Philippine Vloggers Face Cybercrime Charges Over Disinformation Campaign

Four overseas Filipino vloggers are under scrutiny at the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Manila, accused of spreading disinformation through manipulated videos targeting National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) director Jaime Santiago. The allegations, lodged by an NBI intelligence agent, center on spliced footage that misrepresented Santiago’s statements about potential arrests of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) involved in disseminating false information. The case highlights growing concerns over cybercrime and the power of social media to shape public perception in the Philippines, a nation where millions rely on digital platforms for news.

Allegations of Malicious Editing

The complaint, filed on April 23, 2025, by NBI Intelligence Service agent Mikhail Sebrio, names Maricel Tondi, Jennifer dela Cruz, Jacinta Cayme Antasuda, and Cherry Lyn David Capanas as respondents. They face multiple charges under the Revised Penal Code, including violations of the Anti-Alias Law, unlawful use of publication, intriguing against honor, and inciting to sedition. These accusations are tied to provisions of Republic Act No. 10175, known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which addresses online offenses in the Philippines.

According to the affidavit, Tondi, based in Saudi Arabia, is alleged to have created the initial spliced video that falsely suggested Santiago was threatening all OFWs with arrest. Dela Cruz, residing in New Zealand, reportedly shared the misleading content on her Facebook page, which boasts over 202,000 followers, significantly amplifying its reach among the OFW community. Antasuda, believed to be in the United Kingdom, lent apparent credibility to the video through her verified social media presence, while Canada-based Capanas’ post garnered millions of views and thousands of shares, with the NBI alleging she profited from the viral content.

The edited video, traced back to early April 2025 through cyber patrols by the NBI, distorted Santiago’s original statements from an interview. In the unedited footage, Santiago specified that his directives to the NBI’s technical intelligence and cybercrime divisions targeted specific individuals, including a US-based figure known as Maharlika, for spreading false information. “We will ask for help from Interpol—arrest that fool there, bring her here to the Philippines. Those who are here in the Philippines, we will arrest; those who are abroad, we will file cases… they will not be able to return home here, they will not be able to visit their families, as soon as they arrive at [Ninoy Aquino International Airport], we will arrest them” Santiago stated.

However, the manipulated version, widely circulated on platforms like TikTok, omitted critical context, implying a blanket threat against all OFWs. Sebrio noted in the complaint that the edited transcription read: “’Yong mga andito sa Pilipinas arestuhin namin! Yung mga nasa abroad, [we] will file a case ’di na sila makakauwi dito, hindi na sila makakadalaw sa kanilang mga pamilya nila, pagdating palang sa Naia aarestuhin na namin sila!” The omission of Santiago’s focus on specific offenders fueled outrage and confusion among viewers, many of whom interpreted the video as a government attack on the broader OFW community, a vital economic lifeline for the Philippines.

Impact on Public Perception

The viral spread of the edited video triggered a significant backlash, with over 12,000 negative comments recorded across various platforms. Many Filipinos, both at home and abroad, expressed anger and fear, perceiving the government as targeting OFWs who contribute billions annually through remittances. Sebrio argued in the complaint that the video was “maliciously published to cause disinformation to the public,” with the intent to “cause hate and to discredit the government and its duly constituted authorities.”

The case underscores the vulnerability of digital spaces to manipulation, particularly in a country where social media serves as a primary news source for millions. The Philippines has one of the highest rates of social media usage globally, with platforms like Facebook and TikTok shaping political discourse and public opinion. While these tools empower individuals to share information, they also provide fertile ground for disinformation campaigns that can destabilize trust in institutions like the NBI.

Analysts suggest that the incident reflects broader challenges in regulating online content without stifling free expression. The Cybercrime Prevention Act, enacted in 2012, has been both praised for addressing digital offenses and criticized for its potential to curb dissent through vague provisions. The charges against the vloggers, including inciting to sedition, raise questions about how far authorities will go to combat perceived threats in cyberspace, especially when the targets are overseas citizens.

Legal and Ethical Dimensions

Beyond the charge of spreading disinformation, the complaint accuses the vloggers of violating the Anti-Alias Law by using pseudonyms on social media to conceal their identities. Sebrio stated that such aliases, unrelated to economic, entertainment, or athletic purposes, were used with the intent to “malign, discredit and cause hatred” toward Santiago and the NBI. The true identities of the respondents were uncovered only through coordinated efforts by the agency, highlighting the difficulties of tracking online actors across borders.

The charge of inciting to sedition is particularly contentious, as it alleges that the viral video constituted “scurrilous libels” against the government. This accusation, if pursued, could set a precedent for how authorities handle online criticism from the diaspora, a community often vocal about domestic policies. Legal experts note that while the government has a legitimate interest in curbing harmful disinformation, the application of sedition laws in digital contexts risks overreach, potentially alienating Filipinos abroad who already face challenges integrating into host countries.

Ethically, the case raises questions about the responsibility of content creators to verify information before sharing it with large audiences. The viral nature of Capanas’ post, for instance, amplified the damage caused by the initial edit, regardless of whether she was aware of its inaccuracies. As social media continues to blur the line between journalism and personal expression, the burden of accountability becomes increasingly complex.

Broader Implications for OFWs and Cyber Policy

Overseas Filipino Workers, numbering over 2 million worldwide, are a cornerstone of the Philippine economy, sending home remittances that accounted for nearly 9% of the country’s GDP in recent years. Their role as “modern-day heroes,” as often described by government officials, contrasts sharply with the narrative of threat and punishment suggested by the manipulated video. If the allegations against the vloggers are substantiated, the incident could prompt stricter monitoring of online content by OFWs, potentially straining relations between the diaspora and the state.

At the policy level, the case may accelerate calls for updated cybercrime legislation to address the nuances of disinformation in the age of viral media. The Philippine government has already faced criticism for its handling of online dissent, with past cases involving arrests of bloggers and activists under the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Balancing national security with individual rights remains a delicate task, particularly when the accused are beyond the country’s immediate jurisdiction.

Internationally, the involvement of Interpol, as mentioned by Santiago in his original statement, signals the potential for cross-border cooperation in tackling cybercrime. However, such efforts could complicate matters for OFWs, who may fear repercussions when traveling to or from the Philippines. The long-term impact on their willingness to engage in public discourse—whether critical or supportive of the government—remains uncertain.

Public Reaction and Future Outlook

As the DOJ reviews the complaints, public sentiment among Filipinos appears divided. Some view the vloggers’ actions, if proven, as a betrayal of trust, exploiting the struggles of OFWs for personal gain. Others see the government’s response as heavy-handed, arguing that it risks further alienating a community already grappling with isolation and economic hardship abroad. Social media platforms continue to buzz with debates, reflecting the polarized nature of discourse in the digital age.

Moving forward, the resolution of this case could shape how the Philippines navigates the intersection of technology, law, and diaspora relations. Will authorities prioritize punitive measures, or will they seek dialogue with content creators to address the root causes of disinformation? As the legal process unfolds, the nation watches closely, aware that the outcome may redefine the boundaries of free speech and accountability in an increasingly connected world.