CSC’s Social Media Crackdown: Democracy’s Savior or Digital Thought Police?

By Louis ‘Barok’ C Biraogo — April 11, 2025

THE Civil Service Commission’s Memorandum Circular 3-2025 is here, and it’s swinging for the fences: no government worker can like, share, or even follow a candidate’s post during the 2025 election campaign without risking suspension. Neutrality’s the name, but this smells more like control dressed in a cheap suit. Let’s rip this apart with Kweba ng Katarungan gusto—because this isn’t just about silencing a clerk’s retweet; it’s a legal, political, and ethical trainwreck begging for a fight.

Legal Showdown: Can the CSC’s Gag Survive a Constitutional Smackdown?

The CSC’s leaning on the 1987 Constitution—Article IX-B, Section 2(4)—like it’s gospel: no civil servant shall touch “electioneering or partisan political campaign.” Solid ground, until they stretch “liking” a post into a suspendable offense under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases. No intent? No problem—just a strict liability guillotine for your social media slip-ups.

Cue Quinto v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 189698, 2010): the Supreme Court once flinched at punishing appointive officials for candidacy filings, waving the free speech flag—until it caved to neutrality on reconsideration. Still, a “like” isn’t a campaign rally; Santos v. Yatco (G.R. No. L-13924, 1959) nailed a guy for real-deal politicking, not a passive scroll. Then there’s Ople v. Torres (G.R. No. 127685, 1998), where the Court gutted an overbroad ID scheme for trampling rights. This memo’s “anytime, anywhere” scope—outside office hours, off premises—screams the same sloppy overreach. Article III, Section 4’s “no abridging” free speech promise isn’t a suggestion, CSC. This could crash and burn in court faster than you can say “chill.”

Enforcement Chaos: Who’s Snitching on Your Likes?

How’s this gonna work? The CSC’s got 1.7 million employees to babysit—every “share,” every “follow” a potential crime scene. Are they deploying spy drones or just banking on your nosy coworker with a grudge? The 2017 RACCS demands evidence, but pinning a “like” as partisan (not, say, a policy nod) is a clown show waiting to happen. Ang Tibay v. CIR (G.R. No. 46496. February 27, 1940) screams due process—notice, hearing, proof—but this feels like a free-for-all where clerks get torched and cronies get coffee.

Imagine: a janitor in Cebu gets six months for liking a governor’s post, while a Malacañang insider “oopsies” a campaign ad and cries ignorance. Enforcement will be a partisan piñata—bash the powerless, spare the connected. Fear’s the real weapon here, not justice.

Hypocrisy Alert: Slapping Peasants While Elites Party

CSC v. Salas G.R. No. 123708, 1997) says rules must fit the neutrality goal—reasonable, not ridiculous. Great, except the CSC’s history is a highlight reel of winking at the top dogs. Duterte-era loyalists spammed “DDS” vibes online while the CSC napped. Barangay captains—government-adjacent—routinely campaign without a peep. Yet now, a teacher’s “like” is the apocalypse?

This memo’s a laser-guided missile on the little guy while the patronage lords sip whisky and laugh. If the CSC cared about neutrality, they’d torch the dynastic hiring halls, not Tita’s timeline.

Power Play Unmasked: Marcos Redux in a TikTok World?

Step back: this reeks of Marcos Sr.’s Decree No. 807, gagging civil servants to cement control under a “neutrality” banner. Flash to 2025—Marcos Jr.’s crew eyeing midterm dominance—and the CSC drops this gem. Pure coincidence, right? It’s sold as democracy’s shield, but it could just as easily choke dissent from a workforce sick of the game.

Who wins? The entrenched, who don’t need X to rig the board—they’ve got money, muscle, and COMELEC blind spots. The memo muzzles the grunts—teachers, nurses, drivers—while the oligarchs roll on. Neutrality? More like a power grab in a hashtag costume.

Fix or Flee: How to Salvage This Mess

The CSC’s not crazy—social media’s a campaign beast now; neutrality needs teeth. But this is a chainsaw, not a chisel. Tweak it: link punishment to intent (“soliciting support,” like COMELEC-CSC Joint Circular No. 1, 2016) so a random “like” isn’t a death sentence. Carve out space for policy chatter—civil servants aren’t drones. And spell out the damn rules: who’s watching, how, and how do you fight back? Otherwise, it’s a blank check for vendettas.

Or ditch it. The Supreme Court’s got Quinto and Ople loaded in the chamber—this thing’s DOA if it hits the docket. Why waste the ink?

Kicker: Forget Likes—Slay the Crony Beast First

The CSC’s clutching its pearls over a clerk’s double-tap while the bureaucracy’s a patronage playground. Want neutrality? Bulldoze the dynasties handing out jobs like lotto tickets—not Tita Maria’s innocent scroll. But that’d take spine, and Manila’s bureaucrats don’t do brave.