1 December 2025
In June 2022, in the Philippines, the National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon requested that the National Telecommunications Commission direct all internet service providers to block access to several independent news websites. This request resulted in a memorandum sent to the ISPs, which led to the blocking of Bulatlat and Pinoy Weekly, both of which were hosted on Qurium’s secure infrastructure. The case brought before the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City focused on the legality of this blocking order and its impact on press freedom.
On November 18, 2025, the Court issued its decision. Although the case was ultimately dismissed, we warmly welcome the Court’s clear recognition of the importance of freedom of expression, press freedom, and the public’s right to access independent journalism. The Court emphasized that blocking access to news websites is a serious matter that goes to the heart of democratic life. It acknowledged that restricting access to journalism, particularly without transparency, notice, or due process, raises deep constitutional concerns. We appreciate the Court’s principled and thoughtful stance on these essential freedoms.
At the same time, the decision leaves several important issues unresolved. The case was dismissed for procedural reasons, meaning the Court determined that a different legal approach should have been used. Because of this, the Court was unable to rule on whether the government’s blocking order was lawful or justified. While we respect the procedural rules, this means that the fundamental questions surrounding censorship remain unanswered.
The ruling also took more than three years to reach. When news websites are blocked, the harm is immediate, ongoing, and deeply felt by both journalists and their audiences. Cases involving access to information require timely resolution, since each day of restricted access limits the ability of journalists to serve the public.
The Court additionally stated that the blocking had not been properly proven, but it did not explain what type of evidence would be required to demonstrate intentional interference with access to a website. This is especially relevant because Qurium is internationally recognized for its expertise in digital forensics and in documenting internet blocking and cyberattacks worldwide. Our forensic investigations have supported journalists, civil society groups, and international institutions in exposing unlawful censorship. Yet the ruling offered no guidance on what more would have been considered sufficient proof, leaving future complainants uncertain about how to demonstrate technical interference.
Despite these limitations, we remain encouraged by the Court’s strong language affirming the value of free expression and the need to protect independent media from unjust restrictions. These principles are vital to any democratic society.
At Qurium, we will continue to defend freedom of expression and support the work of independent media, human rights defenders, and civil society organizations across the world. We stand firmly with partners like Bulatlat, Pinoy Weekly, and all newsrooms that depend on an open and secure internet to reach the public.
We remain committed to ensuring that information stays online, censorship is exposed, and people everywhere can exercise their right to speak, publish, and be heard.