Human rights advocates and media organizations warned that a proposed anti-disinformation bill in the Philippines could give the government broad powers to regulate online speech, raising concerns about press freedom and the right to dissent.
The proposed Digital Media Anti-False Information Act passed second reading in the House of Representatives on May 26. Lawmakers say the measure is intended to combat troll farms, coordinated disinformation campaigns, manipulated media, and foreign influence operations that threaten democratic institutions and public trust.
The bill would criminalize the deliberate dissemination of false information that causes “verifiable public harm” or poses a “serious threat to national security.” Those convicted could face six to 12 years in prison and fines of up to P2 million. It would also require digital platforms operating in the Philippines to comply with new transparency and accountability rules under government oversight.
Human Rights Watch urged lawmakers to reconsider the measure, arguing that its provisions remain vulnerable to abuse despite safeguards intended to protect free expression.
“The Philippines’ ‘anti-false information’ bill has vague and overly broad language that the government can weaponize to silence free expression,” said Lian Buan, Southeast Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch.
Buan said the proposal could affect not only individual speech but also “the independence of news organizations and other digital platforms.”
The rights group expressed concern over provisions that would place significant regulatory authority in the hands of the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), including oversight of large online platforms and coordination on moderation and takedown requests.
Human Rights Watch said the measure falls short of international standards governing restrictions on freedom of expression and warned that long prison terms and broad definitions of prohibited acts could discourage legitimate criticism of public officials and state institutions.
“The Philippines already has several laws that threaten free speech,” Buan said. “Adding this new bill onto that pile provides the government with sweeping powers to restrict speech that would further stifle internet freedom and the free exchange of ideas and opinions.”
Independent media network AlterMidya also opposed the measure, describing it as “a dangerous measure that potentially threatens free expression, press freedom, and the people’s right to dissent.”
In a statement issued June 1, the group warned that allowing the state to determine what constitutes false information could “open the door to broader state censorship and intensified attacks against critical voices in the public domain, including journalists, activists, critics, and ordinary social media users.”
AlterMidya also questioned the speed with which the proposal moved through the House.
“We are alarmed at the rushed manner by which the bill was approved,” the group said, noting that it was elevated to the plenary immediately after committee approval and passed on second reading after only a brief debate.
The bill contains provisions stating that it should not be used to suppress political opinions, criticism of government, criticism of public officials, satire, investigative reporting, whistleblowing, public-interest advocacy, academic discourse, artistic expression, religious expression, and other protected speech.
It also provides that merely liking, sharing, forwarding, or reposting content without actual knowledge of its falsity would not constitute a criminal offense.
But critics say those protections may not be enough.
AlterMidya pointed to previous controversies involving laws such as the Anti-Terror Law and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act, which rights groups say have been used against activists, journalists, and government critics.
“As we have seen in the actual implementation of laws such as the Anti-Terror Law and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act, vague and broadly worded legislation has often been used selectively,” the organization said.
The Council for People’s Development and Governance raised similar concerns, warning that broad definitions of false information and severe penalties could be used against journalists, human rights defenders, church workers, and civil society organizations.
The group argued that criticism, analysis, and opinion are often intertwined with factual reporting and could be vulnerable to broad interpretation by authorities.
Despite their opposition to the bill, rights groups acknowledged that disinformation remains a serious problem.
“Disinformation is a real problem that should be addressed,” AlterMidya said. “But criminalization, increased government control over online speech, and intensified platform surveillance are not the solution.”
Instead, the group called for stronger support for independent media, media literacy programs, greater transparency from public officials, and stronger protections for journalists and other truth-tellers.
