Philippines House: Passes Digital Media Anti-False Information Act Zimbabwe

• The Philippine House of Representatives passed the Digital Media Anti-False Information Act bill on June 3, criminalizing the knowing spread of false information intended to cause public harm or national security threats.
• The proposed law, championed by President Marcos Jr.'s son, carries severe penalties including up to 12 years in prison and a fine of approximately US$35,000.
• This legislative push follows the 2022 presidential election, where fact-checkers identified Marcos Jr. as the primary beneficiary of election-related disinformation.
• The bill's broad definitions of "verifiable public harm" and "serious threat to national security" raise significant concerns about potential state overreach in defining acceptable speech.
• Zimbabwean legal frameworks, such as the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and the Cyber and Data Protection Act, contain similar provisions that have drawn criticism from civil society regarding free expression.

Once a state is empowered with broad authority to determine which statements are sufficiently false, harmful, or threatening to warrant punishment, the definition of unacceptable speech can easily transition from a legal matter to a political one.

The Philippine House of Representatives recently took a significant step towards regulating online content, passing the Digital Media Anti-False Information Act bill on June 3. The legislation received overwhelming support, with 286 votes in favor, three against, and seven abstentions. This proposed law aims to criminalize the deliberate publication or dissemination of false information when done with the intent to cause “verifiable public harm” or pose a “serious threat to national security.” Individuals found guilty under this act could face severe penalties, including imprisonment for six to twelve years and a fine reaching up to 2 million pesos, which translates to approximately US$35,000.

The bill's principal author is Sandro Marcos, who serves as the House Majority Leader and is the eldest son of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The current administration has publicly identified this Philippines disinformation criminalization bill as a top priority, underscoring its commitment to addressing perceived issues of disinformation.

The push for such legislation in the Philippines is set against a backdrop of years-long struggles with the political ramifications of disinformation. During the intensely contested 2022 presidential election, independent analyses by academic fact-checking coalition Tsek.ph and Vera Files both concluded that Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was the primary beneficiary of election-related disinformation, while his main opponent, Leni Robredo, was its most frequent target. Tsek.ph's tracking specifically indicated that Marcos was the leading recipient of misleading online content throughout the campaign period.

This phenomenon is not new; researchers, including Jonathan Corpus Ong, have documented an extensive, long-term campaign aimed at rehabilitating the Marcos family's public image following the 1986 uprising that led to the ousting of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. The former dictator's regime was responsible for the jailing, torture, and killing of thousands, and Philippine courts later determined that the family had amassed billions through illicit means. The enduring impact of political memory online is evident in data from the year preceding the 2022 election, where pro-Marcos Facebook pages generated nearly 75 million interactions, significantly more than the just over 39 million interactions for Robredo, according to CrowdTangle data. Researchers attributed this advantage to years of organized narrative-building efforts. Despite these findings, Marcos Jr. has denied personally orchestrating any troll operations, instead portraying himself as a victim of fake news and accusing fact-checkers of pursuing biased agendas and fabricating quotations. His administration's current support for this new law, often referred to as the Sandro Marcos disinformation bill, would grant the state expanded powers to define what constitutes false information and when such information crosses into criminal behavior.

The implications of the Philippines Digital Media Anti-False Information Act resonate particularly strongly in Zimbabwe, a nation with its own history of laws addressing false statements and information deemed prejudicial to the state. Zimbabwe's Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23], for instance, includes Section 31, which specifically targets the publication or communication of false statements that are detrimental to the State, prescribing severe penalties under certain circumstances. Furthermore, the Cyber and Data Protection Act of 2021 introduced offenses related to the intentional transmission of false data messages via computer or information systems, particularly when there is an established intent to cause psychological or economic harm.

While the legal systems and political histories of the Philippines and Zimbabwe differ, the underlying principle at stake is remarkably similar. Once a state is empowered with broad authority to determine which statements are sufficiently false, harmful, or threatening to warrant punishment, the definition of unacceptable speech can easily transition from a legal matter to a political one. Zimbabwean civil society and media organizations, including MISA Zimbabwe, have consistently voiced concerns regarding the potential impact of such broadly framed laws on journalism, activism, and digital speech, mirroring the very dangers now being debated in the Philippines. These Zimbabwe false statements law implications are a critical area of focus for legal professionals.

The core of the concern lies in the precise wording of the Philippine bill. It does not merely prohibit lying; rather, it attaches criminal penalties to information judged to cause “verifiable public harm” or pose a “serious threat to national security.” These phrases introduce significant ambiguity. Critical questions arise: What specific criteria define “verifiable public harm”? How severe must a threat be to qualify as “serious”? And, crucially, who makes the initial determination of a statement's falsity before a court even considers guilt? These questions are paramount because governments, by their very nature, are political actors. They possess inherent interests, face adversaries, strive to protect their reputations, and actively shape narratives. Granting them expansive power to define and prosecute “false information” under such broad terms risks weaponizing legislation against dissenting voices or inconvenient truths, a concern also relevant to the Cyber and Data Protection Act Zimbabwe disinformation provisions.

Lawyers and compliance officers in Zimbabwe should closely monitor legislative developments and interpretations of existing laws concerning 'false information' in light of the Philippine bill. This includes advising clients on the potential for government overreach in defining 'verifiable public harm' or 'serious threat to national security,' which could impact freedom of expression, media operations, and digital communication under statutes like the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and the Cyber and Data Protection Act.

Source: Original reporting via international media