Are Deepfakes Illegal in the Philippines? 2026 Law Guide

Last materially reviewed: October 4, 2026

Direct Answer

Deepfakes are not automatically illegal in every situation in the Philippines, and there is not yet one comprehensive enacted law that bans all deepfakes. But creating, publishing, sharing or using a deepfake can already create legal liability under existing laws depending on what the content depicts, whose identity or personal data is used, whether consent exists, whether the content is deceptive or defamatory, and whether it is used for fraud, harassment, impersonation or another unlawful purpose.

For the broader AI-law, privacy, security and identity framework, use Cybercode’s AI and emerging-technology guides.

In August 2026, the National Privacy Commission specifically reminded the public that a real person’s face and likeness are personal information under the Data Privacy Act (NPC Notice, August 2026). The NPC said that generating AI images or videos using an identifiable person’s likeness, and posting or sharing them, are forms of personal-data processing that must have a legitimate purpose and satisfy a lawful basis under the Data Privacy Act.

Primary authorities: National Privacy Commission guidance on AI-generated likenesses and, where applicable, Republic Act No. 10175. Pending deepfake bills are not treated as enacted law.

Labelling answer: Philippine law does not currently impose a general rule requiring every AI-made image, video or text to carry an AI label. That is different from the EU AI Act. Where the EU Act reaches a Philippine provider or deployer through its territorial scope, Article 50 can require machine-readable marking by providers and disclosure of deepfakes or certain public-interest text by deployers. The EU Code of Practice is voluntary, but the Article 50 duties are legal obligations.

Evidence and action

RuleA deepfake used to impersonate, defraud or forge can fall under RA 10175 computer-related identity theft, fraud or forgery when the statutory elements are met. Senate Bill No. 1714 was pending in committee as of 3 September 2026 and is not law.

What changes the answerWhether the person is identifiable, whether there is a lawful basis, and whether the content is deceptive, defamatory, sexual or used for fraud. A clearly labelled parody is analysed differently from a fake endorsement or scam.

What to preserveThe URL, account, post, image or video, timestamps, comments and shares. Screen-record the page before it is deleted or altered.

When to actNo single deadline covers every deepfake claim. Defamation and criminal claims have their own prescriptive periods, so act quickly.

Next stepReport the content through the platform’s impersonation, privacy or intimate-content tools. Then consider an NPC complaint, or a cybercrime report where fraud, threats or impersonation are involved.

Key Takeaways

There is no blanket rule making every deepfake illegal.
The Data Privacy Act can apply when a real, identifiable person’s face, likeness or other personal data is used.
Deepfakes used for scams, impersonation, identity theft, forgery or fraud can trigger cybercrime and other criminal laws.
Defamatory deepfakes can create cyber-libel or civil-defamation risk depending on the facts.
Non-consensual sexual or intimate synthetic media presents especially serious legal and privacy risks.
Senate Bill No. 1714, the proposed Digital Likeness and Deepfake Regulation Act, remained pending in committee as of September 3, 2026.

Deepfakes and the Data Privacy Act

The NPC’s August 11, 2026 notice on the use of real persons’ likenesses in AI-generated images is one of the clearest current Philippine statements on synthetic media. It explains that a person’s face and likeness are personal information and that photos or videos can, in some cases, constitute biometric information capable of identifying a person.

The NPC further states that generating AI content from a real person’s likeness and posting or sharing the result are forms of processing personal data. This means the usual Data Privacy Act principles can become relevant, including lawful processing, legitimate purpose, proportionality, transparency, security and data-subject rights.

When Can a Deepfake Create Legal Liability?

1. Fraud and Scams

A cloned voice or synthetic video used to convince someone to transfer money, disclose credentials or enter a transaction can potentially involve fraud, computer-related fraud, forgery, identity theft or other offenses depending on the method and evidence.

2. Identity Theft or Impersonation

RA 10175 expressly penalizes computer-related identity theft involving identifying information belonging to another person when the statutory elements are met. A deepfake used to impersonate a person can therefore create much more serious risk than a harmless parody.

3. Defamation and Cyber Libel

A fabricated video or image that falsely attributes disgraceful conduct, criminality or other defamatory acts to an identifiable person can create defamation risk. If published online, cyber-libel rules may become relevant. See Online Libel in the Philippines.

