124 Dictating the Internet: that can be removed includes “matters affecting the public interest”.468 “Public interest” is also vaguely defined as “anything that affects national security, public health, public safety, public order, public confidence in the Government, and international relations of the Philippines”.469 Overbroad provisions make it difficult for the law to provide clear guidance for individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly. Nearly any form of online communication is subjected to prosecution under section 3 of the AFC Bill, which covers any “act of uploading content on an online intermediary with an intent to circulate particular information to the public”, where such content can be “text, image, audio recording, video or animation”.470 The only factor determining whether a post online is criminal under the bill is whether content was circulated “knowing or having a reasonable belief that it is false or that would tend to mislead the public.” – there is no clarification on what “mislead(ing) the public” entails, and the bill punishes not only the person posting such content, but also anyone offering or providing services to assist or finance the creating or publishing of such content.471 This allows for penalties to potentially affect online intermediaries, including social media services, search engine services, online messaging services, and online video and audio-sharing services.472 Similar to Singapore’s POFMA, this bill does not provide for adequate redress or accountability mechanisms and in fact tasks the same body who implements the bill with also reviewing and overseeing its implementation. It does not allow for judicial review of “rectification”, “take down” or “access blocking” orders and instead provides, under section 6, for an aggrieved party to “file a petition for review” with the DOJ within 15 days of an order, the same authority which issues such orders.473 Severe penalties are provided for under the bill – an individual can face up to six years’ imprisonment and fined up to PHP 500,000 (approx. USD 9,826) for publishing violative content, and up to 12 years’ imprisonment and fined up to PHP 2 million (approx. USD 39,295) for financing the creation or publication of such content.474 The bill also allows for extra-territorial 468 469 470 471 472 Ibid. AFC Bill, section 3(d). AFC Bill, sections 3(a), (b). AFC Bill, sections 4(a), (c), (d). See also Human Rights Watch, ‘Philippines: Reject Sweeping ‘Fake News’ Bill’, 25 July 2019, Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/25/philippines-reject-sweeping-fake-news-bill?fb clid=IwAR0hQJrQ3KzKLz0ac96mYnny09F0L5AGZa8Kx-gcRhSHRrelcN8XNvOR7g8 473 AFC Bill, section 6. 474 AFC Bill, section 8.