“Falsehoods can travel quickly, but accountability follows in time—and when it does, it does not arrive quietly”
Let us be clear about what is happening.
What is being circulated online are false and malicious claims directed at the First Couple—President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. and First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos.
These claims involve drugs, sexual conduct, and the supposed existence of “sensitive” images, including edited or fabricated material falsely attributed to the First Lady.
None of this is supported by evidence.
There are no records. No forensic findings. No sworn statements. No cases filed before any authority. What exists is an interview-style presentation, followed by repetition across various blogs and social media platforms.
I believe that distinction matters. Criticism is anchored on facts and actions. What we are seeing here are accusations floated without proof and amplified for effect. That is not legitimate criticism. It is defamation.
An Interview Used to Launder Allegations
The allegations were aired through an online interview conducted by vlogger Deen Chase—a format that gave the appearance of dialogue while quietly stripping away verification, challenge, and accountability.
Presented this way, untested claims were allowed to pass as conversation and circulate as content.
Placing an accusation inside an interview format does not make it credible. It only makes it easier to spread.
Nothing in the video is verified. Nothing is authenticated. There is no attempt to submit these claims to institutions capable of testing them. The delivery is casual, almost conversational, as if repetition itself could substitute for proof.
It cannot.
This is not a legitimate exercise in public discourse. An interview format does not excuse unproven accusations, and it does not remove accountability. The content was produced for circulation, not for truth.
Why the First Lady Was Targeted
The focus on alleged sexual behavior and supposed private images aimed at the First Lady is not incidental. It follows a familiar pattern: When facts fail, dignity is attacked. When governance cannot be challenged, humiliation is attempted.
Because the target is a woman, the damage is expected to linger even after the lie collapses. That expectation is part of the tactic. I see this as a gendered form of attack. It relies on shame and insinuation because those wounds are harder to undo, even when the claims are false.
No image has been authenticated. No expert has verified anything. The insinuation alone is expected to cause harm.
Where Free Speech Ends
Public officials are open to scrutiny. They should be.
But inventing crimes and immoral conduct is not protected speech. Publishing such claims online and repeating them without proof exposes those involved to libel and cyber libel, with real criminal and civil consequences.
Calling it an “opinion” does not shield the speaker.
Calling it an “interview” does not absolve the platform.
Reposting it does not erase responsibility.
The law looks at harm, not excuses. Free expression is not a license to destroy reputations. The law draws a line, and this crossed it. Those who continue to spread these false claims should be clear about the consequences: the harm is real, and liability follows the damage caused.
Evidence or Consequence
When proof is absent and repetition continues, the act is no longer accidental. It is intentional, and intent matters.
Extraordinary accusations require proof. When none is offered, the responsible course is simple: stop. The internet may feel fast and forgiving, but it is neither.
Falsehoods can travel quickly, but accountability follows in time—and when it does, it does not arrive quietly.
This is not about silencing voices. It is about insisting on truth, responsibility, and the basic standards that hold a society together.
(The writer, a doctorate in philosophy degree holder, serves as Chairman Emeritus of four civic oriented organizations: Alyansa ng Bantay sa Kapayapaan at Demokrasya, People’s Alliance for Democracy and Reforms, Liga Independencia Pilipinas, and Filipinos Do Not Yield Movement, where he advocates for truth, stability, and the dignity of the Filipino people.)
