Meta, DICT, and Congress: An accountability failure disguised as action

DECODED: TECH, TRUTH, AND THREATS

There is something about the latest controversy involving the Department of Information and Communications Technology and Meta that deserves a closer look, because the issue is more complicated than simply asking whether Facebook is doing enough to protect Filipino children.

Yesterday, Sept. 16, the DICT issued a strongly worded statement after the House of Representatives deferred consideration of the department’s proposed 2027 budget over unresolved concerns involving Meta. DICT said Meta “continues to fall short of its responsibility and commitment to youth safety,” particularly in addressing Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children (OSAEC) and Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Materials (CSAEM).

Protecting children online is unquestionably serious. Meta operates platforms with enormous reach in the Philippines, and that reach carries responsibility. If its platforms are being used to distribute CSAEM, facilitate exploitation, or expose children to other serious harms, the company must respond quickly, remove illegal content, and cooperate with Philippine authorities.

But blaming Meta is only part of the story. The government must also explain how we reached this point, especially considering what DICT itself had been telling us about its relationship with the company.

In February, DICT announced what the government described as a “landmark agreement” with Meta for a safer internet in the Philippines. Meta reportedly committed to faster detection, reporting, and removal of child exploitation content. The agreement also covered scams and deepfakes.

Seven months later, DICT says Meta continues to fall short. What happened to that agreement? What exactly did Meta promise, which commitments were fulfilled, which were not, and what measurable standards were used to determine compliance?

The timeline makes those questions even more important. In late August, Secretary Henry Aguda met Meta and Roblox executives in Singapore and announced another set of child-safety commitments, including age verification, parental controls, faster takedowns, and stronger cooperation with law enforcement.

Then, on Sept. 7, Aguda told lawmakers that Meta would send a technical team to the Philippines to study the possible integration of the Philippine National ID system into its platforms for age verification.

The government can negotiate with a company while criticizing its performance. But if Meta’s cooperation had become so inadequate that it contributed to the deferment of DICT’s budget, why was the government simultaneously discussing deeper technical cooperation with the same company, potentially involving government-backed identity verification?

This brings us to another question that deserves equal scrutiny: Why defer DICT’s budget?

I have been one of DICT’s strongest critics, particularly when government systems have been breached, public services disrupted, and accountability has been lacking. The department must answer for its own failures. But Congress must also recognize that DICT’s mandate extends far beyond Meta and the conduct of one private platform.

DICT is responsible for national cybersecurity policy, the protection of government networks, digital infrastructure, connectivity programs, emergency communications, e-government initiatives, and efforts to bridge the digital divide. Its work affects government agencies, businesses, schools, and millions of Filipinos who depend on secure and reliable digital services. Weakening or delaying its budget without clearly identifying the department’s specific failures could also weaken programs that have nothing to do with Meta.

Congress has both the power and responsibility to scrutinize government agencies before approving billions of pesos in public funds. If lawmakers believe DICT failed to enforce Philippine laws, neglected to follow up on Meta’s commitments, or inadequately protected Filipino children, budget deliberations are an appropriate venue to demand answers.

But Congress should clearly identify what DICT did wrong and explain how deferring its budget solves the problem.

If the main complaint is that Meta, a private multinational company, has failed to cooperate sufficiently with Philippine authorities, withholding action on the budget of the government agency dealing with Meta requires a convincing explanation. Meta faces no financial consequence from this budget deferment. DICT does, and so could every Filipino who depends on its cybersecurity, connectivity, and digital government programs.

If lawmakers have identified specific deficiencies in DICT’s proposed spending, they should place them on the record, scrutinize the relevant allocations and demand corrective action. But if the entire department is being penalized mainly because Meta has not done enough, Congress should explain what the deferment is expected to accomplish and how it will make Filipino children safer.

None of this absolves DICT. The department announced the agreements, conducted the negotiations, and repeatedly told the public about commitments secured from Meta. If those commitments failed to produce results, DICT should disclose what happened.

Neither does it absolve Meta. If the company promised faster takedowns, better reporting and stronger child-protection measures, it should provide evidence that those commitments were fulfilled.

Protecting children online is too important to be reduced to press statements, political theater or a convenient exchange of blame. There are three layers of accountability. Meta must answer for its failures. DICT must account for the agreements it announced. Congress must justify why it is holding the department’s budget hostage and explain how doing so protects a single Filipino child.

Accountability must target those responsible and produce real results. Otherwise, Meta continues operating, government programs face uncertainty, and Filipino children remain exposed. If that is the outcome, then this is not accountability. It is institutional failure disguised as action.