Two bills seeking to restrict children’s access to social media in the Philippines are moving toward a bicameral conference, raising questions about how technology companies will implement age-verification requirements while protecting users’ privacy and constitutional rights.
The Senate approved Senate Bill No. 2424, or the SMART KIDS Act, on October 8, while the House of Representatives passed House Bill No. 11566, or the SAFE Kids Act, on October 12. Lawmakers are expected to reconcile the two measures before a final version is submitted for congressional ratification and presidential approval.
While both bills aim to protect children from online harm, they differ significantly in their proposed restrictions and compliance requirements.
The Senate version prohibits children below 18 from accessing social media, regardless of parental consent. The House version sets the minimum age at 13, allowing users aged 13 to 17 with verifiable parental consent, subject to restrictions on features including advertising, recommendations, livestreaming, endless scrolling, and short-form video feeds.
These differences were examined during “Child Lock, Bit by Bit: A Dialogue on Tech, Law, and Keeping Kids Safe Online”, held on November 5 at the Rockwell Club in Makati City.
Organized by legal technology platform ePanyero and startup ecosystem builder Brainsparks, the forum brought together lawyers, technology executives, entrepreneurs, educators, and parents to discuss the legal and practical implications of the proposed legislation.
“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.”
Ongcangco, a lawyer and technology entrepreneur with more than 15 years of industry experience, is also Managing Partner of Ongcangco Tingson Law, a Partner at technology development firm Concept Machine, and Founder and CEO of wellness booking platform Parlon.
ePanyero develops digital tools for legal professionals and organizes discussions on technology and the law. Its co-organizer, Brainsparks, supports Philippine startups through innovation programs, mentoring, and ecosystem events.
Atty. Oliver Moeller, Co-Founder of ePanyero and Vice-President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu City Chapter, presented an overview of the two bills, highlighting differences in age restrictions, verification procedures, enforcement, and penalties.
Under the Senate proposal, platforms would primarily verify users’ ages through PhilSys or other government-issued identification, with the issuing agency confirming eligibility. The House proposal would require platforms to establish their own age-assurance frameworks, subject to regulatory oversight, and re-verify users every six months.
For technology companies, these requirements could introduce additional costs and changes to user registration, account management, and platform design.
Ann Cuisia, CEO of TraXion Tech, estimated that existing identity verification procedures cost approximately $0.50 to $1 per user. A technology executive with more than 30 years of experience in fintech, cybersecurity, and digital innovation, Cuisia has also participated in legislative technical working groups.
“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.”
The distinction between identity verification and age assurance is significant. Requiring platforms to establish whether users meet a minimum age threshold does not necessarily mean collecting their full personal information.
Alexis Collado, Co-Founder and Chief Design Officer of AI engineering consultancy Swarm, noted that compliance could extend well beyond verifying a user’s age.
Under the House proposal, platforms would need to design separate experiences for teenage users, incorporating restricted features, parental consent mechanisms, and account permissions.
“You have to design that natively by default,” he said.
For startups and smaller technology companies, such requirements could mean additional development work, ongoing maintenance, and compliance expenses. Questions also remain about which applications would fall under the legislation, particularly platforms combining social networking, messaging, gaming, and other digital services.
Miko Cornejo, Co-Founder of ePanyero, Partner at Concept Machine, and Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer of Parlon, moderated the technology panel. He emphasized that compliance would involve more than a one-time adjustment.
“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.”
The proposed legislation also raises constitutional questions involving freedom of expression, access to information, and parental authority.
Atty. Harvey Bilang, a Court Attorney at the Supreme Court and professor of constitutional law and criminal justice, questioned the extent to which the state could restrict children’s access to digital platforms.
“Liberty is the rule,” he said. “Regulation and prohibition by the state is the exception.”
On the Senate bill’s prohibition regardless of parental consent, Bilang 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.”
Atty. Leo Camacho, a constitutional law professor at Ateneo Law School and Senior Manager at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, similarly raised questions about whether broad restrictions would meet constitutional standards.
“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?”
These concerns do not establish that either proposal is unconstitutional, but highlight legal questions that may need to be resolved as lawmakers finalize the legislation.
Leonina Morillo, Executive Director of PhilDev Foundation and an economist with more than 15 years of experience in development policy, also cautioned against restrictions that could limit young people’s access to digital opportunities.
“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.”
Beyond technology and legal concerns, the legislation could also affect businesses that rely on social media to reach customers.
Atty. Kristina de Guzman, a lawyer, entrepreneur, and former public sector leader, raised the implications for small and medium enterprises that depend on social platforms for marketing and advertising.
The Senate proposal provides for fines ranging from ₱5 million to ₱20 million for platform violations, along with penalties for parents who knowingly help children circumvent age restrictions. The House version also provides for fines reaching ₱20 million but emphasizes education and support rather than parental penalties.
Implementation timelines remain another concern. Under the Senate proposal, existing accounts belonging to minors would have to be disabled within 30 days of the law taking effect, while implementing rules would be issued within 90 days.
Cuisia questioned whether the proposed requirements could be implemented effectively without clearer technical guidelines.
“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.”
With the two bills awaiting reconciliation, the final age threshold, verification requirements, platform coverage, and compliance timelines remain unresolved.
For technology companies and developers, the resulting legislation could determine not only who can access their platforms but also how those platforms must be designed, operated, and maintained.