Can we as ordinary citizens create our own version of wikileaks.org and post therein anomalies of government and major corporations?

Yes.  Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” Section 18 paragraph 1 of Article III further states that “no person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.” Freedom of speech is a basic right aligned with a democratic society that seeks to ensure the people’s right to express their views and ideas without fear or restraint. The exercise of free speech to criticize public officials promotes transparency and accountability in government thereby making the delivery of public and social services more effective and responsive to the needs of the people.[1] In the same vein, speech or expression exposing anomalies including unfair trade practices of major corporations supports consumer welfare and protection, free market and competition. 

However, this constitutional provision is not without limitations.  Following the “dangerous tendency” rule, the government may penalize persons who have uttered words or expressed acts which create natural tendencies for effecting or bringing about a substantive evil which the government or the state seeks to prevent.  Under this rule, it is not necessary that the language used be specific as to incite persons to commit acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness but sufficient to use a language even so general to advocate the same effect as to cause injury. The government may restrict freedom of speech under the so called  “clear and present danger” rule. In situations warranted by this rule, the “evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be made extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before the utterance can be punished.” [2]  

Further, in Espuelas v People (G.R. L-2990, 17 December 1951), the Court held that “the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish without responsibility whatever one may choose.” The right does not give critics immunity for the use of foul, infuriating, disturbing, or libellous language under the blanket authority of making exposes’ regarding anomalies committed in both the public and private sectors. Rather, the freedom comes with huge responsibility to provide balanced information from parties involved considering that the medium used is the internet which has a wide coverage and access by the public.  In such situations, the state has the equal duty to protect the privacy of persons who eventually become jeopardized by libellous or defamatory words published or posted in the internet.

Disclaimer: The views expressed are personal and do not intend to give legal advice.

---

[1] See, for example, Wason v Walter, 4.L.R. 4 Q.B. 73 and Seymour vs. Butterworth, 3 F., 372.

[2] In Re Declaratory Relief Re Constitutionality of RA 4880; Gonzales v Commission on Elections [GR L-27833, 18 April 1969.]