Cyberlibel vs cybercrime

The Philippines, like many countries, is grappling with the pervasive effects of disinformation and fake news. While the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) and Cyberlibel provisions aim to address cyber-related offenses, they fall short in effectively curbing the deliberate spread of false information that threaten our democracy, public order, and individual rights. To equip the government with better legal tools in this fight, several amendments must be considered.

Currently, Philippine law lacks a precise definition of “disinformation” and “fake news.” Any amendment must define these terms within the context of malicious intent, public interest, and the spread of verifiable falsehoods. The law should distinguish between honest mistakes or opinions and deliberate attempts to mislead the public, especially when targeting elections, public health, and national security. To ensure balance, safeguards should be in place to protect freedom of speech, preventing weaponization of the law against legitimate criticism of the government or public figures.

Social media platforms are the primary vectors of disinformation. Amendments to RA 10175 should include provisions requiring platforms to take proactive measures, such as flagging or removing demonstrably false content and establishing fact-checking mechanisms. Hefty penalties should be imposed on platforms that fail to act against coordinated disinformation campaigns or fake accounts used to manipulate public discourse. Transparency requirements should also be mandated, compelling platforms to disclose funding sources for political advertisements and bot-driven activities. This ensures accountability from those who sponsor misleading content.

The current penalties for cyberlibel and online defamation are primarily focused on individuals.

However, large-scale disinformation operations, such as troll farms and networks of fake accounts used to manipulate public opinion, should be subject to heavier criminal and civil liabilities. A tiered penalty system could be introduced: higher fines and prison terms for individuals or entities engaged in repeated, intentional disinformation; corporate liability for companies and organizations proven to be financing or orchestrating fake news dissemination; and banning individuals and entities from engaging in public relations or political consultancy for repeat violations.

Cybercrime cases often take years to resolve. Amendments should establish a specialized cybercrime court or task force to handle disinformation-related offenses efficiently. Expedited takedown mechanisms should be implemented for demonstrably false content that incites harm or violence.

Beyond punitive measures, laws should promote media literacy campaigns as a preventive strategy. Mandatory inclusion of critical thinking and digital literacy in school curriculums can help Filipinos identify and reject fake news, reducing the effectiveness of disinformation campaigns.

By addressing these gaps, the Philippine government can better combat online falsehoods while upholding democratic freedoms. Legislative amendments should focus on precision, accountability, and preventive measures to ensure that the fight against disinformation does not become a tool for oppression but rather a safeguard for truth and the public trust.