Free speech advocates and human rights groups warn that the bill, if passed into law, could be "weaponized" to silence public dissent.
This statement was originally published on cmfr-phil.org on 7 August 2026.
On June 3, 2026, the House of Representatives approved House Bill 9465, also known as the Digital Media Anti-False Information Act, with a vote of 286-3. Principally authored by House Majority Leader Sandro Marcos, the president’s eldest son, the bill was designated as a top priority for the administration. The aim of the bill is explicit: to dismantle the “architecture of disinformation” by targeting coordinated troll farms, bot networks, and foreign-backed influence operations.
Critics of the bill, however, have pointed to the irony of its authorship and its provisions. Researchers and fact-checkers have widely documented that President Marcos Jr. was a primary beneficiary of a massive, coordinated disinformation campaign that rehabilitated his family’s image, making it possible for the Marcos family to secure their return to power with his election to the presidency in 2022.
The media turnaround: from quiet readings to national alarm
Mainstream media coverage of the anti-disinformation bill did not raise alarms about the legislation but became more critical as it moved through first and third readings in the House of Representatives. HB 9465 was submitted and tackled in plenary on the same day, May 26, 2026, even before the bill’s full text was uploaded on the House website for public viewing. It was only after the bill was approved on June 3 that most media and civil society groups began a thorough, critical examination of its “red flags”.
Major news organizations such as Inquirer, Philstar.com, Rappler, and Bulatlat played a pivotal role in the shift by amplifying the warnings of expert groups. Their reports moved from reporting on the bill’s “paper safeguards” to highlighting the deep-seated fears expressed by advocate groups, including Karapatan, the SIGLA Research Center, and Human Rights Watch, who warned the bill could be “weaponized” to silence public dissent in general.
Critics have flagged the dangers to press freedom in the legislation:
1. The state as the sole “arbiter of truth”
The bill positions the government as the final judge of truth. Advocates point to the conflict of interest involved because the state is often the target of the reporting.
- According to Justin Daduya of the Sigla Research Center in a Philstar.com report, “It is not the government’s job to be the arbiter of truth,” as it is a “dangerous proposition.”
- The IBON Foundation warns in another Philstar.com report that the bill is “anchored on the dangerous assumption that government authorities can determine what is true or false,” which threatens independent economic analysis and the public’s right to know the real state of the economy.
- The Movement for Media Safety Philippines (MMSP) in its statement argues that “the antidote to falsehood is not government control over expression” but rather “greater transparency, timely access to public information, independent journalism, and more democratic debate.”
2. Punishing the “small fry”
Critics also argue that the bill targets individual users rather than the structural roots of disinformation.
- An Inquirer report cited media groups that believe the “risks criminalizing individual users, the ‘small fry,’ while failing to address the platforms, algorithms, and coordinated networks that drive disinformation at scale.”
- Daduya said that the bill includes a “liability shield” for social media giants, providing an “insurmountable bar” to hold them active participants in spreading lies.
3. Harsh penalties specifically targeting journalists
Violators face six to 12 years in prison and fines ranging from PHP500,000 to PHP2 million.
- According to Carlo Nazareno of Democracy.net.ph in an Inquirer report, the bill includes a provision where being a “media personality” is considered an aggravating circumstance, leading to increased penalties.
- Nazareno warns that this specific targeting could have a “chilling effect for journalists,” acting as a “sword of Damocles” to frighten free expression.
- Cristina Palabay of Karapatan emphasized in a Philstar.com report that these “harsh penalties” serve to stifle “independent and investigative journalists and political activists” who publish content that contradicts government narratives.
4. Vague definitions open to political weaponization
- Lian Buan, Southeast Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch, warned that the bill’s “vague and overly broad language” can be “weaponized by whoever holds office” to silence free expression.
- Former Rep. Arlene Brosas of the Makabayan group noted that terms such as “reckless disregard,” “verifiable public harm,” and “serious threat to national security” are open to “politically motivated enforcement.”
- Palabay compared the bill to the Anti-Terrorism Act, stating its vague definitions allow the state to “arbitrarily censor online content and penalize perceived violators”.
5. State-directed censorship and takedown powers
- Nazareno highlighted that the Senate version’s Digital Media Integrity Council – composed mostly of executive branch agencies – is given “internet content takedown powers,” a function the Supreme Court ruled requires a court order. This council can order content removed within 48 hours based simply on its own finding that a complaint has “sufficient basis”.
- Brosas warned in the Inquirer that harsh fines of up to 6 percent of Philippine annual gross revenue “may encourage platforms to remove borderline or lawful content to avoid liability, leading to oversensorship.”
- The Council for People’s Development and Governance (CPDG) characterized the measure in a Bulatlat report as “a mechanism for state-directed, platform-enforced censorship”.
Pushback
Instead of these bills, advocates call for a rights-based approach focused on platform accountability, media literacy, and the Freedom of Information law. Ultimately, rejecting the government as the sole “arbiter of truth” is essential to ensuring that democratic debate, rather than state control, protects the public’s right to know.
