For the first time, both the Senate and the House have passed bills that would set a minimum age for social media accounts in the Philippines. The Senate approved Senate Bill No. 2424, the proposed SMART KIDS Act, on October 8. The House of Representatives approved House Bill No. 11566, the proposed SAFE Kids Act, on October 12.
The two bills share a goal but differ on the age line, the role of parents, how age is checked, who enforces the rules, the penalties and the compliance timeline. A bicameral conference committee is expected to convene soon to reconcile them into one measure for the President’s signature.
Both bills were the subject of “Child Lock, Bit by Bit: A Dialogue on Tech, Law, and Keeping Kids Safe Online,” held on November 5 at the Palm Grove, Rockwell Club, by legal tech platform ePanyero and startup ecosystem builder Brainsparks. A panel of lawyers and a policy economist and a panel of technology founders and executives discussed the bills before founders, developers, designers, educators and parents.
“Law and technology often speak different languages,” said Atty. Kristine Claire Ongcangco, Co Founder of ePanyero, opening the program. “The law says ‘shall.’ The code says ‘if, then, else.’ Both readings are valid, and both are needed for a rule to work in real life. Today is about putting those two readings in one room.”
“The concerns are real,” said Coach Artie Lopez, Co-Founder of Brainsparks. “But there are a lot of valid questions. How do we actually check for age? What does it mean for our privacy, and for builders like us? Today isn’t about telling you what to think. It is about giving you the information so that you feel armed to think for yourselves.”
Talaan ng Nilalaman
The Age Question
Every argument came back to a single number. The Senate bill sets it at 18, and the ban “is absolute and shall not be waived by parental or guardian consent, authorization, or supervision, under any circumstance.” The House bill sets it at 13, and lets 13-to-17-year-olds in with verifiable parental consent and a dozen features switched off, among them advertisements, recommendations, livestreaming, endless scrolling and short-form video feeds.
Atty. Oliver Moeller, Co-Founder of ePanyero, who delivered the primer on both bills, asked the audience to hold every provision up to three tests. “Is the goal compelling? Will the mechanism reach the harm they intend to stop, or only the users who comply?” he said. “And just as important: is there a gentler way? Could a less intrusive measure do the job just as well, leaving other rights alone?”
Atty. Harvey Bilang, a professor of constitutional law and criminal justice, started from the Bill of Rights. “Liberty is the rule,” he said. “Regulation and prohibition by the state is the exception.” On the Senate bill’s no-override rule, he added: “The state is only a second parent. At the end of the day, the primary care and custody of the child is given to the parent.”
Ms. Leonina Morillo, Executive Director of PhilDev Foundation, looked at the same line as an economist. “Digital citizenship is not like a driver’s license at the age of 18,” she said. “We want to protect, not isolate, the opportunities that are available to the Filipino youth.”
The Verification
Under the Senate bill, a platform confirms age primarily through PhilSys or another government ID, checked by the issuing agency, and receives only a yes or no. Under the House bill, each platform files its own age assurance framework with a new SAFE Kids Office under the DICT, re-verifies users twice a year, and treats anyone whose age it cannot establish as a child. Either way, Bilang observed, a rule written for minors lands on adults: “Everyone would have to go through that process in order to prove that you are above whatever set limits.”
Ann Cuisia, CEO of TraXion Tech and a former technical working group member for bills in the Senate and the House, said current checks cost roughly half a dollar to a dollar per user, and the bills would make them continuous. “We doubt that all of the government agencies with ID have an API,” she said. “Let’s separate eKYC versus age verification,” she added. “This is a yes or no only, of the age of a person. No collection of anything.”
Alexis Collado, Co-Founder and Chief Design Officer of Swarm, said the harder work begins after the age check. Under the House bill, a teen account is a different product from an adult’s: features switched off, parental consent collected and honored if withdrawn, and permissions, roles and parental controls built in from the start. “You have to design that natively by default,” he said. Whether small teams can build that, and whether government systems can confirm an identity in real time, he said, the bills leave open.
Atty. Leo Camacho, a constitutional law professor and public policy expert, said any rule that touches fundamental rights must pass the courts’ strict scrutiny test. “The regulation must involve the least restrictive means,” he said. “So it begs the question: is a wholesale, wide-ranging ban of digital services and platforms the least intrusive policy to prevent harms to children in society?”
From Bill to Build
A law about platforms is, in the end, a product specification. Miko Cornejo, Co-Founder of ePanyero, who moderated the tech panel, set out the order in which a builder has to think. “We start with feasibility: how do we verify age, what are the technologies available? Then scope and coverage: how do we know if our app is covered, and what do we do while that’s still up in the air?” he said. “And after that, the management and upkeep. Because it’s not a one-time thing.”
Cuisia’s request to the drafters was precision. “Vagueness is the killer of development,” she said. “You need to be very specific when it comes to identifying risk.” She also flagged the Senate bill’s clock: minors’ existing accounts must be disabled within 30 days of effectivity, while the implementing rules are due in 90. The House bill’s rules are also due in 90 days.
The bills also say who pays. The Senate bill fines platforms PHP 5 million to PHP 20 million per violation and, for parents who knowingly and willfully help a child around an age check, PHP 5,000 to PHP 50,000 or community service. The House bill’s fines rise with each offense to PHP 20 million, with education and support for parents instead of penalties. Neither penalizes a child.
What It Means at Home
Atty. Kristina de Guzman, a lawyer and former public sector leader, spoke as the mother of a 13-year-old and a 9-year-old, and as a small business owner. “A lot of the people who would be affected are SMEs, to which I belong. SMEs use social media a lot, not just for putting out their products and services, but also the ads,” she said. “So there should be more public hearings and consultations.”
Cuisia, herself the mother of two teenagers, offered the measure she would hold the law to. “We shouldn’t be so much after how many IDs were verified or how many accounts were disabled,” she said. “We should really measure how safe, or if we actually protected, children online.”
Moeller closed by naming who will finish the job. “Legislation on child safety online will not be perfected in committee hearings alone,” he said. “It will be shaped by educators, by parents, by technologists who understand what is feasible and what is theater, and by lawyers who can see where good intentions collide with constitutional limitations. And the children we are protecting today will be adults holding us accountable tomorrow.”
Ongcangco had explained the event’s name at the start. “A child lock may be a small thing, but it carries a big promise: that someone thought about the child’s safety long before the car ever hit the road,” she said. “That is what good law and good technology can do together.”
A panyero, she reminded the audience, is a companion, someone who walks the road with you. “Lawyers and founders, parents and educators, builders and policymakers, walking this road together,” she said. “Let’s unlock this together, bit by bit.”