Distinguishing fake news from facts
The year 2025 was confronted by an avalanche of news—some historic, many scandalous; some factual, others plainly fake. Including this piece, I have written 52 columns this year, each one a mental exercise in updating with current events, in critically cross-checking sources, and in verifying facts. According to the 700-page “Digital 2026 Report by Meltwater and We Are Social,” around 98 million Filipinos (as of October 2025) use the internet. And 98 percent of them (96 million) own smartphones, thus enabling easier access to information and more influence on their lives.
TWO GIFTS OF DEMOCRACY that we enjoy are freedom of expression and freedom of information. Paradoxically, however, we have never been more confused between what is true and what is false. The same report notes that while “finding information” remains the primary reason why people go online, 67 percent express concern about online misinformation.
To cap 2025, I will explore one of the most urgent problems of our time: the creation and spread of fake news in the digital space. Inspired by the insights of labor lawyer cum movie producer Joji Alonso, I believe this challenge can only be addressed properly if three key actors in the information ecosystem assume responsibility and accountability—the consumer, the producer, and the platform.
Breaking free from the impact of fake news requires a conscious and systematic approach. We have long been exposed to “tsismis” or to rumors spread by the proverbial “Marites” (Filipino contraction for “Mare, anong latest”) as part of our social culture. But on social media, this exposure has been magnified, weaponized, and abused, pushing it far beyond the realm of harmless gossip into something dangerous and criminal.
To respond to this problem, we, as consumers of information, should observe four essential practices: (1) pause before reacting, (2) prioritize the relevant, (3) probe the sources and credibility, and (4) proceed with the information responsibly.
This approach acknowledges our tendency toward mental shortcuts. Few people have the luxury of time to verify everything—doing it slowly feels impractical, while doing it quickly risks error. Yet in this age, these same shortcuts are precisely what manipulators exploit, making innocents vulnerable to deception.
Misinformation is often easy to dismiss until it demonizes our reputation or quality of life. While online platforms now provide ways to report and remove harmful content or accounts, these are inadequate. There are times when asserting liability is necessary to halt the harm and affirm accountability.
A RENEWED LEGISLATIVE FOCUS is more important than ever. The Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175) provides some protection against cyberlibel, but its effectiveness is hampered when anonymity shields offenders. Hence, the necessity of legislative solutions cannot be overestimated.
False content and fake news are defined by a bill proposed by Senate President Tito Sotto as “false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views, as a joke, to mislead the public by pretending to be factual or by pretending to be published by legitimate news entities.”
Notably, the bill introduces accountability for online intermediaries (like social networking sites, search engines, and video-sharing sites) that fail to comply with legal orders to block access to harmful content. This bill supplements Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes only the publication of false news that may endanger public order. Under the bill, the mere act of publishing false content with knowledge or reasonable belief of its falsity is already punishable.
EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS THE ROLE OF ALGORITHMS in today’s information ecosystem. While I find their technicality daunting, their impact is quite clear: algorithms amplify content based on user behavior and interests, often prioritizing engagement over fact. These systems, designed by tech companies to serve business, have inadvertently created an environment where deception can thrive, whether in the form of fake news, online scams, or death hoaxes.
Another bill sponsored also by Sotto tackles this issue, particularly in the context of politics and election periods, when the spread of fake news accelerates exponentially through troll farms. The bill’s timing is significant, as international regulatory practices are rapidly evolving. The European Union’s Digital Services Act, alongside similar measures in Australia and Singapore, reflects a growing shift toward regulating online service providers, rather than content creators solely.
While individual vigilance is necessary, it is not enough. The rule of law must adapt to confront the realities of fake news in the digital age, while at the same time safeguarding freedom of expression. The challenge lies in striking a careful balance—one that penalizes harmful deception without criminalizing imperfect, careless, or dissenting speech.
—————-
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
