he Presidential Communications Office (PCO) has proposed the creation of a regulatory body to monitor fake news and identify troll farms. Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, House Bill No. 1177 seeks to impose a 12-year jail term and a P2-million fine for operators of online troll farms. At the same time, a House committee is pushing for the registration of all social media accounts.

The House also wants to establish a regulatory body — a task force — to investigate and prosecute troll farms. Additionally, social media companies that fail to remove deceptive content would face fines, while whis-tleblowers exposing troll farm activities would receive protection. These measures aim to curb disinformation, particularly online.

The spread of misinformation is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed both locally and globally. However, measures to combat disinformation proposed thus far risk government overreach and raise serious concerns about their implications on constitutional freedoms, free speech, and democracy.

History has shown that when governments attempt to regulate the flow of information, the line between moderation and censorship often becomes dangerously thin. Even well-intentioned policies can quickly transform into tools for suppressing dissent and controlling narratives. If given a choice, I would rather risk disinformation than institutionalize censorship.

In a democratic society, free speech must be protected, even when it includes criticism of the government and other powerful sectors. The challenge lies in distinguishing between disinformation and legitimate discourse. Frankly, a government regulatory body may not be the best entity to make that distinction.

There are no guarantees that a regulatory body tasked with monitoring social media — or traditional media, for that matter — could or would remain impartial. The subjectivity of defining “fake news” opens the door to potential abuse, particularly in a political climate where disinformation laws can be weaponized to silence opposition.

A look back at Martial Law (1972-1986) reveals troubling similarities to modern regulatory proposals. During that period, government agencies were used to control media, suppress dissent, and manipulate public discourse. The Media Advisory Council (MAC), created through Presidential Decree No. 191, required mass media entities to obtain a Certificate of Authority to Operate. In effect, it also functioned as a censorship board in the early years of Martial Law, determining what media could be published.

The proposed social media regulatory body could serve a similar function today. Moreover, what would stop the government from extending its power to traditional media as well?

Disinformation is not limited to social media, and a few high-profile cases involving print or broadcast media could justify further regulation.

During the Martial Law years, journalists were also required to register as media practitioners and obtain Press and Media IDs from a government office. This is reminiscent of today’s proposal for mandatory social media account registration, which raises concerns about mass surveillance.

It is thus alarming that a House committee is proposing a law on mandatory social media registration, akin to the SIM Registration Act. While the goal may be to hold users accountable and curb anonymous trolling, such measures pose serious privacy risks.

Requiring users to disclose their identities could lead to increased government surveillance, data breaches, and potential harassment of individuals engaging in critical discourse. Furthermore, anonymity is sometimes necessary for whistleblowers, journalists, and activists who expose corruption and human rights abuses. Stripping online anonymity under the guise of combating disinformation could have chilling effects on press freedom and civic engagement.

Moreover, the Philippines already has existing legal mechanisms to combat disinformation and hold malicious actors accountable. The Revised Penal Code covers libel and slander, while the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 includes provisions on cyber libel. These laws allow individuals, including government officials, to seek legal remedies if they are defamed or harmed by false information online.

Additionally, the Data Privacy Act protects citizens from data breaches and unauthorized access to personal information, which are often tools used in disinformation campaigns. Furthermore, social media platforms have their own community standards and mechanisms for flagging, reporting, and removing harmful content. Strengthening the enforcement of these existing laws, rather than creating a new regulatory body, would be a more effective and less intrusive solution.

Malaysia’s experience with its Anti-Fake News Act, enacted in 2018 and repealed in 2019, serves as a cautionary tale. The law criminalized the creation or dissemination of “fake news,” imposing penalties of up to six years in prison and hefty fines. However, its broad definition allowed the government to target political opponents and suppress unfavorable reporting.

Similarly, Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) granted government ministers the authority to determine falsehoods and order corrections or removals of online content. Critics ar-gue that the law has been used to suppress dissent and target government critics.

Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) requires social media companies to remove illegal content swiftly or face substantial fines. While the law has reduced hate speech, critics say it encourages over-censorship, as companies remove content preemptively to avoid penalties.

In Russia, recent laws impose severe penalties for spreading “false information” about the military, including fines and imprisonment of up to 15 years. These laws have reportedly been used to crack down on independent journalism and silence critics of Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Tunisia’s Decree 54 criminalizes the spread of “fake news” deemed harmful to public safety or national defense, carrying penalties of up to five years in prison. Critics argue that the decree is being used to suppress free expression and target political opponents.

These examples highlight the fine line between combating misinformation and infringing on fundamental freedoms. While governments justify such regulations as necessary for public order and national security, they can become tools for suppressing dissent and controlling political narratives. I believe that any regulatory body here for social or traditional media could be weaponized in similar ways.

Instead of heavy-handed regulation, I think a more sustainable approach to countering fake news is education. The government should invest in nationwide media literacy programs to equip citizens with critical thinking skills to dis-cern credible information from falsehoods. While this is easier said than done, it is not impossible.

Finland, often cited as a model for countering disinformation, has integrated media literacy into its school curriculum, teaching students how to fact-check and analyze sources. The Philippines can follow suit by introducing similar programs in schools and promoting responsible digital citizenship in every way possible.

Instead of creating a regulatory body for social media, the government should instead work closer with platforms to improve content moderation policies, enhance transparency in political advertising, and encourage self-regulation. Collaborative approaches, such as independent fact-checking partnerships, algorithmic transparency, and user empowerment tools, are more effective in tackling disinformation while preserving free speech.

The dangers of government overreach, coupled with existing legal remedies and the proven effectiveness of media literacy, make compelling the case against a regulatory body for social media. While combating disinformation is crucial, the proposed measures risk infringing on fundamental freedoms and setting a dangerous precedent for state control over online discourse.

Rather than hastily implementing proposed measures, the government must conduct thorough studies, consult stakeholders — including journalists, legal experts, and civil society groups — and explore less invasive alternatives. The fight against fake news should not compromise the very democratic values it seeks to protect.

 

Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippine Press Council

matort@yahoo.com