Arya News - Journalists, academics and civil society groups in the Philippines have highlighted that efforts to curb disinformation on social media could end up worsening the problem, rather than solving it.
MANILA – A broad front of journalists, academics, civil society groups, and professionals is forming to oppose proposed legislation on disinformation. They say that efforts to curb disinformation on social media could end up worsening the problem rather than solving it.
On the weekend before President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s penultimate State of the Nation Address (Sona) before Congress, about 50 journalists, tech and related companies and advocacies, the academe, and civil society gathered Saturday, July 25, at the University of the Philippines’ College of Media and Communication to line up action plans to oppose the legislation which, at the current form, includes imprisonment and government takedown powers of social media posts, roundtable discussion organizers said.
House Bill No. 9465, authored by Ilocos Sur Rep. Sandro Marcos and several others, is awaiting movement of the counterpart proposal in the Senate, which held a hearing on Feb. 11, 2026, under the Committee on Media and Information, then chaired by Sen. Robinhood Padilla.
The anti-disinformation bill is in the older Marcos’ legislative agenda, as one of the priority bills endorsed for passage by June 2026 by the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (Ledac).
Carlo Nazareno of Democracy.net.ph, which has been actively engaging with Congress on the anti- information legislation at the House of Representatives, said the bill includes harsh penalties, such as six to 12 years of prison time.
“If the accused is a media personality, it is considered an aggravating circumstance, which entails increased penalties, potentially leading to a chilling effect for journalists. While the lower house bill takes many cues from the European Union’s Digital Services Act, which seeks to hold platforms to account, a provision was inserted which gives platforms a liability shield, which runs counter to the DSA,” Nazareno said.
The Senate version of the bill establishes the creation of a Digital Media Integrity Council, composed of agencies mostly from the executive branch, media organizations, and online intermediaries. It is given internet content takedown powers, a function that the Supreme Court ruled requires a court order, he said.
Both Democracy.net.ph and the SIGLA Research Center, which organized Saturday’s roundtable, said they recognize the urgency of acting against disinformation, but cautioned against certain provisions of existing draft laws. They said that this potentially may be a case of the supposed cure worsening the disease.
“This is by no means a minimization of the harms that it causes, because among our ranks, you have people that see most palpably the harms that are caused by disinformation… But we realize that the costs far outweigh the benefits,” said Justin Felip Daduya of SIGLA.
“The threat to our digital rights, to our right to speech, it’s not worth a bill, especially if it can’t address the crisis in the first place… It settles for low-hanging fruit, but it leaves the roots of the disinformation crisis unscathed,” Daduya said in a mix of Filipino and English.
Many of Saturday’s attendees were from the groups that have issued two public statements on why they find the proposals objectionable.
Together, the two statements say the pending pieces of legislation are problematic because these punish individual expression and target individual social media users while failing to hold to account the actual disinformation architects or the social media platforms.
They also take exception to “takedown provisions,” calling these a reactive approach that risks censorship and calls on the power of the state to be the “arbiter of truth” because government units may be tasked to filter content and tag it.
Anti-disinformation bill position
Public statement on the anti-disinformation bill
The ‘Robin’ factor
The Committee on Public Information and Mass Media in the Senate conducted a hearing in February on the disinformation bills — Anti-False Content and Fake News Act, Social Media Transparency Act, Anti-Troll Farm Act, and related social-media safety bills.
It is not yet known if Padilla remains chair of said committee after the chamber’s leadership change and reorganization in June 2026.
Several roundtable participants Saturday expressed worry that apart from the specific provisions that are feared to stifle dissent or endanger protected speech in the name of curbing disinformation, having Padilla at the helm of the Senate panel tackling the disinformation bills may pose a problem given his political leanings and appreciation of the issues.
There are at least two Senate proposals that may be included in the discussions: the Social Media and Fairness and Algorithmic Transparency Act of 2025 by former Senate President Vicente Sotto III, and the Anti-Troll Farm Act by Padilla.
Proposed Social Media Fairness and Algorithmic Transparency Act of 2025
‘Does not punish dissent’
House Speaker Faustino Dy III said last month that HB 9465 was carefully crafted to protect constitutional freedoms.
The House website also said their bill “sets a high threshold for criminal liability and expressly protects political opinions, criticism of government and public officials, satire, journalism, whistleblowing, academic discourse, artistic expression and religious expression.”
The measure, it was said, requires digital platforms operating in the Philippines to establish a legal presence in the country and comply with transparency, disclosure and user protection standards.
Continuing legislative process
Former Gabriela party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas, now co-chairperson of Makabayan group, said she expects government to push for the immediate enactment of the disinformation proposals. She clarified that bills proposed by the end of the First Regular Session of the 20th Congress will be carried and would continue to be processed in the Congress resumption of session tomorrow.
Brosas said terms and concepts in the House version, such as reckless disregard, verifiable public harm, and serious threat to national security, are open to interpretation, “potentially allowing inconsistent or politically motivated enforcement.”
“There is a possibility that activists or individuals sharing politically sensitive posts could be subjected to red tagging or politically motivated prosecution before courts ultimately dismiss the cases. The bill does not sufficiently guarantee the independence of accredited researchers and fact-checkers,” she said.
Imprisonment of 6 to 12 years and fines such as up to 6 percent of Philippine annual gross revenue “may encourage platforms to remove borderline or lawful content to avoid liability, leading to oversensorship,” she said.
“The bill expressly exempts political opinions, criticism of government, satires, journalism, whistleblowing, academic discourse, and other protected expression. Would these safeguards be sufficient in practice if enforcement authorities interpret the law broadly or if platforms make mistakes on the side of removing content?” /atm