From Manila to the World: Is Remulla’s Fake News Crusade a Masterstroke or a Mess?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — March 29, 2025

JUSTICE Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla is swinging for the fences, vowing to chase down “fake news peddlers” abroad with the “full force of the law.” It’s a juicy headline—cybercrime as the great equalizer, borders be damned. But as we peel back the layers of this legal onion, the question looms: Is this a real crackdown, or just legal posturing from a DOJ weighed down by shaky statutes and diplomatic hurdles? Let’s dive in, Kweba ng Katarungan style, and find out if Remulla’s got the goods.

The Setup: What’s Remulla Selling, and Why Now?

Remulla’s pitch is simple yet audacious: Fake news from overseas isn’t safe anymore. In his March 24 chat with reporters, he leaned hard on cybercrime laws, claiming they can snag foreign liars who “unsettle society.” Borders? Shrinking. Enforcement? Coming soon. He’s framing this as a noble quest—disinformation’s a digital plague, and he’s the cure, protecting the “majority” from chaos-loving minorities.

The backdrop’s spicy: Congress is sniffing around fake news with “inquiries in aid of legislation,” while the NBI’s on a mission to unmask shadowy “bankrollers” of social media lies. Timing’s no accident—former President Rodrigo Duterte’s ICC arrest this month unleashed a tsunami of pro-Duterte spin online. Coincidence? Please. This smells like a DOJ itching to flex amid a polarized post-Duterte mess. Buckle up—here’s the breakdown.

Legal Deep Dive: Can Remulla Pull This Off?

Remulla’s Jurisdictional Scope: Visionary or Ambitious?

Remulla’s betting on cybercrime’s borderless vibe to justify snagging overseas trolls. The Lotus Case (PCIJ, 1927) says states can flex jurisdiction unless international law says “nah.” Pair that with the Budapest Convention (Article 22(1)(d)), which the Philippines joined in 2018, and he’s got a toehold—crimes with “substantial effects” at home are fair game. Fake news stirring Filipino chaos? Arguably in play.

But here’s the rub: Enforcement’s a team sport. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) with the U.S. or Australia cover drugs and fraud, not some guy in Boise tweeting “Marcos eats puppies.” Dual criminality’s the real buzzkill—if the host country (say, Russia) doesn’t buy “fake news” as a crime, Remulla’s extradition pleas hit a brick wall. The Revised Penal Code’s Article 15 could nab Filipino nationals abroad, but foreigners? Good luck, sir. Takeaway: He’s got a theoretical hook—until reality reels him back.

Cybercrime Laws vs. Fake News: Square Peg, Round Hole?

Remulla’s leaning on RA 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Cyberlibel (Section 4(c)(4)) looks tasty—online defamation’s a crime, per RPC Article 355. But Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, 2014) rains on that parade: You need “actual malice”—knowing lies or reckless disregard. Proving that against a faceless troll farm? Like catching smoke with chopsticks.

Section 6 ups penalties for RPC crimes online—think sedition (Article 142) or public disorder. But “unsettling society” isn’t in the statute; it’s a vibe, not a violation. Chavez v. Gonzales (G.R. No. 168338, 2008) demands “clear and present danger”—real, imminent chaos, not Remulla’s hand-wringing about the majority’s feels. Takeaway: RA 10175’s a stretchy shirt, but it’s not tailored for fake news—more like a legal hand-me-down.

Evidence Woes: Can the NBI Even Find These Ghosts?

The NBI’s hunting “bankrollers,” but RA 10175’s Section 15 limits data grabs to Philippine turf. Going abroad means begging via Budapest’s Article 29 or MLATs—both dice rolls depending on foreign goodwill. Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College (G.R. No. 202666, 2014) warns that online probes can’t trample privacy (1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2). No evidence, no case—Remulla’s chasing shadows with a flashlight that’s out of batteries. Takeaway: Procedural hurdles make this a logistical nightmare.

