The ‘Daw’ Defense: Why Vloggers Must Be Held Accountable for Misinformation

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

In the digital age, where social media posts can spread like wildfire, the responsibility of content creators, influencers, and vloggers to verify their statements is more critical than ever. However, some attempt to evade accountability by resorting to a convenient loophole—adding the word “daw” to their claims, as if this absolves them of responsibility. This is precisely the defense mounted by blogger Krizette Chu after she amplified unverified reports of a supposed “mass resignation” in the Philippine National Police (PNP).

But does the mere inclusion of “daw”—a Tagalog term often used to indicate hearsay—truly exempt someone from the consequences of spreading misinformation? The answer is a resounding NO.

The ‘Daw’ Excuse: A Flimsy Shield for Misinformation

Chu argues that her use of “daw” in her post signified uncertainty and should not be taken as a definitive statement. This rationale, however, collapses under scrutiny. Representative Jude Acidre rightly pointed out that despite the PNP’s official denial of the supposed mass resignation, Chu did not take the responsible step of correcting or retracting her post. If she genuinely intended only to speculate, why not issue a clarification once the truth was established?

The reality is that words have weight, especially when used by individuals with a large audience. A vlogger or influencer’s reach gives them a powerful platform, and with that influence comes a moral and ethical obligation: to ensure that what they share does not mislead or cause unwarranted panic. Adding a vague disclaimer does not erase the harm caused by spreading unverified claims.

The Power and Danger of Social Media Influence

In today’s information-driven world, perception often shapes reality. A single post, tweet, or video can quickly alter public opinion, sometimes with lasting consequences.

Amplification Effect – Even if a vlogger says they are unsure of their sources, their words still carry weight, particularly among followers who trust their judgment. The mere act of posting an unverified claim, regardless of disclaimers, gives it a platform and legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

Confirmation Bias – Many social media users consume content that aligns with their existing beliefs. Even if a vlogger adds “daw,” readers often take the claim at face value, spreading the misinformation further.

Delayed Corrections Have Little Impact – If a misleading post goes viral, any correction issued later—if at all—rarely reaches the same audience. The damage is already done.

Misinformation Has Real-World Consequences

The case of the alleged PNP “mass resignation” is not just an innocent mistake; it is an example of how misinformation can undermine public trust in institutions. False claims about police resignations could incite fear, create uncertainty, and even destabilize governance. In an era where disinformation campaigns are weaponized for political or ideological agendas, carelessness with the truth is not a minor offense—it is a serious issue with potentially dangerous repercussions.

Holding Vloggers and Content Creators Accountable

The spread of false information is not just about intent—it is about impact. If the primary defense is “I didn’t mean to mislead,” then the logical next step should be to issue an immediate correction. Yet, in this case, there was no attempt to rectify the false narrative, only an insistence that the use of "daw" absolves responsibility.

Content creators must accept that their influence comes with accountability. Whether they are journalists, vloggers, or social media personalities, they must be held to a higher standard—one that demands responsibility, integrity, and a commitment to truth.

The “daw” excuse is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. If anything, it highlights the urgent need for greater digital literacy, ethical content creation, and stricter regulations to combat the spread of misinformation. In the end, those who seek to inform must first ensure that what they share is, indeed, the truth—not just what they heard daw.

The Law Has Spoken: Validating Duterte’s Arrest Amid Warrantless Claims

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

The arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte has sent shockwaves across the nation, sparking fierce debates over its legality. While his supporters decry it as a “warrantless” violation of his rights, legal experts—including International Criminal Court (ICC)-accredited lawyer Atty. Joel Butuyan—have swiftly dismantled these claims, affirming the arrest’s full compliance with the law.

A Warranted Arrest, Not Warrantless

Speaking at a press briefing, Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Atty. Claire Castro directly confronted the issue, citing Vice President Sara Duterte’s assertion that no local court had issued an arrest warrant against the former president. However, Atty. Butuyan clarified that this argument is fundamentally flawed.

"Mayroon pong warrant of arrest and it was issued by an international court na naging miyembro tayo. So, hindi po totoong warrantless arrest ito,” Butuyan emphasized, firmly establishing that Duterte’s arrest was not only valid but also enforceable under international legal frameworks.

Contrary to the opposition’s narrative, the issuance of an arrest warrant by the ICC is binding and does not require a separate order from a Philippine court. As a former member of the ICC, the Philippines had acknowledged its jurisdiction before Duterte unilaterally withdrew the country in 2019—long after the alleged crimes under investigation had occurred.

