Betrayal or Bait? InfinitUs’ Troll Farm Faces Legal Flop but Political Jackpot

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — May 7, 2025

THE InfinitUs Marketing Solutions saga is a geopolitical soap opera, complete with a Chinese Embassy check, a Senate witch hunt, and cries of treason that echo more like campaign slogans. Senate Majority Leader Francis Tolentino is swinging for the fences, but his legal case against InfinitUs is flimsier than a tabloid headline. Here’s a razor-sharp breakdown of the allegations, the legal quagmire, and the political circus fueling this drama—all served with a side of sardonic wit for Kweba ng Kararungan readers who crave substance with their shade.

I. Unmasking the Chaos: The Legal Lowdown

A. Troll Farms and Tangled Lies: What’s the Deal?

InfinitUs, a Makati-based PR outfit, is accused of running troll farms to peddle pro-China disinformation and slander Philippine figures, allegedly bankrolled by a P900,000 check from the Chinese Embassy. Tolentino flashed a supposed contract and the check at a Senate inquiry, claiming InfinitUs betrayed the nation. Founder Paul Li, a Chinese national, denies the contract but admits the check, tying it to a 2023 event—Awards for Promoting Philippines-China Understanding—attended by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself. The contradiction screams either incompetence or intrigue, but it’s a long haul from sketchy PR to high treason.

Geopolitical Stakes: The West Philippine Sea is a powder keg, with China’s maritime moves fueling nationalist rage. The National Security Council’s warnings of Chinese meddling in the 2025 elections add paranoia to the mix. Meanwhile, the Marcos-Duterte feud simmers, with InfinitUs’ alleged anti-Marcos trolling smelling like a Duterte-friendly hit job. This isn’t just about a PR firm—it’s a geopolitical and domestic cage match.

B. Treason? More Like Treasonable Nonsense

Legal Reality Check: Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code defines treason as a Filipino citizen waging war against the Philippines or aiding enemies during wartime. The Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Perez (G.R. No. L-856, 1949) nails it: treason requires a declared war. The Philippines isn’t at war with China, despite West Philippine Sea spats. Spreading disinformation, even if pro-China, doesn’t count as “levying war” or aiding an enemy in peacetime. Tolentino’s claim that InfinitUs’ digital shenanigans are “the highest form of betrayal” is pure grandstanding—legally, it’s DOA.

Citizenship Snag: Paul Li’s Chinese nationality bars him from treason charges, which apply only to Filipinos. Tolentino’s pivot to Filipino directors lacks evidence of their knowing involvement. Without a war, this is a legal fantasy dressed up as patriotism.

“Treason charges without a war? That’s like charging a cat with tax evasion.”

C. Espionage: Chasing Shadows, Not Spies

The Law: Commonwealth Act No. 616 defines espionage as gathering or transmitting information to aid a foreign nation with intent to harm the Philippines. Unlike treason, it applies to foreigners and doesn’t need wartime conditions. But InfinitUs’ alleged troll farms—spreading disinformation, not stealing secrets—don’t fit the espionage mold, which typically involves classified data.

Officer Liability: Tolentino argues Li’s role in a Philippine corporation makes him liable. The Supreme Court in Ching v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 164317, 2006) confirms corporate officers can face criminal charges for active participation in illegal acts. Yet, no evidence links InfinitUs to intelligence gathering. Tolentino’s plea to “amend the laws” admits the current statute’s limits for modern threats like disinformation.

“Espionage? Unless InfinitUs hacked Malacañang’s Wi-Fi, this is just Senate fan fiction.”

D. Cybercrime: The Real Legal Muscle

RA 10175 in Play: The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 offers the strongest case. Section 4(c)(3) on data interference could nail InfinitUs for manipulating online platforms to spread disinformation. Section 4(c)(4) on cyber-libel might apply to targeted attacks on public figures, though proving intent and harm is a slog. If fake accounts misused real identities, Section 4(a)(1) on illegal access could kick in. Comelec Resolution No. 11064, banning election-related disinformation, adds teeth if InfinitUs aimed to sway 2025 voters.

Data Privacy Angle: The Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) could hit InfinitUs if troll farms processed personal data without consent, violating Section 12. The National Privacy Commission (NPC) could probe, but proving data misuse requires digital forensics the Senate hasn’t shown.

