The Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) has invoked the “parens patriae” doctrine, or the State’s role as protector of its citizens, in defending the government’s decision to block Discord in the Philippines, even as authorities lifted the restriction shortly after it was imposed.
The CICC and Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) announced the lifting of the Discord ban on Thursday, Sept. 24, following discussions with the platform, after some Philippine Internet service providers had already implemented the government-ordered blocking.
CICC executive director and DICT undersecretary Renato “Aboy” Paraiso said during a press briefing on Discord and online child safety that protecting Filipinos was not merely a right of the State but an obligation under “parens patriae.”
“It is the obligation. Hindi nga right — obligation ng estado under the parens patriae doctrine na lahat ng mga kababayan natin, lahat ng citizens natin, kailangan nating protektahan. May obligasyon kaming protektahan sila,” Paraiso said.
The CICC had demanded that Discord and Reddit establish a Philippine presence or designate a local representative amid government concerns over online sexual abuse and exploitation of children and nihilistic violent extremism (NVE).
The government’s scrutiny of online platforms intensified following recent school shooting incidents, with authorities investigating whether online communities had been used to influence or recruit minors into violent activities.
Some Philippine Internet service providers subsequently began blocking Discord after the CICC said the platform had failed to comply with its deadline.
The restriction proved short-lived. After the blocking had taken effect, the DICT and CICC reversed course and ordered it lifted following talks with Discord.
The reversal, however, did not end questions over the legal basis for the original blocking order and the authority of executive agencies to restrict access to an entire communications platform without a court order.
Paraiso linked the “parens patriae” argument to the government’s demand that overseas platforms establish a local presence, saying this would give both the companies and Philippine authorities clearer legal recourse.
“And under this doctrine also, these platforms that are doing business here in the Philippines have no recourse because they have no presence here,” he said.
“Kaya nga doon sa pag-uusap namin kanina with Discord, sabi ko, this benefits both the government of the Philippines and your platform. Kasi kapag mayroon na silang Philippine presence — whether they set up a physical office here or they designate a representative here — may recourse na rin sila sa ating mga korte,” Paraiso added.
The invocation of “parens patriae,” however, raises a separate legal issue over whether the doctrine itself gives an executive agency authority to block access to an entire online platform.
In its 2014 ruling in Disini v. Secretary of Justice, the Supreme Court struck down Section 19 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, which had empowered the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to computer data that it found prima facie to violate the law.
The SC held that the provision allowed the executive branch to restrict online content without sufficient judicial safeguards and violated constitutional protections on freedom of expression and against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The ruling has become central to criticism of the Discord blocking, with critics arguing that neither the DICT nor the CICC can recreate through administrative action a blocking power that the Supreme Court had already declared unconstitutional.
Digital rights group Democracy.Net.PH joined the criticism following the DICT-CICC press briefing, saying child protection should not be invoked to bypass constitutional rights or the limits of executive authority.
“Child safety should never be used as a justification for violating basic human rights, nor as a shield for ignorance of the law,” Democracy.Net.PH said in a statement.
The group argued that restrictions on speech and access to information require constitutional safeguards and questioned whether the government had presented sufficient evidence to justify targeting particular online platforms.
“The platforms that the DICT and the CICC are targeting are not the cause of Nihilistic Violent Extrimism (NVE), though these have been used to reach our children and mislead them,” the group said.
It called on the government to disclose data showing the extent to which children had been victimized through the platforms and whether the services themselves could be identified as a cause of the problem.
Democracy.Net.PH also said the government should consider other factors, including parental supervision, gun-control policies, and measures that would give parents more opportunities to supervise their children.
“Where is the ‘whole-of-society’ approach that is the government’s favorite catchphrase?” it said.
The group directly challenged the authority of the DICT and CICC to impose platform-wide restrictions, arguing that decisions involving limitations on constitutional freedoms should be made by Congress or the courts rather than executive agencies.
“This discussion — on whether or not platforms should be banned, how, or why — belongs to the courts and the Legislative,” Democracy.Net.PH said.
“We reiterate: the DICT, as an executive agency, has no right to threaten platforms and then to ban them, for refusing to negotiate with them,” it added.
The group warned that allowing executive agencies to invoke public safety to restrict entire communications platforms could have implications beyond Discord.
“Today it is the platforms, to protect the children. Who will be silenced tomorrow, to protect someone else?” Democracy.Net.PH said.
“No one is safe when protecting a segment of the population requires violating the human rights of everyone.”
Democracy.Net.PH had already questioned the CICC’s authority before Thursday’s briefing, saying the agency has no mandate to ban digital platforms and that restrictions on constitutional freedoms require judicial authority.
The group has also previously called for a review of the statutory mandates of government agencies involved in cybercrime enforcement, including the CICC and DICT.
