MANILA – During a Senate committee hearing on public information and mass media on Monday, December 15, 2025, Senator Robin Padilla raised eyebrows by asking whether character assassination—particularly against high-ranking officials—should be classified as a threat to national security, warranting swift takedowns of offending social media posts.
Padilla’s query came amid discussions on challenges in combating fake news online. Police Colonel Alex Lorenzo of the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) explained that platforms like Meta (Facebook) only allow immediate content removal for violations involving threats to national security, terrorism, or the protection of women and children.
“And what about character assassination?” Padilla interjected, citing recent attacks on Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III. “Isn’t that a threat to national security, since that person holds the third-highest position in our country? First is the president, then the vice president, followed by the Senate president. Wouldn’t that be considered a security threat, Sir?”
Lorenzo clarified that the ACG can only request removals based on platforms’ community standards, prompting Padilla to ask if character assassination could be added to those criteria. He later posed the same question to the Department of Justice representative.
Padilla, known for his colorful background (including a past jail term for illegal firearms possession, which he humorously referenced as potentially the “fastest” in Philippine history), framed the issue as a gap in protecting public figures from online smears.
The hearing tackled bills aimed at curbing disinformation, with experts noting enforcement hurdles like platform policies and free speech balances. Padilla’s suggestion drew mixed reactions—some see it as overreach potentially stifling criticism, while supporters argue reputational attacks on leaders undermine governance stability.
In an era of viral misinformation, Padilla’s provocative question spotlights the blurry line between harmful speech and protected expression: Should “character assassination” of officials trigger the same urgency as terrorism threats?
Hearing Snapshot:
| Issue Raised | Padilla’s Argument | Official Response |
|---|---|---|
| Content Takedown | Include character assassination as national security threat | Limited to platforms’ standards (terrorism, child protection, etc.) |
| Example | Attacks on Senate President Sotto | Requests only; no automatic removal |