THE QUESTION IS no longer whether children are spending too much time online. The harder question is whether we should keep them off social media altogether.
After the deadly school shooting in Tacloban City in June and the more recent shooting at a school in Zamboanga City, that question has become more urgent. Both incidents involved student suspects. Authorities have looked into possible exposure to violent online content and gaming communities. In Zamboanga, investigators are also examining the student’s online activity and gaming history.
Understandably, parents are worried.
I am a parent myself. I know how difficult it is to keep up with what children see and do online. But I make it a point to find time to ask what my child is playing, what she is watching and, as much as reasonably possible, what she encounters on the internet.
It is not always easy.
But parenting today requires us to be present not only when our children are in front of us, but also when they are behind a screen. Still, we should be careful about one thing: a connection is not necessarily a cause.
A child being exposed to violent videos, online communities or games does not automatically mean that these things caused the child to become violent.
Authorities are still investigating the circumstances and motives behind these incidents. Online content may have influenced or reinforced certain behavior, but that is different from proving that it caused the violence.
That distinction matters. Otherwise, we may end up creating a solution based more on fear than evidence.
So, should we ban social media for children? I do not think an absolute ban is the answer.
Our children already live in a digital world. They communicate with classmates, participate in school activities, obtain information and use technology as part of their education. A blanket prohibition may also push some children toward hidden accounts, unregulated platforms or unsupervised devices.
The better question is: How do we make the digital environment safer for children?
Our existing laws already provide part of the answer.
Republic Act No. 10627, or the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, requires schools to adopt policies addressing bullying, including cyberbullying. What happens online does not necessarily remain online. A cruel post, threat or campaign of humiliation can follow a child into the classroom.
Republic Act No. 12080, the Basic Education Mental Health and Well-Being Promotion Act, strengthens school-based mental-health programs, counseling, early identification and referral. These laws remind us that protecting children cannot be reduced to taking away their phones.
Parents have a role that no algorithm can replace. We need to know what our children are watching, who they are talking to and what online communities they are joining. Supervision does not mean invading every aspect of a teenager’s privacy. It means being sufficiently present to recognize warning signs.
But there is another question that deserves equal attention: Where did the guns come from?
In the Zamboanga incident, authorities are investigating how a student obtained firearms and brought them into the school. Reports indicate that at least one firearm was registered to his father.
This should lead to a serious conversation about firearm responsibility.
Republic Act No. 10591, the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, recognizes the loss of a firearm through negligence as a ground for revocation, cancellation or suspension of a firearm license. It also imposes a fine on a licensed firearm holder who fails to report a lost or stolen firearm within the prescribed period.
But we should not say that a parent is automatically criminally liable simply because a firearm belonging to him or her was later used by a child. Criminal liability requires a specific legal basis and proof of the elements of the offense.
Civil liability is different.
Article 221 of the Family Code provides that parents exercising parental authority may be civilly liable for injuries and damages caused by acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living with them and under their parental authority, subject to the defenses allowed by law. In Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Supreme Court likewise discussed parental responsibility and the exercise of proper care and supervision over minor children.
The lesson is simple: If your child can easily find your firearm, it is not secure enough.
But responsibility should not end with parents.
Social-media companies and technology platforms must also be part of the conversation.
I do not believe a platform should automatically be held liable every time a child misbehaves after using it. That would neither be fair nor legally sound.
But neither should technology companies be allowed to say, “We are only a platform,” when the law imposes specific duties upon them.
The Philippines already recognizes this principle. Republic Act No. 11930, the Anti-Online Sexual Abuse or Exploitation of Children and Anti-Child Sexual Abuse or Exploitation Materials Act, imposes specific responsibilities on internet intermediaries in dealing with online child sexual exploitation and abuse. Violations may result in serious criminal and other legal consequences.
That principle should inform future legislation on broader child online safety.
I would support a graduated accountability system.
Platforms should have stronger age-appropriate safeguards, child-safety settings, accessible reporting mechanisms and reasonable systems for responding to serious threats and unlawful content.
Repeated failure to comply with legal duties should carry meaningful administrative and regulatory consequences. Where conduct independently violates a criminal law, criminal prosecution should remain possible. Civil liability should likewise be available when the requirements for negligence, damage and legal responsibility are established.
The Data Privacy Act of 2012, Republic Act No. 10173, provides another layer of protection when platforms unlawfully process personal information, allow unauthorized access or fail to meet their data-security obligations.
But legislation must be carefully written.
A platform should not be punished merely because a child used it. It should be held accountable when it fails to comply with a legal duty.
That distinction is essential.
So what should our policy be?
Not simply a ban.
We need age-appropriate access, stronger parental controls, digital-literacy education, serious enforcement of anti-bullying rules, better school counseling and mental-health services, faster reporting of credible threats, stronger accountability for platforms that violate child-protection laws, and responsible firearm ownership.
Parents must supervise. Schools must intervene. Government must enforce. Platforms must act responsibly. And gun owners must secure their firearms.
There is rarely one reason behind an act of violence. There may be bullying, anger, isolation, family problems, online influence, fascination with violence, access to weapons—or several of these at the same time.
That is precisely why banning one technology may give us the comforting feeling that we have done something without necessarily addressing the real danger.
As a parent, I do not want my child completely cut off from the digital world.
I want her to learn how to navigate it safely. I want her to know what is right and wrong, what is healthy and harmful, and that she can always come to us when something online makes her uncomfortable, afraid or confused.
As a lawyer, I believe the same principle should guide public policy.
We should protect children online without abandoning them offline. We should regulate technology without making technology the scapegoat for every failure of parenting, education and public safety. And we should demand accountability from firearm owners without presuming criminal guilt where the law does not provide it.
The goal should not simply be to keep children away from social media.
The goal should be to make sure that a troubled child is noticed before he becomes a danger, that a dangerous weapon is secured before it reaches a child’s hands, and that dangerous content is addressed before it reaches thousands of young minds.
Because protecting children should never begin after the shooting.
It should begin much earlier.