The nature of conflict has changed. While traditional security threats remain, the digital environment has opened a new and increasingly dangerous front where false information, coordinated disinformation, and manipulated media can undermine public trust and national cohesion. In this context, the experience of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in confronting fake news and deepfakes offers an important lesson in how modern security must adapt to the realities of the information age.

Disinformation has evolved beyond isolated misinformation into a deliberate strategic tool. Its objective is not merely to mislead, but to weaken institutions, erode public confidence, and create internal friction. The AFP has been a recurring target of fabricated narratives, particularly during politically sensitive periods and moments of heightened regional tension.

One notable example involved sustained online attacks against the Chief of Staff of the AFP (CSAFP), General Romeo S. Brawner Jr. Various social media accounts and coordinated pages circulated claims questioning his leadership capacity and alleging internal disunity within the ranks. These narratives were traced to groups and networks previously identified by security agencies as having links to destabilization efforts. The messaging pattern—amplified simultaneously across platforms—suggested coordination rather than organic criticism.

The AFP responded by reinforcing transparency and institutional unity. Official statements, command briefings, and public engagements emphasized continuity of leadership, operational stability, and command confidence. Importantly, these false narratives were neutralized not only through rebuttals, but through consistent demonstration of operational competence and visible command cohesion, which contradicted claims of internal instability.

Another persistent credibility challenge emerged in relation to the West Philippine Sea and broader China-related security issues. Pro-China online groups, some of which were later exposed through investigative reporting and intelligence assessments as being financially supported by Chinese-linked entities, promoted narratives portraying the AFP as provocative, subservient to foreign powers, or exaggerating maritime incidents.

These narratives aimed to downplay documented encounters in the West Philippine Sea, discredit AFP reporting, and shift blame away from foreign coercive actions. In several instances, manipulated videos, misleading translations, and selective framing of incidents were used to cast doubt on the AFP’s accounts.

The AFP countered these campaigns by grounding its communications in verifiable evidence—releasing unedited footage, coordinating messaging with civilian maritime agencies, and aligning public statements with international law and multilateral verification. By maintaining factual consistency and engaging both domestic and international audiences, the AFP reduced the traction of disinformation and reinforced its credibility amid competing narratives.

Disinformation has also targeted the AFP through allegations linking the institution to corruption-tainted government projects. Social media posts and unverified claims accused the military of involvement in irregular procurement and infrastructure initiatives, often without documentary evidence or attribution to responsible oversight bodies.

These allegations exploited public sensitivities surrounding corruption and attempted to conflate individual or civilian-led project issues with institutional responsibility. The AFP addressed these claims by clearly delineating its role, cooperating with auditing and investigative bodies, and reiterating adherence to procurement laws and accountability mechanisms. By deferring to formal oversight processes and avoiding defensive posturing, the AFP preserved institutional credibility while allowing lawful investigations to proceed.

The emergence of deepfake technology has further raised the stakes. Artificial intelligence now allows the creation of highly convincing audio and video materials that falsely depict public officials or military leaders issuing statements or directives they never made. Such content carries the potential to cause confusion, panic, or even institutional destabilization if left unchallenged.

For the AFP, this challenge underscores the fragility of credibility in an era of advanced digital manipulation. Visual and audio materials—once treated as reliable evidence—can no longer be accepted at face value. The AFP’s emphasis on verification protocols, inter-agency coordination, and rapid public advisories reflects an understanding that credibility must be actively defended. The battle against deepfakes is therefore not only technical but institutional, requiring sustained transparency and public trust.

Despite the AFP’s efforts, the fight against disinformation cannot be won by institutions alone. The speed and reach of social media place ordinary citizens at the center of the information ecosystem. Each user becomes a potential gatekeeper—or amplifier—of false content. Recognizing this, the AFP has consistently urged the public to rely on official and verified sources, and to exercise critical judgment before sharing information.

This call is not an attempt to suppress dissent or limit free expression. Rather, it is a recognition that democratic resilience depends on information discipline. A vigilant and informed public diminishes the effectiveness of disinformation campaigns and reinforces institutional legitimacy. In this context, truth becomes a shared responsibility, and discernment becomes a civic duty.

In an age where false narratives can spread rapidly and convincingly, safeguarding information integrity is no longer optional. It is fundamental to national security.