TikTok Philippines warned that imposing a blanket age-based ban on children’s access to online platforms and digital services would run counter to the Constitution, saying that while the state has a duty to protect children, they also have rights to be respected.
Instead of a blanket ban, it called for a multi-stakeholder framework and regulation of “risk-bearing features instead of entire applications,” saying it’s not only the state, but the parents as well who should guide the children.
TikTok Philippines, through its Head of Public Policy Yves Gonzales, submitted its position paper to the House of Representatives last month in response to a bill that seeks to ban children 13 and below from creating and using social media accounts.
The bill also proposes that those 13 to below 18 would be allowed to use social media accounts only with verifiable parental or guardian consent and active, continuous supervision.
Measures calling for a social media ban on minors have been filed amid concerns about how these are affecting children’s mental health and well-being and exposing them to dangers.
In its position paper, TikTok said the internet has become an indispensable part of children’s lives, and they use it for communication, self-expression, and as a tool to get information and form relationships.
It said that while children should be protected from its dangers, this should not come at the cost of curtailing their rights and preventing them from participating fully in modern social, educational, and civic life.
“Blanket age-based prohibitions on children’s access to digital services are unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny,” it said.
“Legislation that categorically prohibits minors from accessing entire classes of digital platforms does not regulate the use of technology. Rather, it mistakenly excludes children from the very forums in which they exercise constitutionally protected freedoms,” it added.
It said a sweeping ban based on age infringes upon children’s rights to speech, expression, assembly, and religion.
Citing the Supreme Court ruling in SPARK v Quezon City concerning curfews for minors, TikTok said restrictions should serve a compelling state interest and be the least restrictive means of protecting that interest.
“A blanket age-based social media ban restricts harmful and legitimate activity alike, excluding minors from platforms used for communication, education, access to information, creative expression, and public participation regardless of the actual risk involved or parental authorization. SPARK demonstrates why this distinction matters,” it said.
It said banning children from digital platforms excludes them from forums where they tend to express themselves and exercise their freedom of association in the digital age.
“The constitutional injury lies not merely in restricting access to a particular application, but in denying children meaningful participation in the modern marketplace of ideas and associations,” it said.
It also said the dangers to children arise not from their mere presence in the online platform, but in features such as unrestricted direct messaging, anonymous communications, location-sharing, or algorithm-driven interactions that may put them at greater risk.
A multi-stakeholder framework involving different levels of protection is a better alternative, it said.
It said app stores would handle the task of age verification and parental consent to allow child protection without automatically excluding minors from legitimate digital activity.
It also said the focus should be on regulating features that could expose children to risks, not the entire application.
“The relevant harm often arises from specific functionalities—such as unrestricted messaging with strangers, public location sharing, access to mature content, or harmful recommendation systems—not from every function of the application. Targeting those features addresses the source of the risk while preserving legitimate and low risk uses,” it said.
TikTok also said there is no conclusive evidence that blanket age-based prohibitions are effective, adding that these do not give children the knowledge and resilience to properly navigate online spaces.
“Thus, protecting children cannot be achieved simply by postponing their participation in digital life,” it said.
It should not be a choice between children’s safety and their rights, as both can be secured, it added.