EDITORIALS: Digital Childhood

CHILDREN should not have to grow up as test subjects of an industry whose business model depends on keeping users online for as long as possible.

The proposal to ban social media access for children below 13 deserves serious consideration, particularly in light of growing concerns about mental health, sleep, exposure to harmful content, online hate and algorithms designed to sustain engagement. The policy brief cited by the Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department points to these concerns as reasons for government intervention.

The Constitution provides a strong foundation for protecting children. It directs the State to defend their right to proper care and special protection against neglect, abuse and exploitation, and to promote their well-being. That responsibility should extend to the digital environment where children now spend a substantial part of their lives.

But protection should not end with simply setting an age limit.

A ban will be meaningful only if it can actually be enforced. Children can easily encounter social media through shared devices, false birth dates, alternative accounts and other means. Platforms, parents, schools and government agencies will therefore have to share responsibility. Any regulation must also consider privacy, access to information, education, legitimate communication and the practical realities faced by Filipino families.

Most importantly, parents cannot outsource child protection entirely to government or technology companies. Digital literacy, parental guidance and healthy limits on screen time remain essential, regardless of what lawmakers ultimately decide.

The question before Congress is therefore bigger than whether children below 13 should be allowed to open social media accounts. It is whether society is willing to establish reasonable boundaries around a digital environment that children were never equipped to navigate alone.

Children have a right to technology—but they also have a right to childhood. Lawmakers should make sure that the two can coexist without sacrificing the latter.

1000 Days

A child’s first 1,000 days may be the most important period of life that society can no longer afford to take for granted.

Stunting is not merely a matter of a child being shorter than others. It is a sign of prolonged nutritional deprivation, repeated infections and inadequate care during a critical stage of development. Its consequences can reach far beyond childhood, affecting learning, productivity, health and earning capacity later in life.

That makes the latest figures on Filipino children deeply concerning. Stunting among children under five rose to 25.3 percent in 2025, equivalent to about one in every four children. It was the first increase since 2015 and represents a 1.7-percentage-point rise from 2023.

Behind that percentage are children whose development may already be falling behind before they even enter school.

The first 1,000 days—from conception to a child’s second birthday—cannot be recovered. What is missed during this period can have lasting consequences. Nutrition during pregnancy, breastfeeding, appropriate complementary feeding, access to health services, sanitation and protection from recurring infections all matter.

This is why the response to stunting cannot be left to families alone. Parents need access to affordable nutritious food, maternal and child health services, accurate nutrition information and support from their communities. Local governments, health workers, schools and national agencies must work together to make those services accessible, especially to families most at risk.

But nutrition programs must also go beyond distributing food. The conditions that produce malnutrition—poverty, inadequate health care, poor sanitation, food insecurity and lack of knowledge—must also be addressed.

The country cannot accept one in every four young children being stunted as an ordinary statistic. Every child who fails to reach his or her growth and developmental potential represents not only an individual loss, but a loss to the community and the nation.

If the first 1,000 days shape the foundations of a child’s future, then protecting those days should be among the country’s most urgent responsibilities.