Free Speech on the Chopping Block: Truth Warrior or Speech Cop?

Remulla’s “truth all the time” sermon slams into ICCPR Article 19—free expression’s sacred, unless restrictions are legal, legit, and proportionate. RA 10175’s vagueness flunks the first test; “chaos” is too fuzzy for the second; and jailing foreigners for tweets fails the third. The UN Special Rapporteur (A/HRC/47/25, 2021) calls this out—anti-disinfo laws are censorship’s favorite disguise.

Locally, Disini and Chavez guard Article III, Section 4 like pit bulls—speech limits need judicial blessing and imminent danger. Remulla’s got neither. Takeaway: He’s not saving truth—he’s auditioning for Big Brother, and the script’s shaky.

Political X-Ray: What’s Remulla Really After?

The Duterte Connection: Justice or Revenge Porn?

Remulla’s timing screams agenda. Duterte’s ICC arrest (March 2025) unleashed a pro-Duterte trollpocalypse—suddenly, fake news is Public Enemy No. 1? This isn’t about civic duty; it’s a power play to silence critics abroad spinning anti-admin yarns. The NBI’s “bankroller” hunt could mean troll farms—or expat journos and opposition voices. Maria Ressa’s 2020 cyberlibel saga winks from the sidelines. Takeaway: Smells more like settling scores than saving society.

Diplomatic Tightrope: Pissing Off the Big Dogs

Targeting foreigners risks a geopolitical wedgie. The U.S., home to X and Meta, loves its First Amendment—good luck extraditing from there. China, troll farm central, doesn’t play nice with outsiders poking its digital turf. Post-Rome Statute exit (2019), the Philippines isn’t exactly the UN’s golden child—Remulla’s bravado could leave Manila friendless. Takeaway: Cyber-sovereignty’s cool ‘til you’re the kid no one picks for dodgeball.

Public Trust: Savior or Marcos-Era Redux?

Remulla’s “majority” spiel sounds noble, but Filipinos have PTSD from Martial Law’s media chokehold. Ressa’s case still stings—cybercrime as a dissent-crusher isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s history. Without transparency (who’s a “peddler”? what’s “chaos”?), this looks like authoritarian cosplay, not a fix for disinformation. Takeaway: The public’s not buying “trust us” from a government with a gag reflex.

Fixing Remulla’s Fumble: A Playbook That Might Actually Work

Remulla’s heart’s in the right place—fake news is a scourge—but his plan’s a legal dumpster fire. Here’s how to salvage it:

Legislative Overhaul: Congress, get off your duff. Amend RA 10175 to define “disinformation” tight—imminent harm only, no “feelings” clause. Hyperlink it to ICCPR standards so it’s not a censorship starter kit.
Diplomatic Hustle: Ink cybercrime deals with the U.S., China, wherever trolls spawn. Make “fake news” extraditable—dual criminality’s a hurdle, but charm might crack it.
Judicial Leash: Supreme Court, issue warrant rules for extraterritorial grabs. Vivares says privacy’s not optional—don’t let Remulla freestyle this.
Narrow the Net: Define “fake news” in court-worthy terms—defamation or sedition, not “stuff I don’t like.” Vague laws are tyrants’ BFFs.
Smart Alternatives: Skip the jail-first approach. Fund media literacy—teach Filipinos to smell BS, not beg the state for a filter. Push platforms (X, Meta) to self-regulate—EU’s Digital Services Act shows how.

The Verdict: Swagger vs. Substance

Remulla isn’t wrong—disinformation spreads like a digital plague, and someone has to fight it. But his global crackdown is more show than strategy. The Budapest Convention and RA 10175 offer a weak foundation; MLATs, dual criminality, and free speech rulings chip away at it. Politically, it’s a power move masquerading as justice—risky abroad, polarizing at home. Without legal reinforcements, international backing, and a judiciary willing to play along, this isn’t a revolution—it’s a mirage in handcuffs.