An explanation of the constitutional rule requiring judicial authorization before websites or applications may generally be blocked.
A review of statutory exceptions allowing notice-based takedowns for child sexual abuse materials, online child exploitation, and trafficking-related content.
Analysis of administrative website blocking involving virtual asset service providers, online gambling, securities platforms, lending apps, and e-commerce listings.
Discussion of the constitutional limits of administrative blocking powers and the legal issues surrounding due process, freedom of expression, and regulatory enforcement.
Advisory on Cybercrime and Digital Regulation
Geronimo Law helps technology companies, digital platforms, financial institutions, and regulated businesses navigate cybercrime law, digital regulation, intermediary liability, and online enforcement actions in the Philippines.
This section addresses common concerns raised by businesses, legal teams, and finance professionals looking for clarity on complex issues and get a better understanding of key concepts.
Can Philippine government agencies block websites without a court order?
Generally, no. Blocking an entire website or application is considered a prior restraint on expression and ordinarily requires judicial authorization, subject to limited statutory exceptions.
What are the exceptions to the court order requirement?
Certain laws require internet intermediaries to block or remove specific categories of unlawful content upon notice, including online sexual abuse or exploitation of children and trafficking-related content. Some regulated online activities may also be administratively blocked through sector-specific regulatory frameworks.
Which regulators may request website or application blocking?
Depending on the activity involved, regulators such as the BSP, PAGCOR, SEC, DTI, and NTC may participate in blocking or delisting unlicensed or unlawful online services under their respective statutory mandates.
