ARTICLE 19 is alarmed by a recent smear campaign carried out by the Chinese embassy in the Philippines targeting an investigative journalism outlet following their reporting on Chinese influence operations in the country. The online harassment is part of a broader pattern of transnational repression and influence operations in the Philippines’ information space that seeks to discredit China-critical narratives. It undermines the right of the media to independently carry out critical journalism and share information in the public interest. ARTICLE 19 calls for the Chinese embassy to cease its harassment of independent journalists, and for Filipino authorities to use available diplomatic channels and protection mechanisms to respond and maintain the safety of the targeted outlet.
In October 2025, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) published print and video reporting by Regine Cabato analysing Chinese influence operations in the country. Following publication, the Chinese embassy in the Philippines shared a series of Facebook posts smearing the investigative outlet, attacking their credibility and suggesting their reporting served foreign, rather than Philippine, interests.
PCIJ found that accounts aligned with ex-president Rodrigo Duterte quickly circulated the embassy’s initial post, resulting in over 400 re-shares to a combined audience of at least 3 million followers within 24 hours. In a 2025 hearing, Duterte-aligned influencers had confirmed participation in Chinese-funded media training seminars, with one participant stating he ‘gained an understanding of “how China media works”’. These subsidised trips are a common tactic in China’s foreign information manipulation operations playbook; they persuade local elites and other non-Chinese proxies to push Beijing’s preferred narratives.
This most recent harassment aimed at undermining the independence and credibility of PCIJ is part of a broader pattern of interference that targets information critical of the Chinese government. It is also consistent with previous instances of pro-Duterte accounts amplifying pro-China content. In 2020, for example, Meta removed nearly 200 Facebook and Instagram accounts and pages that were part of two separate networks originating in China and largely focused on coordinated information operations in the Philippines. The exertion of diplomatic pressure directly from the embassy, however, is a brazen escalation of this strategy, and a clear example of transnational repression as documented elsewhere by ARTICLE 19.
We welcome the statement by the Philippines’ Presidential Task Force on Media Security, which affirms that ‘attacks on journalists who expose critical public-interest issues represent a direct assault on press freedom and democratic transparency’.
Part of what constitutes the chilling impacts of online attacks and smear campaigns – especially when they emanate from authority figures – is their cumulative effect. Regine Cabato reported receiving a deluge of sexist abuse, threats, and other harassment privately on Messenger and publicly through Facebook comments on the pages of political influencers. Such online attacks, a common form of tech-facilitated gender-based violence, serve to dehumanise and silence journalists, heightening the risk of offline escalation and contributing to psychological harm.
The Philippines government must promptly and thoroughly investigate the harassment of the PCIJ by the Chinese embassy in Manila, which constitutes an act of transnational repression and information suppression. The government’s response must address both the personal safety of those targeted and the right of the PCIJ and others to conduct investigative journalism freely and without fear of reprisal.
The Philippines government must recognise those attacks are not isolated cases but rather part of a broader pattern of intimidation and information manipulation perpetrated by the Chinese state against Philippines journalists. Its response, including through diplomatic channels, must address the wider chilling effect on freedom of expression caused by such harassment.
We further call on Meta and other platforms to consider expanding their existing corporate human rights policies to include distinct acknowledgment of and provisions for digital transnational repression, and in the meantime to ensure equal enforcement of their inauthentic behaviour and harassment policies.