A controversial legislative measure, House Bill No. 9465, known as the “Digital Media Anti-False Information Act,” has cleared the Philippines’ House of Representatives with a decisive 286-to-three vote. Spearheaded by House Majority Leader Sandro Marcos, the son of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the bill aims to combat online disinformation by imposing prison sentences of six to 12 years and fines reaching two million pesos on those who knowingly create or propagate false information intended to cause public harm. While the bill includes exemptions for journalism, satire, and academic discourse, it has sparked intense backlash from a coalition of 67 newsrooms, numerous journalists, and civil society researchers who fear the state is positioning itself as the ultimate arbiter of truth.
The primary concern among critics is the potential for state weaponization, citing a long history of anti-libel and anti-terrorism laws being used to stifle dissent and engage in “red-tagging”—a practice where activists and journalists are falsely linked to communist insurgents. Experts like Karol Ilagan of the University of the Philippines-Diliman argue that the bill’s broad definitions of “verifiable public harm” and “material assistance” create dangerous loopholes. Similar to the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, researchers fear that even with documented safeguards, the legislation will inevitably be turned against government critics and investigative reporters who expose institutional wrongdoing.
Proponents of the bill have drawn parallels to Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). However, experts like Jonathan Corpus Ong, a leading researcher on the Philippines’ disinformation-for-hire industry, contend that such a comparison ignores the fundamental differences in political culture. In the Philippines, where trust in political elites is significantly lower and many incumbents have historical ties to coordinated disinformation networks—including those used to sanitize the legacy of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr.—critics argue that handing the government power to define “falsehoods” is inherently dangerous.
The bill has also faced scrutiny for its failure to address the root causes of the “disinformation-for-hire” industry. Researchers point out that the legislation unfairly targets individual social media users and influencers while ignoring the corporate PR firms and high-level digital marketing entities that orchestrate industrial-scale influence campaigns. By focusing on the end-user rather than the lucrative, clandestine economies that profit from spreading falsehoods, the bill is seen by many as a superficial solution that leaves the underlying infrastructure of state-sponsored or political misinformation entirely intact.
Furthermore, the bill’s treatment of social media platforms has been described as remarkably lenient. Companies are largely shielded from liability unless they are proven to have “knowingly and willfully” assisted in the production of false content—a standard that experts argue is nearly impossible to meet. Conversely, the Senate version of similar measures could prove even more restrictive, potentially penalizing users who share content in “good faith” and granting a government-appointed council the power to order content takedowns without court oversight. This, critics argue, transforms the legislation from a tool of public safety into an instrument of state-sanctioned censorship.
As the bill moves toward the Senate, researchers from the Sigla Research Centre have proposed an alternative approach focused on platform accountability, transparency in algorithms, and independent audits, rather than policing individual speech. They argue that the focus should shift toward curbing the artificial amplification of content rather than deciding the objective truth. With the 2028 presidential election cycle looming and the President prioritizing the passage of this measure, the window for meaningful advocacy and amendment is rapidly closing, leaving the future of free expression in the Philippines at a precarious crossroads.