Groups oppose proposed DICT social media policy

PoliticsTechnology
31 Jan 2026 • 12:56 AM MYT
The Manila Times
The Manila Times

One of the longest-running English broadsheets in the Philippines

​THE Computer Professionals’ Union and Agham Advocates of Science and Technology for the People submitted a position paper Thursday opposing a draft circular from the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) that would require social media users to verify their legal identities.

​The groups said the DICT’s proposed policy explicitly targets "total anonymity" as a hurdle to be cleared. The plan hinges on a mandatory link between every digital account and a person's legal identity, ensuring verification details are available to authorities via subpoena or court order during criminal probes.

“While the objectives of combating cybercrimes like online scams, identity theft, online sexual abuse, and exploitation of children are legitimate and important, this draft circular adopts a highly intrusive approach that arbitrarily targets every social media user and passes the responsibility of combating cybercrime to ordinary Filipino citizens instead of holding social media platforms responsible,” the document read.

The organizations argue the strategy is excessive and goes beyond what is required to achieve its goals. By mandating identity verification, the policy threatens fundamental constitutional rights — specifically privacy and free speech. Furthermore, they claim it potentially violates the Data Privacy Act of 2012 and runs counter to the Philippines’ international commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

“Anonymity and pseudonymity online are often essential for journalists, human rights defenders, whistle-blowers, survivors of abuse, and marginalized groups to speak safely," the groups added. "A system in which online speech is, in principle, easily attributable to a real-world identity, particularly one linked to a SIM card and thus to location and communications data, risks suppressing lawful criticism and participation in public debate.”