Digital rights advocates and groups slammed the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center following its plan to temporarily block the encrypted messaging app Signal amid so-called spoofing incidents.
In a joint statement, Advocates of Science and Technology for the People (AGHAM) and Computer Professionals’ Union (CPU) called it “another digital rights violation disguised as a quick fix”.
A knee-jerk response and short-term solution at best
Signal is a free, open-source, and highly secure messaging app focused on user privacy. It offers end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for text, voice messages, photos, videos, and calls (individual or group), developed by the non-profit Signal Foundation. E2EE messaging apps like Signal are used widely by journalists, activists, political officials, and business people, among others.
CPU deputy secretary general Xian Guevarra questioned why Signal was being singled out when spoofing can occur on any virtual messaging platform.
“Bakit band-aid solutions na naman ang ginagawa ng gobyerno? If they’re really against spoofing they should think of better ways to stop it imbis na platform denial,” said Guevarra.
International digital rights organization Access Now also argued that blocking Signal to address spoofing “would be a bit like blocking a road to prevent accidents. It won’t solve the problem, and will prevent access to an essential service.”
Access Now Global Cybersecurity Lead Raman Jit Singh Chima said that blocking an entire platform that people rely on for secure communications will not resolve the issue.
“It will only serve as a knee-jerk response and short-term solution at best, putting the digital and physical safety of people in the Philippines at risk,” said Chima.
He stressed that measures to combat spoofing should be holistic, not punitive. The expert also emphasized the need for social and educational initiatives, such as raising awareness about cybercrimes and how to spot and guard against them, rather than targeting E2EE platforms.
A corruption cover-up
The groups also raised questions about the timing of the proposal amid recent revelations stemming from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s encrypted communications linked to alleged kickbacks from flood control and infrastructure projects.
“Why block Signal now amid publicly reported allegations that President Marcos and a ‘bagman’ used it to discuss the exchange of billions of corrupted funds,” it said in the joint statement.
This February, ACT Teachers Representative Antonio Tinio revealed he had seen “communication records” involving Marcos Jr.’s direct knowledge of a kickback scheme. In a Rappler article, Caloocan 2nd District Representative Edgar Erice likewise said he had seen the alleged messages.
According to Tinio, the communications detailed the exchanges between Marcos Jr. and then-Presidential Legislative Liaison Office chief Adrian Bersamin from December 2024 to July 2025. One message dated March 24, 2025 relayed information about the P8 billion delivery from former Public Works Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, as acknowledged by Marcos Jr. himself.
“On July 10, 2025, Bersamin reported a P2 billion delivery for the President at Narra residence in Forbes Park. The President’s response: ‘Sasabihan ko si Jun Baris.’ This is July 10, 2025—days before the President went to Congress and said ‘mahiya naman kayo.’ Sino po ang dapat na mahiya?” Tinio added.
It must be noted that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly dismissed the impeachment complaints against Marcos Jr. on February 2.
In their statement, AGHAM and CPU raised the question of whether the proposed Signal blocking was purely about addressing spoofing.
“If the government is truly concerned about what happens on Signal, then the public should be asking: is this about protecting people from spoofing, or about covering the corruption trails involving the President?” it said.
On social media registration
Meanwhile on January 22, the Department of Information and Communications Technology held a policy consultation on the proposed department circular regarding social media registration.
Similar to the SIM Registration Law enacted last 2022, the so-called social media registration would require citizens to verify their social media accounts, such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, email, and others using their real identities. In fact, this measure was included in the 2022 SIM Card Registration Bill but was ultimately vetoed.
This time, according to the draft department circular, such verification would be linked to an individual’s registered SIM and thereby directly connect social media accounts to the user’s legal identity. This means that even if a person uses an alias or nickname, their true identity could be accessed by the government and social media platforms.
DICT further claims that social media registration would help ensure “accountability” in cyberspace, particularly for those committing crimes or acting as online trolls.
However, AGHAM called it a “blanket identity verification” following cases where the government has targeted its critics on social media. According to the group, it would only be easier for the government to continue digital surveillance and harassment if social media registration pushes through.
Since 2022, many critics have already slammed the SIM Registration Law with its promise to curb troll and scam messages. However, despite the law’s enactment, registered users on both prepaid and postpaid continue to receive such messages.
“Sa halip na magpatupad ng malawak at mapanupil na identity verification, dapat ituon ng pamahalaan ang pagsisikap sa mas epektibong solusyon laban sa cybercrime. Kabilang ang mahigpit na regulasyon at pananagutan ng social media platforms, ganap na pagpapatupad ng Data Privacy Act of 2012, at mga panukala na hindi isinasakripisyo ang karapatan, kaligtasan, at kalayaan ng mamamayang Pilipino,” AGHAM said.
[Instead of implementing broad and repressive identity verification, the government should focus its efforts on more effective solutions to combat cybercrime. These include stricter regulation and accountability for social media platforms, full implementation of the Data Privacy Act of 2012, and measures that do not sacrifice the rights, safety, and freedom of the Filipino people]
