Philippine presidential palace seeks further review of social media franchise proposal

Malacañang, the Philippine presidential palace, wants further scrutiny of a proposal that would require major social media platforms to obtain a franchise from Congress before operating in the Philippines. The issue is worth monitoring for the franchising community, but there is a clear distinction: the proposal concerns statutory permission for platforms to operate, not a commercial agreement to use a brand.

Palace: weigh the impact on businesses

According to a GMA News report dated 25 September 2026, Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said the proposal had merit but needed further study. The assessment should consider its potential benefits and drawbacks, as well as its possible implications for businesses and people who use social media.

The proposal in question is House Bill No. 4786, which would make a legislative franchise a condition for operating platforms covered by its provisions in the country. The palace did not suggest that the current proposal was ready for immediate implementation; its statement emphasised the need for further review.

RMN also reported on 25 September that Malacañang had called for both sides of the proposal to be weighed. For businesses following the issue, this distinction matters: recognising a proposal’s aims does not amount to final approval of its provisions.

DICT support and the scope of the proposal

In a separate Philstar report on 25 September, Henry Aguda, Secretary of the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), expressed support for requiring platforms to obtain a legislative franchise. At a press briefing on 24 September, he linked the proposal to public safety and public service, citing the wide-reaching influence of digital platforms.

Aguda also noted that radio and television broadcasters must obtain legislative franchises, pay taxes and comply with rules governing news reporting. He presented this comparison as part of his case for supporting the proposal.

According to the same report, Representative David Suarez of Quezon’s Second District filed the bill on 23 September. It seeks to amend Commonwealth Act No. 146, known as the Public Service Act, by adding a provision classifying the platforms covered by the bill as public services with a significant impact on the public.

Under the proposal, these platforms would need a franchise from Congress before operating in the Philippines, much like broadcasting companies, telecommunications companies and electricity providers.

Two different meanings of franchise

For QFA readers, it is important to clarify the terminology. The franchise referred to in this news story is permission granted by Congress. It is not an offer to invest in a brand, open an outlet or become a partner in expanding a business.

The proposal should therefore not be read as a new rule on acquiring a conventional business franchise. The reports specifically concern permission for the social media platforms covered by the bill to operate in the Philippines.

Nevertheless, the franchising community has reason to follow developments: the palace itself acknowledged that businesses and users could be affected. The reports cited do not yet identify what changes, costs or obligations businesses using those platforms might face. Nor do they provide enough information to determine the potential effects on sales or customer engagement.

What should businesses watch for?

At the stage described in the reports, the measure remains a proposal. They provide no basis for saying that the new requirement is already in force or that platforms have been given a compliance deadline.

Businesses should monitor the outcome of the review, the precise scope of the provisions and any subsequent changes to the bill. They should also distinguish between the DICT’s statement of support and the palace’s call for further study; these are separate elements of the current debate.

A practical reminder: follow official announcements before changing business plans. Do not treat the proposal as an existing obligation, and check that each report you read is referring to a legislative franchise—not a business franchise.