Case Description
In March 2025, shortly after former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested to face charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged crimes against humanity, a Facebook user reshared an eight-second video. It was originally posted by another Facebook user and shows crowds of people protesting on the street, carrying signs and the Serbian flag.
The video is accompanied by audio of people repeatedly chanting “Duterte!” Playing over the video is a patriotic Tagalog song, “Bayan Ko,” which was popular during protests against the Marcos dictatorship. The video also contains text overlay stating, “Netherland.” The original post’s caption says, “Netherlands supporters,” while the post resharing the video, which is the subject of this case, has pleading-face emojis with no text. Meta's fact-checkers have rated similar footage, paired with similar audio and described as pro-Duterte protests, as “false.” The original video footage appears to be of an anti-corruption protest that took place in Serbia, rather than a pro-Duterte rally in the Netherlands, where the ICC is based. Moreover, the audio appears to be unrelated to the rally depicted in the video.
When the original video was posted, a Meta classifier identified the content as possible misinformation and sent it to third-party fact-checkers for review. According to Meta, its “technology can detect posts that are likely to be misinformation based on various signals, including whether users flag it as false information or comments ‘express disbelief.’” Fact-checkers decide which posts to review, and according to Meta, fact-checkers did not rate the original post. Days later, a user reported the content resharing the original post. Based on its guidelines for prioritizing reviews, Meta did not review the content, and it remained on Facebook.
After being informed of Meta’s decision to keep the content up, the user who reported the post appealed Meta’s decision. A moderator reviewed the initial decision and upheld it. The user then appealed to the Oversight Board. In their statement to the Board, the user states that the video is “misleading” because the alleged pro-Duterte protest did not take place.
The Board selected this case to assess how Meta’s policies and enforcement practices address misinformation, especially when shared during moments of heightened political tension. Under its Misinformation policy, Meta removes content directly linked to physical harm, as well as “voter or census interference.” For other types of misinformation, the company focuses on “reducing its prevalence” and “foster[ing] a productive dialogue.” Outside the United States, content may be referred to fact-checkers. This case falls within the Board’s Elections and Civic Space strategic priority.
As a result of the Board selecting this case, Meta again enqueued the original post to its fact-checkers for review. Meta explains that it is ultimately left to the discretion of fact-checkers to select which content to review, what rating to apply, and how Meta should apply that rating to identical and near-identical content.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- Recent trends on the spread of political misinformation in the Philippines and how it shapes public reaction to current events.
- The scope, adequacy and impact of Meta’s policies on political misinformation.
- How third-party fact-checking impacts freedom of expression and other human rights in discussions of public importance.
- How third-party fact-checkers prioritize content for review and address identical and near-identical content to posts that are already fact-checked.
- Research into the impacts of Meta’s third-party fact-checking program, as well as alternative or complementary measures.
As part of its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding Meta must respond to them within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to this case.
Public Comments
If you or your organization feel you can contribute valuable perspectives that can help with reaching a decision on the case announced today, you can submit your contributions using the button below. Please note that public comments can be provided anonymously. The public comment window is open for 14 days, closing at 23.59 Pacific Standard Time (PST) on Tuesday 5 August.
What’s Next
Over the next few weeks, Board Members will be deliberating this case. Once they have reached their decision, we will post it on the Decisions page.
