29/01/2026
𝗡𝗢 𝗧𝗢 𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗠𝗘𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗚𝗨𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝘅𝗲𝘀
UP Internet Freedom Network condemns the Department of Information and Communication Technology’s (DICT) draft of “Verified User” policy for what it really is: a state-backed identity checkpoint for social media. DICT is pushing a regime where people must be verifiable by design just to participate online. Why should Filipinos be required to surrender identity just to speak, learn, and belong?
We have seen this script before. The SIM Registration Act was sold as the cure for scams, yet scam complaints continued even after implementation. The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) told the Senate it had received more than 45,000 scam complaints despite SIM registration. Senators have publicly called out failures in implementation and enforcement, and the same lawmakers are already floating amendments because the system has not delivered what was promised. DICT’s response to a policy that did not stop scams cannot be to expand the same logic into social media and demand even more identity data from the public.
DICT itself has warned Filipinos about “rogue cell towers” and interception threats used in scams; telcos frequently warn their users about scam texts that fall under their company’s name. This only underscores the point that criminals adapt faster than paperwork can keep up. When sophisticated abuse persists under SIM registration, the lesson is not that the public needs more ID gates. The lesson is that DICT should stop chasing the illusion that traceability equals security, and start investing in measures that actually disrupt fraud networks without placing everyone under a permanent identity link.
For the youth, this proposal is especially dangerous because it attacks the basic way digital natives survive and participate online. Young people use pseudonyms and separate accounts to learn, to explore identity, to seek help, to report abuse, to join causes, and to speak about experiences that would be unsafe to attach to a legal name. DICT’s draft pretends to preserve pseudonymity, but it requires that identities be verified behind the scenes. That is clearly an unmasking infrastructure that makes self-censorship rational and fear a default setting, especially for students, campus organizers, LGBTQ+ youth, and young women who are disproportionately targeted by harassment.
DICT is also asking platforms to build and maintain sensitive identity databases at scale, multiplying the number of places where Filipinos’ most sensitive information can leak or be abused. The Philippines does not have the luxury of pretending this risk is theoretical. Major incidents and investigations continue to surface, including the PhilHealth ransomware attack and the National Privacy Commission’s (NPC) involvement in responding to alleged breaches. Even government agencies have faced reported exposures that prompted NPC action, which is exactly why DICT should be shrinking data collection, not forcing the creation of new identity troves across every major platform.
Worse, DICT’s proposal lands in a legal environment where cybercrime tools have repeatedly been criticized for being weaponized against speech. The Cybercrime Prevention Act has long drawn alarm from rights groups because of provisions that threaten freedom of expression and expand punitive enforcement online. Building a mandatory verification pipeline on top of that context is not “cleaning up the internet.” It is making it easier to intimidate critics, pursue selective enforcement, and chill participation, with social media users paying the price first.
If DICT truly wants to protect Filipinos, the right thing to do is the opposite of what this draft attempts. DICT should demand privacy-by-design from platforms, require strong anti-scam and anti-fraud systems that target behavior rather than identity, and push security improvements that do not require tying every account to a SIM-linked legal identity. It should strengthen due process, transparency, and oversight for any request for user data, and it should support the NPC’s capacity to enforce real limits on collection, retention, and disclosure. Protection means minimizing the data people are forced to hand over, because the safest database is the one that was never built.
DICT must withdraw this draft policy and stop pretending that mass identification is a shortcut to safety. Filipino youth are digital natives, not digital suspects. We deserve an internet where we can learn, organize, and speak without being forced into an always-identifiable system that expands risk, invites abuse, and repeats the failures of past surveillance-heavy laws. # #
