Media and civil society groups urge the unblocking of blocked websites during a court hearing in Quezon City, Philippines. Photo from Bayan, used with permission. This article by Ronalyn Olea was originally published by EngageMedia, a non-profit media, technology, and culture organization, and an edited version is republished here as part of a content-sharing agreement with Global Voices. Digital technologies, policies, and other measures of control were enacted during the pandemic. Today, the majority of the Asia Pacific has returned to the “old normal,” but the surveillance mechanisms — technological, regulatory, and ideological — remain. This second compilation of the Pandemic of Control series focuses on the lasting impact of the COVID-19 crisis on digital rights and tells the continuing story of digital authoritarianism in the Asia Pacific. In the Philippines, some of the measures enacted at the height of the pandemic continue to be used to this day to repress freedom of expression, especially critical voices. There have been multiple instances of state agents labelling legitimate reports and criticism as “fake news.” In June 2020, a ranking Army officer accused Philippine Daily Inquirer reporter Gabriel Lalu of “writing fake news” over an article about a farmer’s death. In a Facebook post, the Army officer asked Lalu if he was a propagandist for the New People’s Army (NPA), the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines. In April 2020, the Philippine National Police arrested 32 individuals for spreading “fake news” via social media platforms. They were charged with unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterance under Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Republic Act (RA) 10175 or the Anti-Cybercrime Prevention Act. One of those arrested was Juliet Espinoza, a public school teacher who posted on Facebook that the people in General Santos City were going hungry. Journalists and advocates argued that the “fake news” provision in RA 11469, which provides the President with emergency powers in response to the health crisis might “criminalise free speech.” In a joint statement, they pointed out: “In effect, the law will leave it up to the government to be the arbiter of what is true or false, a prospect that cannot invite confidence given the fact that many administration officials, including the chief executive, have been sources of disinformation and misinformation.” The effectivity of RA 11469 ended in June 2020. However, the use of this law to restrict freedom of expression during the pandemic is paving the way for normalising ongoing restrictions by enshrining this rights-infringing provision into existing laws. A senator has filed a bill seeking to amend the Cybercrime Prevention Act to include criminalising the creation and dissemination of “fake news.” The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) warned that the bill, if passed, might be used for censorship. A more draconian law enacted during the hard lockdown in 2020 is the Anti-Terror Act (ATA). Critics pointed out that the law’s definition of terrorism is vague and overbroad, and may be weaponised to target the political opposition. A broad coalition of organisations challenged the ATA, but the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law except for two provisions: the qualifier portion of Section 4, in which dissent would be considered a terror act if found to have the intent to cause harm or death. This was struck down by the High Court as it was “overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.” Amnesty International said the law remains dangerous and fundamentally flawed. Nearly three years after its passage, the law has been used against Indigenous peoples, farmers, and human rights activists. Aside from arrests, ATA empowers the Anti-Terror Council (ATC) to designate people and organisations as terrorists. Critics say this is prone to abuse, with activist group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan describing the ATC’s designation as “arbitrary, no clear standards, no specific terrorist acts cited, just a sweeping accusation.” In recent years, the ATC designated as a terrorist group the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, with which the Philippine government has signed bilateral agreements during the course of peace talks. Peace consultants, including those detained over trumped-up charges, were also designated as terrorists by the ATC. In January 2023, community doctor Naty Castro who served the Indigenous peoples in Northern Mindanao was branded a terrorist. Castro was arrested and detained over charges of kidnapping and serious illegal detention but was eventually released after a court junked the cases against her in March 2022.