As Congress moves to reconcile two proposed measures imposing stricter safeguards on children’s access to online platforms, legal and industry stakeholders are calling for policies that protect minors from digital threats without unnecessarily restricting their privacy, freedom of expression and access to information.
The call took center stage at a policy dialogue organized by Gorriceta Africa Cauton & Saavedra and GoDigital Philippines on October 22, which brought together government representatives, industry leaders and legal professionals to examine the implications of the proposed SAFE Kids Act and SMART KIDS Act.
The discussions come after the Senate passed Senate Bill No. 2424, or the SMART KIDS Act, on third reading on October 8, followed by the House of Representatives’ approval of House Bill No. 11566, or the SAFE Kids Act, on October 12.
With differences between the two versions still to be resolved by a bicameral conference committee, the resulting legislation could significantly reshape how children access social media and other digital services in the Philippines.
The Senate version proposes prohibiting individuals below 18 from accessing social media and other high-risk digital services. Meanwhile, the House version sets a minimum age of 13, requiring parental consent and imposing feature restrictions on users aged 13 to 17.
The House measure also extends regulatory responsibilities beyond digital platforms and parents to include other industry players, such as app stores and operating system providers.
At the forum, titled “Safe Kids, Smart Policies: A Dialogue on Children’s Online Safety and Digital Rights,” Gorriceta Africa Cauton & Saavedra Chairman and Managing Partner Mark Gorriceta stressed the need for legislation that addresses online threats without imposing overly broad restrictions.
“Protecting children online is a responsibility we all share. But effective legislation requires careful consideration of how safeguards will work in practice, who will be responsible for implementing them, and how we can protect children without unnecessarily restricting freedom of expression, privacy, and access to information. The goal should be policies that are clear, proportionate, enforceable, and workable,” Gorriceta said.
Balancing protection with children’s digital participation
Renato “Aboy” Paraiso, executive director undersecretary of the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), highlighted the threats children face online, including cyberbullying, online sexual abuse and exploitation and online grooming.
He said stronger safeguards are necessary but cautioned against reducing the policy discussion to a simple question of whether children should be allowed to use social media.
“The question is not simply whether children should be allowed or prohibited from accessing social media. We must also consider how restrictions can be designed to provide real and measurable protection while recognizing children’s ever-changing capacities, their access to information, and their legitimate participation in digital spaces,” Paraiso said.
He also emphasized the responsibility of technology companies in addressing online risks, pointing to platform accountability and stronger safeguards as essential components of child protection.
Kankan Ramos, chief operating officer of marketing and communications agency InvictusPH, offered an industry and parental perspective, highlighting the role digital platforms play in children’s learning, creativity, self-expression and social connections.
Drawing from her experience as a mother and marketing professional, Ramos said technology has expanded opportunities for children even as it exposes them to risks that require attention.
“When I look at my daughter, I do not see a child whose world has been made smaller by technology. I see someone whose world, in many ways, has grown bigger because of technology. But I’m also her mother. I worry about what she encounters, who can reach her, and how online experiences might shape her confidence, choices, and well-being… Child protection is not optional…But neither is the children’s right to learn, express themselves, and access information,” she said.
She also called for greater transparency, data protection and responsible digital marketing practices, particularly as children increasingly encounter commercial content through creator videos, entertainment feeds and personalized recommendations.
“The policy question is not simply how many children can we keep off a platform. It is also what do we preserve for children while we reduce the risks,” Ramos said.
Privacy, enforcement and constitutional questions
More than age restrictions, the proposed measures raised questions about how platforms will establish users’ ages without compromising personal information.
Both bills envision age-assurance requirements and measures to restrict or remove accounts reasonably determined to belong to children covered by the restrictions. They also seek to address harmful content and introduce safeguards involving targeted advertising, profiling, interactions with unknown adults and features associated with compulsive use.
Foreign platforms would also be covered, with requirements to appoint local representatives and comply with directives from Philippine regulators.
However, age verification must be implemented consistently with the Republic Act No. 10173 or Data Privacy Act of 2012 and applicable National Privacy Commission rules, particularly the principles of proportionality and data minimization.
The extent of personal information collected, the entities responsible for processing it and the safeguards against misuse remain important considerations.
The proposed restrictions also raised constitutional questions involving freedom of expression, the right to information and parents’ authority to raise their children. While the state has a constitutional duty to protect the youth, restrictions must be proportionate to their objectives and should not go further than necessary.
Enforcement presents another challenge, particularly given the possibility of children circumventing age checks, shared devices within households and the capacity of regulators to monitor compliance.
The scope of exemptions will likewise matter. Certified educational platforms and digital news services are expected to be exempt, although the final coverage will depend on the reconciled legislation. How lawmakers define age-restricted platforms could also determine whether messaging and gaming services remain accessible to minors.
Lessons from other countries
The Philippine proposals come amid growing international efforts to regulate children’s access to digital platforms, although countries have adopted different approaches.
Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia have established a minimum age of 16, while the European Union has focused primarily on platform obligations, including risk assessments and age-appropriate design.
The Senate’s proposed under-18 threshold would be higher than those approaches, while the House measure adopts a tiered system that combines a lower minimum age with additional safeguards for teenagers.
India, meanwhile, treats individuals below 18 as children under its data protection framework rather than imposing a general social media ban. Its Digital Personal Data Protection Act requires verifiable parental consent and prohibits tracking or targeted advertising directed at children.
In September this year, India’s Supreme Court also asked the government to consider additional statutory safeguards for minors on social media.
Other developments illustrate the legal challenges surrounding age-based restrictions. France’s under-15 ban, passed in July, was struck down by the Constitutional Council in August. The council found the measure disproportionate to freedom of expression and privacy, citing its failure to distinguish services according to risk and inadequate safeguards for mandatory age verification. A revised bill is being prepared.
In the United States, more than a dozen states have enacted laws generally requiring age verification and parental consent for users below 16. Technology companies have challenged almost all of these measures, primarily on First Amendment grounds.
In a recent Ohio case, NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, a Court of Appeals panel voted 2-1 to uphold a law requiring parental consent before children below 16 can open accounts. The majority characterized parental consent as a limited burden addressing children’s entry into platform contracts without parental supervision.
These international experiences underscore the difficulty of designing restrictions that protect minors without unnecessarily cutting them off from legitimate digital services and support networks.
The Philippines is also a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes that children’s rights extend to the digital environment. These include protection from harm, as well as rights to information, expression, privacy, education and play.
Six considerations for the final legislation
As the Senate and House versions undergo reconciliation, Gorriceta Africa Cauton & Saavedra identified six considerations for lawmakers: regulations should be risk-based and appropriate to children’s ages and evolving capacities; age-assurance mechanisms should protect privacy; the scope of regulation should be clearly defined; fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and access to information, should be safeguarded; obligations imposed on digital industry players should be proportionate and workable; and implementation periods should give stakeholders sufficient time to adjust.
