Philippine government agencies generally cannot block entire websites or applications without a court order, although laws provide limited exceptions involving certain illegal content and regulated activities, according to a legal analysis by Geronimo Law.
The July 10 legal note said blocking an entire website or application amounts to prior restraint on expression and is presumptively unconstitutional, citing the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chavez v. Gonzales.
It also pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Disini v. Secretary of Justice, which struck down Section 19 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. The provision had authorized the Department of Justice (DOJ) to restrict or block access to computer data found prima facie to violate the law.
“The only general takedown power Congress ever conferred, the DOJ’s authority to ‘restrict or block access’ to computer data found prima facie in violation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. No. 10175, Sec. 19), was struck down precisely because it authorized the seizure and suppression of computer data without a judicial warrant,” the legal note said.
Geronimo Law said the subsequent Rule on Cybercrime Warrants created warrants covering disclosure, interception, search and seizure, and examination of computer data, but did not establish a specific blocking warrant.
It added that the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), which was created under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, has coordination and policy functions but no express statutory power to order websites or apps blocked merely because they are allegedly being used to commit cybercrime.
The analysis, however, identified exceptions in which blocking or takedown can occur without a prior court order.
One involves child sexual abuse or exploitation materials and online sexual abuse or exploitation of children. Under Republic Act No. 11930, Internet intermediaries are required to block, remove, or take down covered online material within 24 hours after receiving the required notice.
Similar notice-based obligations apply to trafficking-related online content under the expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, with rules involving the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), CICC, National Privacy Commission, and National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).
A second category involves online activities subject to government licensing or regulation. The legal note said regulators such as the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp., and Securities and Exchange Commission may determine that an online operator is conducting an unlicensed or prohibited activity, after which the NTC may direct Internet service providers to block access.
The NTC’s role in such cases, however, is based on its general supervisory authority over telecommunications carriers rather than an express statutory power allowing it to block websites, the analysis said.
Examples include unregistered virtual asset service providers, illegal online gambling sites, and platforms engaged in unregistered securities, investment-taking, or lending activities.
The E-Commerce Act also gives the Department of Trade and Industry secretary authority to issue an ex parte takedown order against particular online listings or offers under specified circumstances.
The affected party must be heard within 48 hours, while an administrative takedown order expires after 30 days unless extended or made permanent through a judicial order or decision.
The legal note also distinguished these mechanisms from website blocking over intellectual property piracy. It said the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines currently operates a voluntary administrative site-blocking system, while legislation that would establish compulsory IPOPHL blocking orders remains pending.
A rights holder seeking compulsory blocking therefore has to obtain an injunction from a court, according to the analysis.
Geronimo Law cautioned that the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the legality of the regulatory route in which the NTC blocks platforms upon endorsement by another government regulator.
“The Supreme Court has never squarely validated this channel,” the note said, adding that its legality rests on the licensing rationale and the NTC’s general regulatory authority and “might be at risk of being challenged where the target is expressive content or where due process is bypassed.”
The legal analysis has taken on added significance after reports that Discord became inaccessible on some Philippine networks on Sept. 23 following a CICC directive requiring the platform to appoint a local representative and address government concerns over online safety.
As Newsbytes.PH reported on Sept. 24, Globe users began encountering a notice saying Discord had been blocked pursuant to an NTC directive, although access appeared to vary among Internet providers and the restriction was not established as a nationwide shutdown.
The reported blocking triggered criticism from technology advocates and former DICT undersecretary Jeffrey Ian Dy, who said the action could disrupt legitimate communities used by Filipino freelancers.
Dy cited Discord groups used by virtual assistants and other workers and also questioned whether an administrative blocking order was consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Disini.
The controversy followed the CICC’s Sept. 21 directive giving Discord and Reddit 24 hours to designate local representatives in the Philippines.
The agency warned that failure to comply could result in restrictions on their operations or blocking of access. The CICC linked the directive to concerns over violent extremist content, child exploitation, and the recruitment of minors online.
