The Senate approved on third and final reading Senate Bill No. 2424 or the proposed Safe Media Access and Responsible Technology for Kids in Digital Spaces (Smart Kids) Act, which would bar persons below 18 years of age from “high-risk” digital platforms. This will be reconciled with the House’s version, which set a minimum age of 13 and allowed conditional access for adolescents aged 13 to 17. The age-based ban set by the Senate seems to have increased from 16 to 18 when compared to earlier versions of the bill. This would make the Philippines, if enacted, one of the countries with the strictest age-based social media bans. For comparison, Australia was the first to restrict social media to those under 16, with other countries soon following suit. Other countries adopted a more lenient cap of under 15, with tiered or conditional access. It is also important to note that Australia is currently struggling with implementation, with the majority of adolescents still having access to social media platforms.
Professional mental health groups, such as the Philippine Mental Health Association and the Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP), have released their respective position statements on the matter, expressing concerns about age-based bans. The PAP, in particular, advocated for reasonable protection without curtailing children’s rights to participation as well as proportionate responsibility. The Smart Kids Act proposes fines for parents who knowingly help minors bypass age-assurance mechanisms without any mention of resources and support that can help parents, aside from mandatory attendance at digital parenting trainings after they have been fined.
There is a more nuanced and supportive bill in the House, House Bill No. 11566. Aside from tiered access, it focuses heavily on creating safeguards as well as improving digital literacy. There are no penalties imposed on parents.
It’s important that we observe the reconciling of these two bills closely. As a mental health professional, I hope that the Senate finds wisdom in the House’s version, especially as it aligns more with our understanding of the risks children face in digital environments. The fact that most, if not all, children’s groups, both advocacy and professional, are alarmed by blanket bans should make the Senate lawmakers take pause if they are headed in the right direction.
Their reasoning for increasing the ban to people under 18 years old seems to be merely for ease of enforcement. They will rely on the national ID (which has its own issues—I have not yet received my physical ID even though I applied for it during the pandemic!). They also didn’t seem to have the appetite to design tiered and developmentally appropriate safeguards. There also isn’t much recognition of the fact that digital environments serve multiple essential functions for children and their families. The lone dissenting vote, Sen. Risa Hontiveros, seemed to be the only one concerned that an outright ban would harm children in various contexts.
The blanket ban for those under 18 is also not consistent with how we’ve applied responsibility and liability for children. At age 15, they are allowed to vote in the Sangguniang Kabataan elections. This is also the minimum employable age. The age of sexual consent is 16. One can get a student permit for driving at age 16. The principal author and sponsor of the bill, Sen. Robinhood Padilla, had even advocated recently to lower the age of criminal liability to 10 years old! So, if a 17-year-old is considered unable to handle and navigate the risks of using social media, how come we allow them to work, vote, and drive?
A penalty- and ban-driven approach only serves to punish the very people we are trying to protect. Parents need support, not the fear of penalties and fines. Whenever I talk to parents about their children’s use of social media and devices, most of them appreciate the risks of unsupervised and unrestricted access. They want to set healthy limits and protect their children from harm, but they don’t know how. We need to give them tools, not threats. We need to give parents a fighting chance to win the battle through technological safeguards and ensure that platforms are designed with safety and moderation in mind.
What we do not do is leave parents all alone to be responsible for keeping gadgets away from their kids, not when devices and social media have become such indispensable tools for modern living. Parents need a community of care behind them—everyone working together to care for the child, not just to keep them safe from harm but also to provide nurturing environments and opportunities to practice their freedom and autonomy.
A ban on its own does not evoke a sense of care. It reads as “I don’t want to navigate this complexity with you—let’s just not deal with it.” Instead, by being willing to take on the complexity of the problem, even if it’s not convenient or easy, we show children and their parents the care they do deserve.
—————
aatuazon@up.edu.ph