IPOPHL Site Blocking for Copyright Infringement Philippines

Last materially reviewed: September 6, 2026

Intellectual Property → AI-Generated Works → Rights-Holder Enforcement

Direct Answer

Yes, IPOPHL currently operates a voluntary administrative site-blocking mechanism aimed at websites whose primary purpose or effect is copyright infringement or facilitating online piracy. The mechanism was introduced through Memorandum Circular 23-025 and is implemented through IPOPHL’s Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Office in coordination with internet service providers.

How the Process Starts

IPOPHL explains that a rights holder or duly authorized representative files a written request with the IEO and pays the applicable filing fee. The request is evaluated, and the website administrator receives notice and an opportunity to protest.

Due Process

Under IPOPHL’s published description of the rules, the website administrator is given an opportunity to respond. If no direct contact information is available after reasonable efforts, notice may be published on IPOPHL’s website. The IEO evaluates the matter before a site-blocking request is issued to participating ISPs.

What Can Be Blocked?

The rules target piracy sites rather than every copyright dispute. IPOPHL has used the mechanism against domains associated with unauthorized streaming and downloading of copyrighted films and other content.

Is This the Same as a Court Order?

No. The current system is a voluntary administrative site-blocking mechanism involving IPOPHL, the NTC and participating ISPs. IPOPHL has also publicly discussed legislative proposals that would strengthen or expand direct site-blocking authority.

Can AI Copyright Disputes Use Site Blocking?

Possibly only in appropriate cases. A conventional piracy site distributing unauthorized copyrighted works is a clearer fit than a novel dispute over whether an AI model was trained on copyrighted material. Rights holders should match the remedy to the actual conduct.

Examples of Use

IPOPHL issued its first site-blocking request in 2024 against multiple domains associated with the YTS piracy network. It has since published additional requests involving unauthorized streaming sites. The mechanism therefore has an operational record, not merely a proposed rule.

Rights-Holder Checklist

Confirm the site primarily infringes or facilitates infringement.
Document ownership and authorization.
Capture URLs, screenshots and access evidence.
Identify domains and mirrors.
Review the current IPOPHL IEO process flow and fees.
Prepare for notice and protest procedures.

Related Guides

Understand What Blocking Actually Changes

Blocking restricts access through the implementing network. It is different from deleting files at the host, transferring a domain name, awarding damages or removing information from a trained AI model. Set a realistic objective before choosing this route. A site may change addresses, and evidence of continuing access should be documented rather than treated as proof that no action occurred.

IPOPHL’s explanation of Memorandum Circular 23-025 describes a written request, payment of filing fees, evaluation, notice and an opportunity for the website administrator to protest. It also describes ISP implementation. That sequence matters: a rights-holder request is not itself an immediately enforceable blocking decision.

Is site blocking the right remedy?
Problem	Initial assessment	Useful next action
A website is organized around unauthorized film streams	Potential site-blocking matter, subject to the rules and evidence.	Document the works, site activity and authority to request action.
One disputed photograph appears on a general platform	A targeted content complaint may better match the immediate problem.	Report the exact item through the platform’s copyright channel.
A creator suspects an AI model used a work in training	Suspicion alone does not establish that a service is a piracy site.	Investigate the dataset and alleged acts before selecting a remedy.
A claimant wants compensation for past use	Blocking does not calculate or award compensation.	Assess licensing, settlement or the proper adjudicatory route.

Build a Site-Specific Evidence File

Give each domain a separate entry with its exact spelling, observed URLs, capture dates and the works available there. Preserve evidence of the activity underlying the request. A list of domain names without supporting records makes it harder to assess scope and increases the risk of including an unrelated address.

Identify your rights in the works relied on and your authority to represent other owners, if applicable. Explain what the evidence shows about the site’s activity. Do not treat a familiar title, a search-result snippet or a third-party allegation as equivalent to a verified record of the actual page.

Three Practical Scenarios

A film distributor identifies several mirror sites

Record the relationship suggested by the evidence, such as matching catalogues or redirects, while keeping separate captures for each address. Ask how additional domains should be presented under the applicable process. Do not assume that a request mentioning one domain automatically covers every later address.

A legitimate site receives a blocking notice

Preserve the notice, service date and website records immediately. Identify the challenged content and relevant permissions. Review the actual notice and governing rules for the response procedure and deadline. A news summary is not a substitute for calculating a deadline in a live matter.

An AI tool returns a copied paragraph

Preserve the session and original passage first. A focused infringement notice or platform complaint may address the specific output. Whether broader action is justified requires evidence about the service and alleged conduct, not just the fact that AI was involved.

Questions to Resolve Before Filing

Which works and rights support the request?
Which exact domains or URLs are implicated?
What evidence supports the requested scope?
Which current form, fee and representation requirements apply?
How will notices, protests and follow-up communications be tracked?
What separate action, if any, is needed for damages or removal at the host?

Check the IPOPHL administrative issuances and the actual applicable rule before filing. Record the version used. Keep copies of submissions and decisions, and use the IPOPHL reporting guide if you first need help identifying the appropriate enforcement route.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can any copyright owner request site blocking?

The current rules contemplate requests by rights holders or duly authorized representatives, subject to procedural requirements.

Will one infringing post cause an entire website to be blocked?

The mechanism is intended for piracy sites whose primary purpose or effect is infringement or facilitating infringement, not ordinary platforms with isolated disputes.

Are site-blocking requests public?

IPOPHL publishes site-blocking request materials and has a dedicated publication page for requests.

Official Sources

Important: This article provides general educational information about Philippine law and technology. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, agency procedures, platform terms 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 or legal exposure may be affected.

Featured image: Photo by FlyD via Unsplash.

Can IPOPHL Block Websites for Copyright Infringement in the Philippines?