In February 2026, the “Anti-Fake News and Digital Disinformation Act” or House Bill (HB) 2697 was added to the list of priority legislations by the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC). The proponent of the bill is Congressman Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos and it is scheduled for legislation next June. House Speaker Faustino “Bojie” Dy III backed the passage of the anti-disinformation bill, stating that the spread of fake news has now become a national threat that could disrupt democratic processes and erode public trust in democratic institutions.
However, in the context of misused counterterrorism laws and criminal speech laws, the Anti-Fake News and Digital Disinformation Act may be used differently in practice. Containing an overbroad definition of fake news and disproportionately punitive sanctions, the anti-disinformation bill will very likely exacerbate prevailing crackdown and vilification of civil society organizations (CSOs), human rights defenders – development and humanitarian workers, activists and journalists including lawyers, church workers alike.
If looked into a wider lens, the Philippines is already experiencing grave human rights violations creating a climate of fear among CSOs, HRDs, and communities.
Persistent attacks by state forces are committed against journalists making the Philippines one of the deadliest in the world for media personnel. Vague provisions included in HB 2697 fail to tackle the complexity of truthful information which goes beyond merely stating hard facts.
Facts are sometimes accommodated with critique, analysis and opinions which for an adversarial government can be framed as malicious spread of false information. Maximum penalties are applied to disinformation surrounding important government affairs like elections, diplomatic activities, public health emergencies, disaster response and many more which all constitute as relevant political events that could prompt an active digital public discourse with varying opinions (see HB 2697, sec.8).
Further, the bill provides insufficient safeguards, creating exceptions only for individual opinions and labeled satirical content, alongside honest mistakes and reporting executed in “good faith” which may be difficult to prove before a court (see HB 2697, sec. 9). It fails to exempt organizational beliefs and well-meaning political advocacy that may be interpreted as having the intent to spread hatred and distrust in government. Moreover, foreign-funded CSOs may be in danger of being gravely punished if they are accused of disseminating fake news with the help of a “foreign entity” (see HB 2697, sec. 8). Broad definitions of false information can be susceptible to abuse (see HB 2697, sec. 4). There is a danger with enforcing the anti-disinformation law, because its interpretation is left to the discretion of the government, therefore granting it sweeping powers to define what is true.
Additionally, communication laws that provide disproportionate punishments for the spread of false information have been used to curtail freedom of expression. Journalists decry the weaponization of libel and cyber-libel as these laws were abused to file criminal charges and intimidate journalists. Most notable among these cases was the conviction of Nobel Prize Laureate Maria Ressa and former Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. Their conviction happened after Rappler and Ressa’s critical reporting of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs. In the early months of the pandemic, the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act or Republic Act (RA) 11469, included a provision that penalizes the dissemination of false information on COVID-19. This provision, according to journalists and media groups, led to the harassment of reporters that covered the government’s failed public health response. In a report by the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), there are 10 journalists and media workers killed and 242 alleged press freedom violations under the Marcos Jr. administration as of April 2025.
Data from the CIVICUS 2025 report categorized the Philippines as a “repressed” country, with their findings identifying a trend in closing civic spaces in the Asia Pacific region characterized by illegal detention of human rights defenders (HRDs), censorship and implementation of restrictive laws.
The existing so-called “twin terror” laws—Anti-Terrorism Act or RA 11479 and the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act (TFPSA) or RA 10168 have resulted in judicial attacks against HRDs, CSOs, development and humanitarian workers, including journalists. There are approximately 227 individuals accused of violating ATA and TFPSA. 34 individuals have been arbitrarily designated as terrorists, including community journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio. As for the TFPSA, several development organizations were falsely accused of funding terrorists and had their bank accounts frozen, halting their operations.
Globally, disinformation laws that were implemented under the guises of protecting national security have been used for censorship and media harassment. In October 2019, the Singaporean government enacted the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) to prevent misinformation and disinformation in the digital space. Government use of POFMA was criticized by human rights bodies for “curtailing freedom of speech and undermining independent thought”. One of POFMA’s explicit purposes was to fight against foreign interference with an objective to counter false information that “are detrimental to public interest” which they defined as: “national security, public health, finance and safety, foreign relations, election interference, inciting social tensions and diminution of public confidence in the government”—similar to the provisions included in HB 2697. During the pandemic, a year into its passing, the government invoked POFMA more than 50 times primarily against people or publications that criticized the government or its policies.
The Philippine government as a consignee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is obligated to protect people’s right to freedom of opinion and expression. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) recommended the creation of information guidelines in reducing the spread of false content rather than enforcing legal restrictions. The commission warned that such restraints may have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected forms of speech, infringing on people’s enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression.
Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) is a modern problem that requires further study. While there is a necessity to counter FIMI in order to protect state independence and democracy, government action must prioritize balancing protection from foreign manipulation without inviting potential abuse of civil liberties.
Moreover, the fast-tracked legislation of the bill cannot be looked at separately from the existing status of human rights within the country where there are countless rights violations permitted and enforced. Government action in fighting disinformation is also not limited by legislation. Journalists have recommended improving citizen media literacy and empowering media through support as solutions to stop the spread of disinformation.
The Council for People’s Development and Governance (CPDG) appeals against the passage of the Anti-Fake News and Digital Disinformation Act and instead call for the legislation of laws that would protect HRDs and ensure the rights of the Filipino people are promoted and respected, such as among others, the Human Rights Defenders Act or HB 214 and the Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Act or SB 540.
The Anti-Fake News and Digital Disinformation Act would only grant the government sweeping powers to censor speech and to stump critical thinking. Given the realities faced by the country, the government’s responsibility in exercising such a law is questionable. Criticism and opinion must be viewed by officials as valuable insights for improving governance, and therefore should not be constricted through legal limitations. Public trust in government must be earned and not made compulsory. True protection of national security is through the empowerment of its people and not state perpetrated repression.#