Click to expand Image Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. delivers his second state of the nation address at the House of Representatives in Quezon City, Philippines, July 24, 2023. © 2023 AP Photo/Aaron Favila (Manila) – A proposed Philippine law to combat “false information” and so-called troll farms has vague and overly broad language that government officials could readily abuse, Human Rights Watch said today. Philippine lawmakers considering the Digital Media Anti-False Information Act, which passed a second reading in the House of Representatives on May 26, 2026, should withdraw the measure and consider other ways to address disinformation.The proposed law would make it a criminal offense to “publish, disseminate, finance, direct or materially assist in the dissemination of false information.” It would also impose various obligations on digital platforms operating in the Philippines and potentially require them to establish a legal entity or permanent office in the country that would be subject to government regulation. “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. “It empowers the authorities to encroach on individual speech as well as the independence of news organizations and other digital platforms.”The draft law would make it a criminal offense to disseminate false information “with actual knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth, and with specific intent to cause verifiable public harm or a serious threat to national security.” The bill states that such harm should be “material” and “concrete” and not based on “mere offense” or “confusion,” and may include imminent or demonstrable risk to life, substantial and measurable economic harm, and obstruction of critical public services or infrastructure, including essential government functions. This clause could be used to muzzle criticism of a wide range of government actions, such as police operations, Human Rights Watch said. The bill also would criminalize “disinformation” disseminated “on behalf of, in coordination with, or under the substantial direction or control of a foreign state, foreign intelligence service, foreign military actor, or foreign-funded covert influence operation.” This provision could be used against individuals and organizations sharing information about legitimate engagements with foreign officials.The proposed penalties under the law are severe. Publishing false information with “intent to cause verifiable public harm or a serious threat to national security” would be punishable by 6 to 12 years in prison and a fine of PHP 500,000 to PHP 2,000,000 (US$8,000 to US$32,500).Other key terms are vague, including a requirement for all digital platforms to provide an “SoR” – an abbreviation not defined – to users for actions taken such as suspending or removing accounts. This could leave digital platforms vulnerable to government misuse of these regulatory powers.The proposed law concentrates regulatory and decision-making power in the Philippine Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT). These include the authority to designate a digital platform as a VLP-PH or “Very Large Online Platform in the Philippines” using criteria the DICT will publish annually. These platforms would be required to coordinate with the DICT on takedown and moderation requests, without allowing for any form of multistakeholder oversight. This would increase the risk of government control of digital platforms, including major independent media outlets. Any person or entity, including the government, could make these requests, bill sponsors said during the plenary debates.The proposed law also requires platforms to make their backend data accessible to “support oversight and audits” but without specifying safeguards to protect personally identifiable information. A platform that “fails or refuses to comply…without lawful excuse” would be fined PHP 1,000,000 to PHP 10,000,000 (US$16,000 to US$162,000). The agency could also impose an additional fine of up to 6 percent of a designated large platform’s annual gross revenue “for grave and repeated violations.”Sponsors of the bill claim that it is meant to dismantle troll farms and systemic disinformation networks that undermine democracy and interfere in national elections, by criminalizing the operation of coordinated inauthentic behavior networks. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Philippines ratified in 1986, protects the right to freedom of expression and opinion. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which provides authoritative interpretations of the covenant, has stated in its General Comment No. 34 that governments may only impose restrictions on free expression if they are provided by law, narrowly defined, and necessary and proportionate to achieve one or more legitimate objectives under the covenant. Any restriction must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate their conduct accordingly and be balanced against the specific need for the restriction being put in place. The UN special rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression and opinion has stated that in regulating online content, governments should “not impose disproportionate sanctions, whether heavy fines or imprisonment… given their significant chilling effect on freedom of expression.”The anti-false information bill, as drafted, falls far short of these standards because of its vague and overbroad framing of prohibited acts that constitute false information and the imposition of long prison sentences, Human Rights Watch said. Such framing would chill freedom of expression, including criticism of state institutions and officials, out of fear of prosecution.“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.”