4. Privacy Violations

Even where a deepfake is not defamatory or fraudulent, use of an identifiable person’s likeness can still trigger data-protection issues. Consent is not the only possible lawful basis under the Data Privacy Act, but a creator or publisher needs a legitimate, legally supportable basis for processing.

5. Harassment, Threats or Sexualized Content

Deepfakes used to humiliate, threaten, extort, sexually harass or target a person may interact with other criminal, civil, workplace, child-protection or gender-based harassment laws. The exact offense depends on the content, victim, conduct and evidence.

RA 11313, the Safe Spaces Act, is directly relevant and often overlooked. Section 12 of RA 11313 defines gender-based online sexual harassment to include “uploading and sharing without the consent of the victim, any form of media that contains photos, voice, or video with sexual content” and “impersonating identities of victims online.” A sexualized or impersonating deepfake can fall squarely within that definition. Section 14 sets the penalty at prisión correccional in its medium period or a fine of ₱100,000 to ₱500,000, or both. Section 36(d) provides that offences under Section 12 are imprescriptible — unlike cyber libel, a Section 12 case built on a sexualized or impersonating deepfake never becomes time-barred. See our guide to the Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313).

Decision Snapshot

Deepfake use	Risk level
Clearly labeled parody of a fictional character	Generally lower, subject to IP and other rights
Real person’s face used without explanation	Privacy and personality-right concerns
Fake CEO voice instructs staff to transfer money	High — possible fraud and identity-related offenses
Fake video falsely showing a person committing a crime	High — defamation, privacy and other claims possible
Sexualized deepfake of a real person	Very high — serious privacy, harassment and potential criminal issues
AI-generated political satire clearly disclosed	Different free-expression analysis; deception and election rules may still matter

Must AI-Made Images and Deepfakes Be Labelled?

In the Philippines, there is no general statutory label requirement for every AI-generated image, video, audio clip or article. A label may still be required by a contract, advertising standard, platform policy or sector rule, and an AI label does not cure unlawful use of a real person’s likeness, fraud, defamation or another violation.

In the European Union, Article 50 of the AI Act applies from 2 August 2026. Whether it reaches a Philippine creator or business depends first on the Act’s territorial scope. A Philippine provider offering an AI system in the EU, or a non-EU provider or deployer whose AI output is used in the EU, may be covered. Use the EU AI Act scope checklist for Philippine businesses before applying the duties below.

Content or role	Philippine position	EU Article 50 position when in scope
Provider of a generative-AI system	No general Philippine machine-readable marking rule. Privacy, consumer, IP and sector duties may still apply.	Outputs containing synthetic audio, image, video or text must be marked in a machine-readable format and be detectable as artificially generated or manipulated, subject to stated exceptions.
Deployer publishing a deepfake	No universal label statute. Liability turns on likeness processing, deception, harm, purpose and the applicable law.	The deployer must disclose that image, audio or video content constituting a deepfake was artificially generated or manipulated.
Clearly artistic, fictional or satirical work	A clear disclosure lowers deception risk but does not automatically resolve privacy, defamation, IP or platform issues.	Disclosure is still required for a deepfake, but it may be made in an appropriate way that does not hamper display or enjoyment of the work.
AI-generated text informing the public on a matter of public interest	No general AI label law; ordinary accountability for misleading, defamatory or unlawful content remains.	Disclosure is required unless the content underwent human review or editorial control and a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility.
Standard editing that does not substantially alter the input or its meaning	Ordinary editing is not automatically a deepfake; the facts and resulting content control.	The provider’s machine-readable marking duty has a stated exception for assistive standard editing or output that does not substantially alter the input or its semantics.

Evidence and action for Filipino creators and businesses

RuleFirst decide which jurisdiction and role apply. Do not copy the EU label rule into Philippine law, and do not assume Philippine location excludes an EU-facing product or output.

EvidenceKeep the source file, prompts, model and version, editing history, consent or licence, intended audience, distribution countries, customer contract, label used and date published.

ActionFor EU-facing work, assign who is the provider and deployer, who adds the machine-readable mark, who presents the visible disclosure, and who retains proof.

Exception checkDocument why an editing, artistic, satirical, law-enforcement or editorial-control exception applies. Do not rely on the word “parody” without reviewing the actual content and audience.

