culture is necessary to call out harmful behavior, particularly around issues of social justice. Yet, for others, it is a tool that can be misused, silencing voices that deviate from popular opinion (Cohen, 2020).
Legislative Gaps and Recommendations for Accountability
The rise of cancel culture has exposed certain legislative gaps in the Philippines regarding online accountability and free speech protection. While the Constitution guarantees the right to free expression, there is no clear legal framework that addresses the nuances of cancel culture, particularly in the digital age.
I recommend the strengthening of cyber libel laws to ensure that individuals are protected from unjust online shaming and reputational damage. However, these laws must also be carefully crafted to avoid infringing upon free speech. Legislative measures could also focus on promoting digital literacy, encouraging responsible social media use, and fostering a culture of constructive dialogue rather than mob-driven cancellation.
Additionally, it is crucial to broaden the discussion on accountability in the digital age. Implementing policies that promote due process and provide individuals with a fair opportunity to respond to accusations before being “canceled” could help mitigate the negative consequences of cancel culture.
Conclusion
The balance between free speech and cancel culture remains a contentious issue in the Philippines. While the Constitution guarantees the right to free expression, cancel culture presents challenges that must be carefully navigated to ensure that accountability does not come at the expense of open dialogue. As social media continues to shape public discourse, it is essential to foster a culture of responsible speech, one that allows for criticism without stifling diverse opinions.
Addressing the rise of cancel culture requires a multifaceted approach that includes legislative reforms, digital literacy programs, and efforts to promote constructive dialogue. By balancing the need for accountability with the protection of free speech, the Philippines can continue to thrive as a democratic society where ideas are freely exchanged, and individuals are held responsible for their actions. 20241209
REFERENCES
Cohen, N. (2020). Cancel culture: Accountability or mob justice? The Journal of Media Ethics, 35(3), 123-135.
Friedman, L. M. (2014). A history of American law (3rd ed.). Simon & Schuster.
GradesFixer. (2023). Yeng Constantino’s controversy: The doctor-shaming incident and cancel culture in the Philippines. Retrieved from https://gradesfixer.com
Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017). Media manipulation and disinformation online. Data & Society.
The Philippine Constitution. (1987). The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from https://officialgazette.gov.ph