Some senators on Tuesday supported the government’s proposal to empower the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) to shut down media accounts that are linked to terrorism.
Senators Panfilo Lacson and Gringo Honasan said the proposal to authorize the DICT to shut down social media accounts would be included in the bill seeking to amend Republic Act 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007.
Asked by reporters if the proposal will be included in the bill, Lacson answered in the affirmative.
“Definitely. In other countries as mentioned by one of the resource persons, the minister of transportation, for example, in Australia is within his mandate to shut down any account he deems na mag-a-add ng peril pagdating sa terrorism,” Lacson, who chairs the Senate Committee on Public Order, said.
During the joint Senate hearing on the anti-terrorism bills, lawyer Roberton Lapuz of NICA said the agency would like to include acts such as posting, liking, sharing, propagating hate, and participating in ISIS websites as grounds for the shutting down social media accounts.
Lapuz said the agency got the idea from countries like India, which has the power to shut down social media applications that are deemed “inimical to the national interest.”
“We are getting our information from many other jurisdictions like India. They have this authority to really shut down Facebook or to ban any social media applications that it deems inimical to the national interest,” Lapuz said.
“We are similar to India. I think the Philippines has a very huge number of users of internet. And this is a strong argument that we compel these social media businesses to comply with the reqs [requirements] of the national security,” he added.
Lawyer Marwil Llasos, the anti-terrorism coordinator of the Institute of International Legal Studies, supported the proposal, saying that “what is paramount here is the police power of the state.”
He stressed that the country not only has the right “but the duty to protect the inhabitants” when there is a clear and present danger of a “substantive evil.”
“Anything that is harmful or hurtful to the comfort, public safety, public order can definitely be regulated by the state,” Llasos said.
“Here, we are aware that social media has been used as a means of radicalization already, and the state has to preserve itself, and we don’t have to wait for something to happen. We don’t want another Marawi to happen,” he added.
Both senators, however, acknowledged that the provision would be contentious.
“Definitely. Tinanong ko kanina paano mo ibabangga ito sa freedom of speech and freedom of expression dahil we’re dealing with social media, which is expression,” Lacson said.
(Definitely. I was asking how do you oppose freedom of speech and freedom of expression because we’re dealing with social media, which is expression.)
He added that they will coach it in language that is not too contentious; and hopefully, it will pass the test if it is challenged at the Supreme Court.
While Honasan agreed that the provisions may be contentious because of the threat to privacy, he said it should be weighed against the threats to life, liberty, and property of Filipinos. /ee