In a digital age where truth is increasingly under siege, the Philippines finds itself at a critical juncture. With midterm elections looming in May, the spread of fake news and disinformation has emerged as a potent threat to democratic institutions, national security, and public discourse. A recent high-profile case involving a vlogger and a senior police official has brought these issues into sharp focus, while new electoral regulations and historical precedents raise urgent questions about balancing regulation with freedom of expression.
A Vlogger’s False Claim Sparks Legal Action
On Saturday, Brig. Gen. Nicolas Torre III, chief of the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), filed a formal complaint against vlogger Ernesto “Jun” Abines Jr. The vlogger, a known supporter of the Duterte family, had falsely claimed on social media that Torre was hospitalised and in critical condition. “This caused worry and distress to my family and friends,” Torre stated, addressing the personal toll of such misinformation. He added a stern warning after Abines complained about the seizure of his electronic devices during a search warrant execution: “Actions have consequences.”
Abines now faces charges under Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code for unlawful use of publication and utterances, compounded by violations of the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act 10175). His case is emblematic of a broader struggle in the Philippines, where social media personalities wield significant influence, often amplifying falsehoods for personal or political gain. Abines was among 40 such figures invited to a House of Representatives inquiry into fake news and disinformation, though he and others declined to attend, instead challenging the probe through a Supreme Court petition. 
House leaders praised Torre’s actions, declaring, “In today’s digital age, truth matters more than ever.” They described fake news as “a serious threat to our society,” one that “misleads people, distorts public discourse, and even puts lives at risk.” Their words underscore a growing consensus that disinformation is not merely a nuisance but a systemic danger, particularly in a politically charged environment.
Historical Shadows: From Red-Tagging to Cambridge Analytica
The Philippines’ battle with misinformation is not new. During the Duterte administration, the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict notoriously “Red-tagged” critics, labelling them as terrorists or enemies of the state. This practice led to arrests, detentions, and even killings by unknown assailants, often fuelled by false information. Such actions eroded trust in state mechanisms and highlighted the deadly consequences of unchecked disinformation.
On the electoral front, the Philippines has served as a testing ground for sophisticated disinformation campaigns. In 2019, Christopher Wylie, a whistle-blower from Cambridge Analytica, revealed that the data firm used the country as a “petri dish” to hone tactics later deployed in the Trump campaign in the United States. Cambridge Analytica rebranded Duterte as a tough, no-nonsense leader, crafting a narrative that resonated with voters. A University of Oxford study, cited in a paper presented at National Chengchi University, estimated that $200,000 was spent on hiring trolls to spread propaganda for Duterte while targeting his opponents. Bots and fake accounts amplified these messages, creating a bandwagon effect that swayed grassroots support.
With the midterm elections approaching, there are fears that similar tactics could resurface. Paid trolls, vloggers, and influencers may once again offer their services to the highest bidder, exploiting the digital landscape to manipulate public opinion. Torre’s legal action against Abines might serve as a deterrent, but the scale of the challenge remains daunting.
Electoral Regulations: A Double-Edged Sword
In a bid to curb online disinformation, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) issued a resolution in November requiring candidates and parties to register their social media accounts and online campaign platforms. The measure aims to monitor online campaigning, track spending, and prevent the spread of falsehoods, ostensibly levelling the playing field. However, the resolution has drawn sharp criticism from election watchdogs, academics, and press freedom advocates, who argue that its broad scope could infringe on privacy and free speech.
Critics warn that government regulations targeting fake news risk being weaponised against activists and journalists. Press freedom groups have long called for the decriminalisation of libel and cyber libel, describing these laws as outdated and undemocratic tools often used to silence dissent. The tension between regulation and suppression is palpable, with many stakeholders urging caution to avoid crossing the thin line that separates oversight from censorship.
The Role of Technology: AI and Deepfakes
Adding complexity to this landscape is the rapid evolution of technology. Artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfakes—digitally manipulated videos or audio that appear authentic—pose new challenges for regulators and the public alike. These tools can create highly convincing false content, amplifying the potential for harm. As a media expert aptly noted, “To combat fake news, we must make sure not to share it.” While individual responsibility is crucial, updating Philippine laws to address these emerging technologies remains a pressing need.
Media scholars and practitioners are increasingly advocating for collaboration to promote media literacy and responsible journalism. Educating the public to critically evaluate information sources could serve as a first line of defence against disinformation. Yet, without systemic reforms and robust safeguards, such efforts may fall short in the face of well-funded, orchestrated campaigns.
National Security and Democratic Trust at Stake
The House inquiry into fake news also highlighted broader implications for national security. Misinformation surrounding contentious issues, such as the West Philippine Sea dispute, can inflame tensions and undermine diplomatic efforts. Domestically, disinformation weakens trust in democratic institutions, sowing division at a time when unity is essential. The midterm elections present a perfect storm for such tactics, as political actors seek to exploit digital platforms for electoral gain.
Finding a balance between curbing fake news and protecting fundamental freedoms remains an abiding challenge. Overregulation risks stifling legitimate discourse, while underregulation allows falsehoods to proliferate unchecked. The Philippine government, civil society, and media must navigate this delicate terrain with care, ensuring that efforts to safeguard truth do not come at the expense of democracy itself.
A Call for Collective Action
The case of Brig. Gen. Torre and Ernesto Abines Jr. is a microcosm of a much larger struggle in the Philippines. As the country braces for its midterm elections, the spectre of fake news looms large, threatening to distort public discourse and undermine democratic processes. Historical precedents, from Red-tagging to Cambridge Analytica’s manipulations, serve as stark reminders of the stakes involved.
While legal actions and electoral regulations offer potential solutions, they must be carefully calibrated to avoid overreach. At the same time, the rise of AI and deepfakes underscores the need for updated laws and heightened public awareness. Ultimately, combating disinformation requires a collective effort—encompassing government, media, and citizens—to uphold truth without sacrificing the freedoms that define a democratic society.
As the Philippines stands at this crossroads, the path forward is fraught with challenges. Yet, with thoughtful regulation, robust media literacy initiatives, and a commitment to ethical journalism, there is hope that the nation can navigate the digital age without losing sight of the values that underpin its democracy.
