Joint Statement Calling for the Immediate Scrapping of DICT’s Department Circular on Mandatory Social Media Verification​

We, the undersigned organizations and advocates for digital rights, express our apprehension over the Department of Information and Communications Technology’s (DICT) draft Department Circular proposing mandatory identity verification for all social media users.

Like the DICT, we are alarmed and deeply concerned by the growing incidence of disinformation, cybercrimes, and other illegal activities across digital platforms. Thus, we join the agency in its efforts to promote a safer and more responsible use of social media, as well as the internet at large. However, we believe that this proposed Circular is not a proper solution, as it creates profound constitutional, legal, and human rights issues that threaten the basic liberties of the very same people it claims to protect.

Questionable Constitutionality

Even assuming there is a compelling state interest behind the proposed policy, it still runs counter to the basic tenets of our Constitution for being overbroad. It seeks to compel all social media users—whether they are suspected of wrongdoings or not, whether they’re even in the Philippines or not—to surrender their right to privacy, so that law enforcement will find it easier to run after actual online criminals. It also fails to provide a precise and consistent standard for what it considers as social media platforms, giving rise to the risk of capturing an infinite range of digital apps and online platforms, which, in turn, makes compliance unpredictable and enforcement arbitrary. 

The policy’s strict requirements inevitably infringe on other allied rights, such as people’s freedoms of expression and association. It cannot then be the least restrictive means the government could adopt to address the specific harms it seeks to guard against. One might even argue that it’s the opposite, since it effectively shifts the burden to ordinary users, instead of improving law enforcement capability or platform accountability.

Lack of mandate to legislate penal laws

The DICT’s mandate under RA 10844 allows it to formulate policies and guidelines to promote ICT development, but it does not give the agency the authority to develop rules that prescribe sanctions resembling criminal penalties. In this case, the draft Circular is essentially defining new offenses and prescribing corresponding penalties—but by simply referencing other laws like the Data Privacy Act of 2012 and the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, without offering a clear explanation of how they are supposed to apply and/or be enforced. This is unacceptable.Under Philippine law, only Congress can pass penal laws. Government agencies cannot circumvent the legislative process through the mere expedient of issuing administrative circulars.

Weak and Misapplied Legal Basis

The Circular relies on legal anchors that are weak and misplaced. In the case of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, its provision allowing the suppression of cybercrimes in real time was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2014 for being overly sweeping and lacking specificity. The SIM Card Registration Act, on the other hand, is limited in purpose and scope. Earlier versions of the SIM card registration bill that included social media registration were vetoed by the former President, while Congress deliberately excluded the subject from their final proposal because of its impact on the Constitutional right to privacy. It’s also worth noting that the effectiveness of the registration regime in combatting scams and other unlawful acts remains suspect, at best, even today. As a legal precedent of the present proposal then, it adds very little value, if at all. As for the Internet Transactions Act, it explicitly covers business-to-business and business-to-consumer transactions only—not online media content or user-to-user communications.

Anonymity, not pseudonymity

While pseudonyms do allow some level of expression, it should not be confused with the protection afforded by absolute anonymity. Pseudonymity still makes it possible to trace the identities of individuals and expose them to harm. This has serious effects on free speech, with a crackdown on anonymity being tantamount to censorship. The problem is compounded when one considers the broad and vague language of the Circular—particularly around “destabilization of national security”—as it makes the policy easy to weaponize against legitimate dissent and government critics.

Safety cannot be achieved and cybercrime cannot be eradicated by eroding anonymity as a whole, especially in contexts where there is power imbalance, and where surveillance, harassment, and retaliation are real, with the risks well-documented.

Another database to protect, to exploit

Mandating the establishment of verification systems across an entire industry will necessitate the collection of massive amounts of personal data. This, in turn, will give birth to new databases which require constant, effective protection, as they are sure to become prime targets for cybercriminals seeking to amass personal data for nefarious purposes. Exposing Filipino citizens’ data to such a high level of risk defeats the supposed purpose of the Circular.

Effective law enforcement and platform accountability over surveillance

The draft Circular is a lazy approach to law enforcement since it shifts the burden from the authorities to the users of online platforms. It normalizes dataveillance, instead of requiring improvements in the investigative capacity of the police and other public authorities, and exacting platform accountability. On top of that, there isn’t even an assurance that the measure will work, as intended. It’s worth remembering that surveillance-based solutions masked as safety policies often fail because those who are intent on committing crimes will find ways around them. Ultimately, it is not them, but the ordinary users that usually bear the inconvenience and other negative consequences.

Premised on these terms, we call on the DICT to permanently scrap its draft Memorandum Circular. As civil society organizations, we reiterate our willingness to critically engage and partner with the agency on matters promoting ICT development in the Philippines, as long as they are not at the expense of the fundamental rights and freedoms of Filipinos and other residents.

SIGNED:

Foundation for Media Alternatives (FMA)

LIGHTS Institute

Philippine Computer Emergency Response Team (PH-CERT)