Hurdles: General disinformation isn’t explicitly criminalized, and evidentiary gaps—like unauthenticated contracts—weaken the case. Still, cybercrime is the prosecution’s best shot.

E. Corporate Takedown: SEC’s Big Stick

Revocation Power: The Revised Corporation Code (RA 11232) lets the SEC revoke registration for fraud or misrepresentation under Section 138. InfinitUs’ SEC filing as a marketing consultancy doesn’t scream “troll farm,” suggesting potential misrepresentation. The P900,000 payment, if tied to illegal acts, could seal the deal. But due process—notice and hearing—is mandatory under the Administrative Code.

Fraud Angle: If InfinitUs pocketed funds under false pretenses, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (estafa) could apply. Li’s claim that the payment was for a Marcos-attended event complicates things, demanding airtight evidence.

“The SEC could bury InfinitUs, but it’ll need more than Tolentino’s slide deck to dodge a due process lawsuit.”

II. Political Puppet Show: Nationalism for Votes

A. Geopolitical Grandstanding: All Bark, No Bite

Tolentino’s treason tirade is a masterclass in election-year optics. With the 2025 midterms looming, painting InfinitUs as a Chinese stooge exploits West Philippine Sea tensions and fears of electoral meddling flagged by the National Security Council. His re-election campaign thrives on this nationalist flex, turning a Senate inquiry into a soapbox. But the evidence—a check and a disputed contract—is thinner than a campaign promise, suggesting this is more about votes than justice.

B. Cherry-Picking Outrage: Marcos’ Free Pass

The Senate’s obsession with InfinitUs conveniently sidesteps Marcos’ attendance at InfinitUs’ 2023 China-friendly event. If the event was legit, why the witch hunt? If it’s suspect, why no questions for the President? This reeks of Marcos-Duterte bad blood, with InfinitUs’ anti-Marcos trolling aligning with pro-Duterte narratives. Tolentino’s selective fury exposes the inquiry as a political hit job, not a quest for truth.

C. Legislative Black Hole: No Laws, No Problem?

The Philippines is woefully underarmed against foreign-funded disinformation. The Countering Foreign Interference Bill, proposed in January 2025, is stuck in limbo. Singapore’s Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act mandates transparency for political actors—a model Manila desperately needs. Without such laws, Tolentino’s charges lean on outdated statutes, making his crusade feel like a loud but empty stunt.

“Tolentino’s waving a flag, not a law. This is political cosplay, not prosecution.”

III. Fixing the Mess: Reforms to Stop the Next InfinitUs

A. Legal Overhaul: Get with the Times

Supercharge RA 10175: Amend the Cybercrime Prevention Act to criminalize state-sponsored disinformation, with stiff penalties for foreign collusion. The EU’s Digital Services Act regulates online platforms—Manila should take notes.
FARA for the Philippines: Pass a Foreign Agents Registration Act, forcing PR firms to disclose foreign clients, mirroring the U.S.’s FARA. No more shadowy embassy checks.
Election Armor: Empower Comelec with real-time audits of PR firms during elections to catch disinformation before it spreads.

B. Institutional Crackdown: Stop Playing Favorites

SEC Transparency Mandate: Require PR firms to disclose foreign contracts annually, with automatic audits for red flags like embassy ties.
Special Prosecutor Now: Appoint an independent prosecutor via the DOJ’s Office of Cybercrime to probe InfinitUs, sidestepping Senate theatrics.
NPC Muscle: Fast-track NPC investigations into data misuse under RA 10173, hitting violators with hefty fines.

C. Ethical Wake-Up Call: PR Needs a Soul

The PR industry must clean house. The U.S. PR Council’s ban on troll farms is a start—Philippine firms should adopt similar codes. InfinitUs’ alleged data misuse demands NPC action under RA 10173, sending a message: ethical lapses aren’t just bad PR, they’re illegal.

Conclusion: A Scandal Long on Drama, Short on Justice

InfinitUs is less a traitor than a political piñata. Treason and espionage charges are legal pipe dreams, doomed by wartime requirements and lack of evidence. Cybercrime and SEC revocation offer better odds but face evidentiary hurdles. Tolentino’s nationalist crusade, timed for the 2025 elections, is a masterstroke of political theater but risks burying real fixes: modern laws, transparent institutions, and ethical accountability. Until those arrive, InfinitUs is just the latest act in a digital circus the Philippines can’t afford to ignore.