On January 22, there was a conviction that had prominent organizations and experts – including UN experts, the International Federation of Journalists, and more – decry and call for immediate release. The Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City sentenced Filipino journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio to 12 to 18 years in prison for financing terrorism. She had already spent time in jail since February 2020, when she was arrested alongside four human rights workers while running a small community news outlet in Eastern Visayas that covered police and military abuses. Many human rights organizations are condemning the Philippine judiciary for its prosecution of journalists and media.

This is not the first event that happened in the Philippines related to media censorship. According to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, there were 242 separate attacks on press freedom over the past four years under the administration of President Bongbong Marcos Jr. 43 percent of those attacks came from government security forces, and 10 journalists were killed in that span. But what is absurd about these attacks is that few of them involved the government physically oppressing the media. Instead, the censorship and pressure upon Filipino journalism operate in a way that is harder to see.

The Philippine government uses the law itself, red-tagging, terrorism charges, and website blocking to censor their press. This legal cover makes the damage to democracy harder to challenge.

Every censorship attempt happens with a label put on the journalist. Red-tagging refers to the action of the government publicly and falsely branding individuals or organizations raising criticism of the government as terrorists or criminals. The term has been most widely used in the Philippines, as it is a persistent problem since the 1970s, when President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. declared martial law and institutionalized the practice as part of his campaign against the communist rebellions.

NUJP has recorded at least 159 incidents of red-tagging of journalists since 2016, and more than 60% of them were state-sponsored. To elaborate, they were mostly conducted by a government task force, NTF-ELCAC, which aims to suppress communist insurgency. Cumpio was also a victim of red-tagging for months before she was arrested. Once the red-tagging process is successfully completed, prosecutors get to have various options of how to deal with them, with each case having its own legal justification. There are lots of acts and legal foundations the Filipino police and judiciary can use, such as criminal and cyber libels, the Anti-Terror Act, which was the law that ultimately convicted Cumpio and the human rights worker Marielle Domequil. The Data Privacy Act is also an example used against journalism and media, often by the court outside of its original purpose. Alongside these acts, there have been quieter actions like the blocking of specific websites, conducted by the government. In June 2022, the Philippine government blocked access to 27 websites, which included independent news sites like Pinoy Weekly and Bulatlat. The websites were blocked because of alleged affiliations with “Communist-Terrorists”. Even after a UN expert visited the country in 2024 and called the Philippine government’s actions “a direct form of censorship”, the sites stayed blocked until November 2025. Access to the websites was finally made possible after a court trial, which ruled that the government had never presented any actual proof of a security threat to justify the blockings in the first place. Although this event is considered a huge victory for the freedom of the press in the Philippines, the cumulative effect of the tools the Philippine government has used over time is visible in statistics. Freedom House gave a score of 1 out of 4 to the Philippines on the question of whether the country has free independent media. The score is one of the lowest marks in Freedom House’s entire report on the country.

None of these processes are explicitly and formally declared as “censorship”. Instead, they are made under the law, so they are seen as legal. Political scientist Javier Corrales wrote in the Journal of Democracy about a similar pattern in Venezuela. He sees the case of Venezuela as an example of autocratic legalism. The concept refers to leaders using, abusing, or not using the law to consolidate their power. According to Corrales, the ruling parties of Venezuela have been using certain laws to control media and broadcasting channels, while expanding state-friendly news outlets. The governments of the two countries are effectively using laws to keep media under their control. The Philippines is also an example of stealth authoritarianism, a term coined by Varol. It refers to legal, seemingly democratic tactics like libel suits that eliminate critics while maintaining a democratic image. By labeling journalists as terrorists and prosecuting them under legal charges, the Philippines is leaning closer to this concept. While Larry Diamond writes in his article that governments in advanced democracies invest in tools to protect independent media from authoritarian censorship, we can see the Philippines is moving in the opposite direction, using its own laws to silence the press it should be protecting.

And this is damaging the country’s democracy by weakening the fundamental pillars of it. Through methods like red-tagging and legal charges, the government systematically silences independent media outlets that expose corruption and abuse of power. This creates a chilling effect among the media, which refers to a phenomenon in which individuals or groups self-censor or suppress themselves due to fear of harm. Consequently, that could lead to citizens having little to no access to reliable information necessary to make informed decisions in elections and not having the power to hold their leaders accountable.

A Social Weather Stations survey found that 47 percent of adult Filipinos agree it is dangerous to publish or broadcast anything critical of the government, even if it is true. Filipinos are widely informed about the consequences of media opposing the government. Investigative reports about the government and those in authority may decline as media outlets prioritize survival over accountability in journalism. This would consequently allow corruption and human rights abuse to flourish in the nation, unknown to the public. The tactics the Philippine government actively uses, such as red-tagging, false charges, and website blocking, would not explicitly hurt their image, as they would appear legitimate and justified while disabling press freedom. This ultimately contributes to stealth authoritarianism.

In conclusion, media censorship in the Philippines does not always take the form of open bans or direct government control of newspapers and broadcasters. Rather, it is often conducted through red-tagging, terrorism allegations, abuse of laws, and website blocking. These measures may look legal and just, but their combined effects make independent journalism more dangerous and difficult to continue their work. Filipino citizens still have the right to express political opinions freely. However, democracy also depends on a free press that can investigate those in power without fear of punishment. The public receives less reliable information about corruption, abuse, and their country in general when journalists are threatened, prosecuted, or labeled as criminals. Protecting press freedom is important not only for journalists’ safety, but also for a country’s democracy.