In this insightful analysis, Professor Jonathan Corpus Ong sounds a clarion call against the proposed House Bill No. 9465 in the Philippines, arguing that it represents a dangerous form of digital overreach rather than a genuine solution to online misinformation. Despite the legislative framing of the bill as a tool to protect the public from falsehoods, Ong—an expert whose research on disinformation networks is globally recognized—warns that it serves as a Trojan horse for censorship. By granting authorities the power to unilaterally penalize citizens for speech deemed “harmful” or “false,” the bill risks dismantling civil liberties and handing politicians the ability to silence their critics. Ultimately, the bill fails because it treats the symptom—the content—rather than the disease, which is the institutionalized, top-down funding of disinformation campaigns.
The core issue, Ong explains, is that the bill fundamentally misreads the landscape of disinformation. The academic consensus is clear: modern misinformation isn’t just a grassroots phenomenon driven by misguided citizens; it is a calculated industry fueled by political elites who profit from the chaos. By ignoring the structural mechanisms of these “disinformation economies,” the bill predictably lands on a content-based approach that makes politicians the ultimate arbiters of truth. This is not a technical oversight but a deliberate design flaw. By maintaining vague definitions of what constitutes “fake news,” legislators are creating a weapon that can easily be wielded to frame legitimate dissent, activism, and accountability journalism as malicious troll behavior, thereby insulating the powerful from scrutiny.
This legislative strategy is not unique to the Philippines; it mirrors a troubling regional trend of “weaponized lawfare” seen in countries like Singapore and Thailand. Ong points out that autocratizing regimes are increasingly learning from one another, sharing legal tactics that combine state-sanctioned censorship with the use of shadow digital armies. This trend has gained momentum specifically as a reaction to the rise of youth-led movements and digital activism. As Gen Z and other grassroots groups become more effective at using social media to hold leaders accountable for corruption, political elites are reaching for tools to consolidate control. With national elections on the horizon in 2028, there is a palpable fear that these repressive measures are being imported to ensure the status quo remains unchallenged.
However, the pursuit of a healthy information environment is not a lost cause; it simply requires a shift in focus from policing speech to regulating the infrastructure of amplification. Ong and his colleagues at the Sigla Research Center argue that true accountability can only be achieved by targeting the conduct behind disinformation. Instead of asking bureaucrats to judge whether a post is “true,” legislation should focus on the financing, coordination, and operation of paid influencer networks and troll farms. By criminalizing the deliberate, industrial-scale manipulation of the public square rather than the expression of individual opinion, the government could address the root of the problem without infringing on the fundamental right to free speech.
Furthermore, the responsibility of oversight should be shifted away from politicians and toward transparent, independent bodies. Ong proposes that we enlist technical experts and civil society groups to audit platform algorithms and identify systemic risks. This approach would replace the current “politician-as-victim” narrative with a rights-based framework that protects the most vulnerable citizens—ensuring that the information ecosystem remains accessible to people across different classes, regions, and identities. By embedding diverse, non-partisan representation into the regulatory process, we can curb the influence of bad actors without turning the government into a Ministry of Truth.
Ultimately, the battle against disinformation cannot be won through a single law or a quick-fix crackdown. As Ong highlights, the most sustainable solution is to invest in long-term resilience through comprehensive media, digital, and AI literacy programs. Education empowers citizens to navigate an ever-evolving digital landscape far more effectively than state-imposed takedowns ever could. By choosing to prioritize structural transparency and the empowerment of the public over the centralization of power, the Philippines has an opportunity to lead by example, proving that a country can address the hazards of the digital age without sacrificing the democratic values of debate, dissent, and free expression.