ASEAN Regional Coalition to #StopDigitalDictatorship Anti-SLAPP and Whistleblower Protections: A Challenge for Freedom of Speech in the Philippines Another important view to consider in protecting the Freedom of Speech mandated under the 1987 Constitution is protection against SLAPP cases and whistleblowers. Protection against SLAPP cases is limited to environmental cases. The 2010 Supreme Court Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allows a SLAPP defence when an accused can allege that a lawsuit is brought against them “with the intent to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that one has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or assertion of environmental rights.” 107 Moreover, courts could hold a summary hearing and dismiss a case if it is proven to constitute a SLAPP suit and permit a SLAPP accused to seek damages and compensation.108 Nothing in the rule indicates that such a dismissal is mandatory, however, save for cases where it is specifically requested by the party concerned. While the Philippines’ whistleblower protection framework is far from perfect, Republic Act No. 6981, or the Witness Protection Security and Benefit Act contains a clause that encourages “a person who has witnessed or has knowledge of the commission of a crime to testify before a court or quasi-judicial body, or before an investigating authority, by protecting him from reprisals and economic dislocation,”109 in practice, past whistleblowers involved in high-profile scandals were still pushed into exile for fear of such reprisal and dislocation. The Witness Protection Program of the Department of Justice is also limited to those testifying about an offence not categorized as a grave felony or if there is no sufficient likelihood that the witness or their family will be killed, forced, legislate a bill on the subject, and one such bill was debated the year after, but not passed.110 Both Anti-SLAPP measures and whistleblower protections contribute to the creation of an environment where citizens are free to express their opinions, discuss matters of public interest, and expose wrongdoing without the fear of legal repercussions or personal harm. Moreover, by protecting those who disclose information about illegal or unethical conduct of the erring public officials, these measures contribute to a more accountable society. Freedom of speech, coupled with legal protections, ensures that information that serves the public interest is not suppressed, allowing for a more transparent and accountable governance. The Philippines can adapt to these measures to cultivate a culture where openness and transparency are valued. This, in turn, strengthens the principles of freedom of speech enshrined under the 1987 Constitution by removing barriers that might otherwise hinder individuals, concerned citizens, and human rights defenders from expressing their views or sharing critical information. Further, this ensures that human rights defenders can engage in their advocacy work without being unduly hindered by the threat of lawsuits or retaliation. This contributes to a more robust human rights culture, where defenders play a pivotal role in advancing justice and accountability. Finally, Anti-SLAPP measures and whistleblower protections are integral components of a legal framework that safeguards and enhances freedom of speech. By discouraging intimidation tactics and providing legal safeguards for those who speak out against wrongdoing, these measures contribute to a society where open discourse thrives, accountability is upheld, and the public interest is well-served. intimidated, harassed, or corrupted. Several attempts by the Senate to pass a whistleblower act have failed. In 2016, former President Duterte urged Congress to The Philippines 237