LimitA disclosure improves transparency but does not supply consent, a privacy lawful basis, copyright permission or a defence to fraud or defamation.

Mandatory rule versus voluntary route: Article 50 is binding when the EU AI Act applies. The European Commission’s Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content is a voluntary method for providers and deployers to demonstrate compliance; it does not replace the Act or make the underlying duties optional.

EU status checked 4 October 2026 against Article 50, the Commission guidelines and the final transparency code. This comparison is general information, not legal advice.

What Should You Do If Someone Makes a Deepfake of You?

Preserve the evidence. Save the URL, account, post, image or video, timestamps, comments and shares.
Capture the full context. Screen-record the page before it is deleted or altered.
Report it to the platform. Use impersonation, synthetic-media, privacy, harassment or intimate-content reporting tools where appropriate.
Request removal. Send a documented removal request to the uploader and platform when safe and useful.
Assess privacy remedies. If your likeness or personal data was used unlawfully, consider the NPC process.
Report cybercrime when necessary. A criminal complaint for fraud, threats, extortion, identity theft or serious impersonation goes to the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group or the NBI Cybercrime Division, the law-enforcement authorities under Section 10 of RA 10175. For an online scam, the Inter-Agency Response Center hotline 1326, a joint channel of the CICC, the DICT, the NPC and the NTC, also takes reports and refers them (Philippine Information Agency, 31 December 2025), but that report is not a criminal complaint. Use our cybercrime reporting guide.
Get legal advice quickly. Defamation and criminal claims can have prescriptive periods and procedural requirements.

Is There a Specific Deepfake Bill?

Yes. Senate Bill No. 1714, filed January 27, 2026, is titled the proposed Digital Likeness and Deepfake Regulation Act. Its stated purpose is to safeguard likeness, identity and publicity rights by regulating deepfake creation and use through disclosure, consent, platform accountability, remedies and penalties. As of September 3, 2026, the bill remained pending in committee and was not yet law.

Other AI-governance bills may also affect future synthetic-media rules. For the wider legislative picture, see AI Law in the Philippines: Current Rules, Bills and Regulations. For the broader rights framework around face, voice and identity, see Digital Likeness Rights Philippines; for courtroom authenticity issues, see AI-Generated Evidence Philippines.

What Should Businesses and Creators Do?

Obtain appropriate rights or lawful basis before using a real person’s likeness.
Clearly disclose synthetic or altered media when a reasonable viewer could be misled.
Do not use cloned voices or faces for authorization of payments or high-risk transactions without independent verification.
Create an approval process for AI-generated advertising featuring real people.
Maintain records of consent, licenses, prompts, source assets and approvals.
Give people a rapid way to report misuse of their likeness.

Child-safety rule: Synthetic or manipulated sexual depictions involving a person represented as a child require separate analysis under the OSAEC and CSAEM Act.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is making a funny deepfake of a celebrity automatically a crime?

No. Context, purpose, deception, personal-data processing, defamation, commercial use, intellectual-property rights and other factors matter. A parody is not legally identical to a fake endorsement or scam.

Can I report a deepfake to the National Privacy Commission?

Potentially, if the deepfake involves unlawful processing of your personal data or likeness. The NPC’s August 2026 notice expressly treats use of a real person’s likeness in AI-generated imagery as personal-data processing.

Is a deepfake scam covered by RA 10175?

It can be when the conduct satisfies offenses such as computer-related fraud, identity theft, forgery or another cybercrime provision.

Is the Deepfake Regulation Act already in force?

No. Senate Bill No. 1714 remained pending in committee as of September 3, 2026.

Deepfake Evidence Guides

Official Sources

EU AI Act, Article 50 — transparency obligations

European Commission guidelines on Article 50 transparency obligations

EU Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content — voluntary compliance route; checked 4 October 2026.

Disclaimer

Important: This article provides general educational information about Philippine law, regulation, cybersecurity, technology, or business compliance. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, agency procedures, technical standards, platform rules, and the facts of each situation may change the result. Verify current requirements through the cited official sources and seek qualified professional advice when your rights, deadlines, money, safety, or legal exposure may be affected.

Are Deepfakes Illegal in the Philippines?