• Home
  • About us
  • People
  • Blog
  • News
  • Video
  • Webinars
  • Seminars
  • Podcasts
  • Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Working Papers
    • OxHRH Annual Report
    • Books & Chapters
    • U of OxHRH Journal
  • Events
  • Journal
  • GDPR Compliance
  • Home
  • Home OHRH
  • Media
  • Search
  • Test page
  • Publications
  • About us
  • News
  • A big page
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Site Map
  • Legal
  • Event archive
  • Blog
    • Comments Policy
    • Contribute to the Blog
  • Events
  • Journal
  • People
  • publications test
  • Publications New
    • Inner Publications Landing
  • #16346 (no title)
Oxford Human Rights Hub logo
  • Home
  • About us
  • People
  • Blog
  • News
  • Media
  • Events
  • Publications
  • Journal

The Filipino Anti-False Content Bill: Fake News and Free Expression

Joseph Johnson - 25th October 2019
OxHRH
Freedom of Expression
By Marco Verch via Flickr, used under a creative commons license CC BY 2.0.

On 1 July 2019, the ‘Anti-False Content Bill’ was introduced in the Senate of the Philippines, seeking to ‘protect the public from the deleterious effects of false and deceiving content online’ and following in the footsteps of the Malaysian Parliament. Whilst the aim is prima facie defensible, the ‘Punishable Acts’ established by the Bill make dangerous inroads on freedom of expression. They are likely unconstitutional and contrary to Article 19 ICCPR.

The new ‘Punishable Acts’ are committed by publishing information that the publisher knows or reasonably believes to be false or misleading to the public, providing a service to facilitate that activity, financing that activity, or failing to comply with a Section 5 Order. Section 5 empowers the Department of Justice Office of Cybercrime (“DJOC”) to determine whether a Punishable Act has been committed, and to make orders for modification or removal of the published information. Committing any of the Punishable Acts attracts a sanction of imprisonment, a fine ranging from Php 300,000 to Php 2,000,000, or both.

These provisions are likely incompatible with the Constitution of the Philippines. Following Chavez v Gonzales, the right to freedom of expression under Article 3, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution is broad. It was recognised in Gertz v Welch (adopted in Borjal v Court of Appeals), that false statements of fact must fall within the scope of the right to avoid the chilling effect on true speech. This is particularly important in the present context given that the falsity of the impugned speech is determined by the DJOC. There is no guarantee that the broad offences will only target false content, and indeed, they could easily capture any speech, including political dissent, that the DJOC deems to be misleading. It is clear that the Bill attacks expression which falls within the scope of the constitutional right.

Moreover, any limitations on the Article 3, Section 4 right must be subject to the ‘strictest scrutiny’ such that they are only constitutional if the speech poses a ‘clear and present danger’ (Chavez). The Explanatory Note to the Bill suggests that this danger was posed, for example, by a false publication which ‘raised doubts as to the integrity of the automated election system’. However, without an objective and transparent determination that the publication was indeed false, legitimate criticisms of the election system are just as likely to be censored as falsities. Further, with no guidance as to the circumstances in which speech will be prohibited, it is impossible to identify one single ‘clear and present danger’ justifying the blanket prohibition. It is therefore unlikely that the Bill constitutes a justifiable limitation on freedom of expression.

The Bill is also likely to be incompatible with Article 19 ICCPR. Again, the scope of the right is broad, meaning that the various forms of speech implicated by the Bill will attract protection. Article 19(3) requires that limitations on the right are ‘provided by law’, but, as indicated above, the Bill is not ‘formulated with sufficient precision’ (GC34, paragraph 25) to meet this requirement. Similarly, the Bill is not necessary or proportionate to its aim. This apparently falls under Article 19(3)(b), that is ‘the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.’ However, ‘when a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualised fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken’ (GC34, paragraph 25). Given the breadth of the Punishable Acts, no such precise specification is possible.

The Anti-False Content Bill is clearly incompatible with domestic and international human rights standards, restricting the right to freedom of expression without sufficient justification. In order to better comply with these standards, the Bill must, at least, be amended so as to: (i) impose civil, rather than criminal liability; (ii) provide for independent (i.e. judicial) assessment of whether a ‘Punishable Act’ has been committed; and (iii) more closely define the circumstances in which liability will be imposed. It is to be hoped that the Bill is amended, if not outright rejected, by the Senate.

Author profile

Joe Johnson is a recent graduate of the BCL at the University of Oxford. He currently teaches Constitutional Law at The Queen’s College.

Citations

Joe Johnson, “The Filipino Anti-False Content Bill: Fake News and Free Expression”, (OxHRH Blog, October 2019), <http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-filipino-anti-false-content-bill-fake-news-and-free-expression/>, [Date of access].

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related blog posts

Can Facebook Ban President Trump? A Question for Business and Human Rights
Use of Facial Recognition Technology in India: A Function Creep Breaching Privacy
The constitutionality of section 10 of the South African Equality Act: a case for balancing the rights to equality, dignity and freedom of expression

Related news

Discussion on Constitutional and Civil Liberties Violations in Kashmir – 11 October 2019, Oxford Law Faculty

Contact Us

oxfordhumanrightshub@law.ox.ac.uk

Oxford Human Rights Hub
The Faculty of Law, University of Oxford,
St Cross Building,
St Cross Road,
Oxford OX1 3UL

© 2021 Oxford Human Rights Hub | Site by One


Sign up for the OHRH Newsletter

Your email address*:

New email sign up
reCAPTCHA
* Find out how we use your data