Why the Philippines’ Internet Landscape Isn’t Really Free

When journalists write about internet censorship in Southeast Asia, the Philippines is mentioned as a country where citizens and netizens enjoy media freedom. And indeed, compared to other countries in the region, the situation in the Philippines looks better when it comes to upholding free speech in this respect.

Unlike in Thailand, there’s no Army Cyber Center in the Philippines monitoring “illegal” content on social media. Unlike in Vietnam, Filipino bloggers can criticize the authorities without being arrested. And unlike in Laos, anti-government posts are not censored outright. Activists can post videos lampooning politicians, Facebook users can like and share photos and videos uploaded by rebel groups, and anyone can call for the extralegal removal of public officials without being censored or penalized. The constitutional provision guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression is widely recognized and promoted by both public and private institutions.

These are no doubt encouraging indicators of media freedom. Indeed, despite a slight regression over the past few years, the 2017 iteration of Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net report still ranks the Philippines as being “Free” with a score of 28 (a score of 0-30 is designated as “Free” while a score of 31-60 is designated as “Partly Free). Yet at the same time, the data also belies the significant challenges that still remain with respect to freedoms online and offline in the Philippines.

Digital exclusion, poor quality, slow and unreliable connections, and high cost of broadband services are among the serious issues that prevent Filipinos from maximizing the potential of the internet. Access remains low; internet speeds in the Philippines are ranked as among the slowest in the world, while the average cost of connectivity is considered as among the highest in the region. These are daily “cybercrimes” that make internet freedom less meaningful for most low-income earners who have difficulty connecting to the web; or for ordinary citizens who have to struggle hard with fluctuating internet speed in order to interact with family and friends or access a vital electronic government service.

Only two private telecommunications companies dominate the local industry. As a regulator, the government is seen as ineffective in demanding accountability from the companies. Adopting a broader definition of internet freedom, it can be asserted that poor internet services provided by a duopoly pose a major obstacle in making the Internet responsive to the needs of those who use it.

Beyond issues that relate to online or new media, challenges to freedom can also be witnessed in traditional or mainstream media. There’s no censorship board in the Philippines, which means journalists can report about political affairs without encountering state regulation. But an insidious form of censorship exists, which involves the extrajudicial killing of reporters and other members of the traditional media.

This has made the Philippines one of the most dangerous countries for reporters in the world. In 2016 it was named as the most dangerous country (next to Iraq) for journalists over the preceding 25 years, with 146 media killings. Media violence is a specter that affects the online sphere too. As crimes against members of the media continue to remain unpunished, it not only worsens the culture of impunity but also creates a chilling effect in society.

Aside from the killings, journalists cite the continued implementation of a libel law, which they describe as archaic, excessive, and repressive. Veteran journalist Luis Teodoro notes that “the law against libel has primarily been used to suppress free expression rather than to address media abuse.” Indeed, the libel law is used not just against hard-hitting journalists but also against crusading ordinary individuals.

The laws used to stifle the media like the libel law are now being upgraded to police the internet. In 2012, politicians inserted an online libel clause in the Cybercrime Prevention Act, which extended the scope of the original libel law to all digital activities. This gave the state a legal tool to restrict any online content. A popular netizen-led movement challenged the law, which probably explains why authorities have not been aggressive in using the law against critics of the state. Nonetheless, a law containing vague, overbroad, if not repressive provisions is in effect and can be easily invoked by any government that wants to clamp down on the internet.

In addition to these threats, the rise to power of President Rodrigo Duterte in 2016 has further undermined the state of internet freedom in the country. A 2017 report revealed that Duterte hired a troll army during the election campaign. Duterte didn’t deny this but he was silent as to whether this troll army still exists and if it is behind the vicious fake news-driven online campaign targeting critics of the government.

During his state of the nation address last July 2017, Duterte accused the Rappler news website of being owned by Americans. A government agency subsequently conducted a probe and ordered the media company to stop operating in January. The closure order against Rappler is seen as an act of intimidation against the media and other critical voices.

Meanwhile, Duterte’s allies in Congress want to amend the constitutional provision on freedom of expression by inserting the word “responsible” in reference to free speech. This was quickly denounced by media groups as a reversal of the country’s commitment to uphold civil liberties.

In summary, while the Philippines’ internet landscape is indeed more free compared to its neighbors, the introduction of repressive laws, the continuing media killings, and the persecution of the independent media under the Duterte government are rapidly eroding the freedoms that empowered Filipinos in the past to fight tyrants and corrupt leaders.