THE Senate’s consideration of Senate Bill No. 2424, or the Child Online Safety and Protection Act, comes amid not only following the series of unfortunate events involving students in the Philippines but also the growing global movement to protect children from the risks of social media.
Sponsored by Senator Robinhood Padilla, the bill sets 16 as the minimum age for accounts on age-restricted social-media platforms. It requires age-assurance systems, platform safety measures, local representation for foreign platforms, and DICT enforcement. Educational platforms certified by DepEd, CHED, or TESDA are exempt. It also provides privacy safeguards and does not penalize parents for ordinary failures of supervision absent gross and willful negligence.
The senators supporting the measure bring different concerns. Senate President Gatchalian stresses online violence, extremist influence and digital citizenship. Senator Zubiri emphasizes parental guidance. Senator Tulfo focuses on cyberbullying, exploitation and addiction. Senator Villanueva highlights bullying and classroom distraction, while Senator Lacson discusses social development, sleep, attention and compulsive use.
But international experience shows that banning or restricting social media is not a simple solution.
Australia offers the clearest test. Since December 2025, designated platforms have been required to prevent under-16s from maintaining accounts. The policy has reduced account ownership, but substantial numbers of children still retain accounts. Australia’s Safety Commissioner found that platforms faced continuing difficulties identifying underage users and preventing workarounds.
Australia also demonstrates an important advantage: the law places responsibility primarily on platforms, not children or parents. Under-16s can still access public content and use many messaging, gaming, and educational services.
France provides a different warning. Its proposed under-15 social-media ban was blocked by the Constitutional Council in August 2026 because it disproportionately affected freedom of expression and lacked sufficient safeguards for personal data.
The lesson is clear. A strict ban can reduce exposure, but it can also create enforcement, privacy, and constitutional problems.
The Philippines should therefore adopt the principle behind SBN 2424 while learning from other countries. Age assurance should be effective but privacy-preserving; platforms should be independently audited; wrongly excluded users should have an appeal mechanism; and the government should regularly evaluate the law.
The most amenable approach is neither unrestricted access nor an absolute ban. It is a targeted minimum age, strong platform accountability, parental guidance, educational exceptions, privacy protection and continuous review.
We should not keep Filipino children away from technology. We should make the digital environment safer before asking children to navigate it alone.
