* Media and legal experts in Cebu warned that the proposed Anti-False Information Bill threatens free speech through vague definitions, criminal penalties, and government-led content takedowns.
* Atty. Ian Vincent Manticajon noted the bill passed third reading in the House of Representatives without consulting community media and is now pending in the Senate.
* The Cebu Citizens Press Council drafted a resolution urging Congress to preserve constitutional safeguards, require court oversight for censorship, and conduct public consultations with journalists outside Metro Manila.
MEDIA and legal experts in Cebu are raising concerns about a proposed anti-false information bill in Congress.
They warn that vague definitions, criminal penalties, and government-led takedown provisions threaten free speech and press freedom.
Atty. Ian Vincent Manticajon, a media law expert and senior lecturer at the University of the Philippines Cebu, raised these concerns as he presented a draft resolution outlining observations on the Anti-False Information Bill to the Cebu Citizens Press Council (CCPC).
Manticajon said the measure has moved swiftly through legislative channels and is nearing final enactment.
“It is already close to becoming a law because it has already been passed in the House of Representatives on third reading,” Manticajon said in an interview with SunStar Cebu after the forum “What’s right, and wrong, with the Digital Media Anti-False Information Bill in Senate” held on Thursday, Sept. 24, 2026 at the MBF Press Center.
Organized by the CCPC, the forum was one of the activities lined up in celebration of the 34th Cebu Press Freedom Week.
“It is now in the Senate, awaiting the Senate version. Once the Senate version is approved, it goes to the bicameral conference committee where they will try to reconcile it. Once reconciled, it becomes an enrolled bill for the signing of the President. It is so close to the finish line, yet we noticed that the media, especially community media, was never consulted. No public hearings were invited regarding this particular bill,” Manticajon added.
He warned that rushing the legislation without public and media input leaves the measure vulnerable to legal challenges.
“Our message is that this should not be rushed,” he said.
“Once this becomes law, it could be subject to a constitutional question before the Supreme Court, or worse, it could be subject to abuse,” he added.
Right to know
Manticajon said the public and democratic accountability will suffer, as fear of state reprisal will reduce critical reporting.
“The critical press or the flow of accurate information reaching the public will diminish,” he added.
“The Constitution protects freedom of the press and recognizes the public’s right to know because democracy cannot survive without proper information received by the public. An enlightened citizenry is a key ingredient in exercising democratic rights. If the press hesitates out of fear of punishment, takedowns, or economic hardship, who will the public rely on to get accurate information?” Mantijacon said.
He added that punishing mistakes rather than allowing media self-regulation damages public interest reporting.
“As ruled in landmark jurisprudence, we must allow the media room to operate, even to commit mistakes,” Manticajon said.
“If we punish them for mistakes, they will no longer dare to inform the public. The press should serve the governed, not the governors. They should not be afraid of the government because their primary responsibility is to the public,” he added.
Restriction
Addressing structural defects in the bill, Manticajon said the measure gives government agencies administrative power to restrict or remove content without court oversight.
“The draft leaves review and appeals unclear,” Manticajon said.
“Officials may ask platforms to restrict content under broad grounds — what we call overbreadth in media law. The public may never even see the request or the reason for removal because it does not reach the courts first,” he added.
He said determining falsehood must remain with the courts, not the executive branch.
“When it comes to political speech and freedom of expression, if you exercise prior restraint or censorship, it must be the courts that determine whether information should be censored, not a government agency,” Manticajon said.
“There must be due process when curtailing free speech. You cannot simply be silenced for the simple reason that a government agency labels your information as false. Who determines what false information is? It should be the courts, not our government agencies,” he added.
To address these issues, the CCPC draft resolution urges Congress to preserve constitutional safeguards, prevent the weaponization of criminal law, and conduct public consultations with community journalists and citizens outside Metro Manila. / ABC