Cyber martial law? A dangerous line we must not cross

I understand the need to prevent fake news, incitement to violence, and coordinated disinformation, especially during moments of political tension. No responsible person wants chaos or public panic.

But the statement from DICT raises serious concerns because it dangerously sounds like the beginnings of a form of “cyber martial law” where the government positions itself as a monitor of online speech, warning citizens that posts deemed to “encourage unrest” may be watched and punished.

DICT-CICC warns against online content that may fuel unrest after Senate commotion

The first question is simple: Who decides what content is considered “nakakapaghikayat ng gulo” or “maghasik ng karahasan”? Is criticism included? Dissent? Anger? Satire? Political opinion? History teaches us that vague standards are often vulnerable to abuse.

The Philippines already has laws to deal with actual crimes online such as incitement to violence, cyber libel, threats, fraud, and disinformation tied to criminal acts. But “close monitoring” of online content during a politically sensitive event, combined with warnings of punishment, risks creating a chilling effect where ordinary citizens become afraid to speak, question, or criticize government actions.

This is where alarm bells ring. The language used feels less like public safety guidance and more like state surveillance of speech, even if that may not be the intention. Government agencies should fight criminal activity online, yes, but they must be extremely careful not to appear as arbiters of acceptable political expression.

Freedom of expression cannot simply be restrained because speech is uncomfortable or politically inconvenient. The government must show clear legal basis, due process, and narrowly tailored enforcement.

This is why I find this statement troubling. It feels unnecessary and, frankly, careless in a time like this.

I also believe the Presidential Communications Office (PCO) likely understands that messaging matters during moments of tension, and statements framed this way may not be helpful. More importantly, this risks reflecting on President BBM himself in a way that I honestly do not believe he would want. The President has repeatedly emphasized calm and stability, and I find it difficult to believe that projecting an image of government monitoring political speech is the message Malacañang intends to send.

If there are genuine threats, prosecute actual crimes. If there is fake content, debunk it with facts. But government agencies must be extremely careful not to blur the line between protecting public order and creating the perception that online speech is under state surveillance.

And if the DICT-CICC begin actively monitoring political speech with vaguely defined boundaries, many will understandably ask: Are we protecting cybersecurity, or are we slowly normalizing a form of cyber martial law?