E-Warrants: A Legal and Practical Evolution

A particularly contentious issue in Duterte’s arrest is the nature of the warrant itself. Critics argue that an electronic warrant of arrest is insufficient, implying that physical documentation should have been presented at the time of his apprehension. However, Atty. Butuyan decisively debunked this argument.

"Sa batas mismo natin, hindi kailangang ipakita iyong physical warrant of arrest at the time of arrest. For as long as there exists a warrant of arrest, pupuwedeng mag-aresto,” he explained, highlighting that the evolution of legal systems—including the ICC’s procedures—has embraced digital documentation.

This shift to electronic processes is neither unprecedented nor irregular. The ICC’s judicial framework is designed for efficiency and security, making extensive use of digital and paperless documentation. Butuyan reinforced this point:

"Even sa ICC mismo, hindi kailangang ipakita iyong physical warrant of arrest, dahil pupuwedeng e-warrant din iyan. In fact, iyong proceedings ng ICC, even iyong kanilang trial, lahat, paperless na iyan, talagang e-documents lahat iyong ginagawa roon.”

This statement underscores the legitimacy of e-warrants, dismantling the argument that Duterte’s arrest lacked a proper legal foundation.

International Accountability vs. Political Resistance

The arrest of Duterte is more than a legal debate; it is a litmus test for the Philippines’ commitment to justice and accountability. While his allies attempt to frame it as a politically motivated move, the reality remains clear: the ICC's warrant holds legal weight, and the former president is not above the law.

His supporters may claim that the Philippines is no longer under the ICC’s jurisdiction, but legal experts have consistently argued that the investigation pertains to alleged crimes committed while the country was still a member. The doctrine of continuing jurisdiction applies, ensuring that withdrawal from the ICC does not erase accountability for past actions.

Moreover, Duterte’s presidency was marked by his own aggressive stance on law enforcement, particularly his endorsement of extrajudicial methods in his war on drugs. It is, therefore, ironic that he now finds himself invoking legal technicalities to challenge the very system he once wielded with impunity.

The Rule of Law Prevails

The validation of Duterte’s arrest is not just a victory for legal integrity but also a pivotal moment in the country’s pursuit of justice. Atty. Butuyan’s statements affirm that the rule of law remains paramount, undeterred by political maneuvering or public outcry.

The case against Duterte is far from over, and his fate now rests in the hands of international legal institutions. Whether his supporters accept it or not, the law has spoken—his arrest was legal, warranted, and necessary in the fight for justice.

The Dangerous Irresponsibility of "Just Writing What You Feel"

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

Accountability is the backbone of credibility. Without it, opinions become reckless, statements turn into weapons of misinformation, and influence—especially in the digital space—becomes dangerous. Yet, a Filipino blogger and prominent Duterte supporter recently claimed she was “uncomfortable with the idea of being held responsible for her posts” because she “just writes what she feels.”

This statement is not just problematic—it’s a glaring admission of irresponsibility.

The Fear of Accountability

To be “uncomfortable” with responsibility suggests an aversion to consequence. And those who fear accountability often have something to hide. This mindset is a hallmark of disinformation peddlers who thrive on the absence of repercussions. They capitalize on emotions, playing on people’s fears and biases, while conveniently evading responsibility when their words lead to harm.

Misinformation and propaganda have shaped national narratives, swayed elections, and fueled divisiveness. And yet, some so-called influencers refuse to acknowledge their role in this. Worse, they dismiss criticism with an excuse as flimsy as “I just write what I feel.”

But personal feelings do not justify deception. And having a large following means carrying a greater responsibility—not running away from it.

Raising the Bar: Why Influence Should Come with Integrity

If you have thousands of followers hanging on to your every word, you wield influence. And with influence comes a duty to ensure that what you put out is not only truthful but also ethical.

So why do some people idolize those who openly reject accountability? Is it because of their entertainment value? Their ability to rile up emotions? Or perhaps, is it because truth has taken a backseat to blind loyalty?

The truth is, we are all responsible for every choice we make—especially when those choices involve spreading information that affects public perception. No one gets a free pass.

Irresponsibility Should Never Be a Source of Pride

What’s truly alarming is that some people seem proud of their refusal to be accountable. It’s not just an admission of recklessness—it’s a warning sign. If someone refuses to own up to their words, why should they be trusted in the first place?

We need to raise our standards. If we’re going to admire or follow someone, it should be because they stand for truth, fairness, and responsibility. Not because they are skilled in emotional manipulation and evasion tactics.

At the end of the day, being an influencer—whether a vlogger, blogger, or content creator—is not just about writing what you feel. It’s about making sure that what you feel aligns with facts, ethics, and integrity. And if that makes someone uncomfortable, then perhaps they should rethink whether they deserve the platform they have.