Descrição do caso
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.
Comentários
The Meta Oversight Board’s review of a Facebook video falsely framing a Serbian protest as a pro-Duterte rally in the Netherlands underscores the cross-border nature of political disinformation and the urgent need for context-driven enforcement. This case tests how Meta applies its policies during politically sensitive moments and whether its Third-Party Fact-Checking Program can respond effectively to localized manipulation of global events. In the Philippines, such falsehoods are often adapted with cultural nuance and spread through coordinated amplification, making local expertise essential for timely and accurate intervention. This comment addresses five key areas raised by the Board: spread and impact, policy adequacy, fact-checking effectiveness, human rights concerns, and research-backed recommendations—drawing on investigative reporting, fact-checking experience, and relevant studies to highlight gaps in Meta’s current approach and propose solutions that strengthen both content integrity and freedom of expression.
Recent trends on the spread of political misinformation in the Philippines and how it shapes public reaction to current events.:
A recurring trend in the Philippines involves multiple accounts resharing identical or slightly modified misleading videos. This tactic allows political misinformation to evade detection and retain virality, reinforcing false narratives in public discourse.
This coordinated strategy has been repeatedly observed in the Philippine political information landscape. In April 2025, Reuters documented how such networks were used to amplify support for former President Duterte ahead of the midterm elections. Similarly, a Philstar investigation uncovered around 200 seemingly unconnected Facebook accounts posting identical text falsely claiming Duterte had been abducted by law enforcers and taken to the International Criminal Court. The strategy employed by disinformation actors, as cited in these reports, appears to be effective. Sentiments amplified by these networks continue to persist and are now echoed by legitimate social media accounts in their own postings and comment section discussions.
The scope, adequacy and impact of Meta’s policies on political misinformation:
While we appreciate Meta’s effort to implement a policy on misinformation, we at PressOne.PH join the broader fact-checking community in expressing concern over Meta’s decision to step back from coordinating with third-party fact-checkers in the United States. We are also concerned about the possibility that similar decisions could be made in other regions, including the Philippines.
The spread of political misinformation, such as the case in question, could have been prevented, or at least minimized, if Meta had considered the contextual expertise of fact-checkers who had already debunked the same narrative. At least three fact-checking organizations, including two certified third-party fact-checkers for Meta, have refuted this claim, which has been shared across multiple social media accounts in different forms.
FACT-CHECK: Serbian protest misrepresented as rally of Duterte supporters in the Netherlands by PressOne.PH
FACT CHECK: 'Duterte' chants in video are manipulated, not taken in Netherlands by Rappler
FACT CHECK: Video shows Serbian protesters, NOT Duterte supporters by VeraFiles.org
It is possible that Meta’s decision to keep the original video online was due to the fact that the fact-checks did not address the exact same version of the claim that was reported. This reflects a gap in enforcement and highlights a shortcoming in Meta’s current approach. The platform must acknowledge how coordinated disinformation campaigns often rely on slight variations of the same false narrative to avoid detection.
The role and effectiveness of third-party fact-checkers
The disinformation crisis in the Philippines is not as straightforward as what has been observed in Western countries. It often relies heavily on layered elements such as local jargon, humor, memes, double meanings, innuendo, cultural stereotypes, regional biases, dog whistles, and even coded language rooted in political history. These elements make many posts appear harmless or ambiguous on the surface, but their real meaning is clear to Filipino audiences.
This is where locally based human fact-checkers become essential. Armed with a deep, preexisting understanding of language, culture, and political context, they are able to decode these narratives quickly and accurately. Disinformation is not random. It is deliberate. It is crafted with intent. It is human. And no automated system or crowdsourced model like Community Notes can fully match the capability of a trained, local fact-checker who understands the nuances of the information ecosystem and how weaponized content is designed to bypass moderation.
Freedom of expression and human rights concerns in content moderation
The accusation that fact-checkers in the Philippines are an affront to freedom of expression and other fundamental rights is not a widely accepted notion, but it is also not new. This claim often comes from the very perpetrators of disinformation, particularly individuals or groups who have been repeatedly fact-checked and have seen their misleading content subjected to reduced visibility or removal by social media platforms. There is no empirical evidence proving that the work of fact-checkers has suppressed anyone’s right to express themselves. Importantly, the decision to take action on content is not made by fact-checkers. Meta retains full authority over platform enforcement decisions, based on the assessments and evidence presented by fact-checkers. That distinction must be made clear.
An argument can be made that the fact-checker’s pursuit of truth is, in itself, a pursuit of protecting human rights. By pushing back against harmful falsehoods, fact-checkers help preserve the integrity of public discourse, ensure access to accurate information, and protect vulnerable communities from targeted deception or manipulation. In doing so, they do not limit freedom. They strengthen it by supporting a more informed and responsible exercise of that freedom.
Research or recommendations relevant to Meta’s fact-checking program
Research indicates that third-party fact-checking programs play a critical role in reducing the spread of misinformation, but their effectiveness relies heavily on contextual understanding and timely intervention. In the Philippine context, fact-checkers with deep local knowledge are uniquely positioned to identify culturally specific tactics used in disinformation campaigns—tactics that automated systems often fail to detect. Therefore, Meta should continue to prioritize partnerships with local fact-checking organizations and invest in capacity building to enhance their reach and responsiveness.
Meta should also take into account the extensive body of research on how disinformation actors exploit content repetition across multiple accounts as part of coordinated schemes. Studies conducted not only by academic institutions but also by organizations such as the European External Action Service should prompt Meta to reconsider any moves to scale back its collaboration with third-party fact-checkers. This research should also encourage Meta to implement more systematic mechanisms for identifying and addressing near-identical or slightly altered posts.
In response to the call for public comments on the case of protest footage paired with pro-Duterte chants, the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) would like to provide the Oversight Board with its perspective on third-party fact-checking, and to highlight crucial data and empirical evidence regarding its impact and functionality. All details can be found in the attached document.
Should the Board have any questions or would like to discuss any of the points raised with us, we are at your disposal.
Political misinformation like this can distort public perception during critical global events. Platforms must act swiftly, even in the absence of fact-checker input, to reduce the spread of false narratives that may influence opinion and undermine accountability.