Editor’s Note: Our Facebook page is back! You have no idea how many people congratulated us in the past few days because it finally got unsuspended! 😅 Go give a follow here! (Our FB fan subscription perk is still suspended, unfortunately, so now I’m looking of trying to tie the subscription through the newsletter. Will you be keen to support us through the newsletter?)
For today’s feature story is the clash between the National Privacy Commission and Worldcoin/Tools For Humanity.
Last week, the National Privacy Commission (NPC), the sole agency that has jurisdiction in all matters related to the country’s Data Privacy Act (DPA), issued a cease-and-desist order against Tools For Humanity/World (TFH), stopping it from engaging in iris-scanning activities in the Philippines.
What followed was a public volley of statements between the NPC and TFH, with the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) intervening to support the embattled project.
But how did we get here in the first place?
Source: BitPinas Article
The Premise: A Scan for Crypto
For months, AI developer Tools for Humanity has been operating in the Philippines with a unique offer: let its "Orb" device scan your iris, and in return, get a verified digital identity and a share of its Worldcoin (WLD) cryptocurrency.
The goal, according to the company, was "proof of personhood" to distinguish humans from bots online.
Thousands of Filipinos signed up, drawn by the promise of a crypto incentive. But the project also drew the attention of regulators.
As early as February 2025 (the same month that BitPinas became aware of the activities of Tools For Humanity), the NPC’s complaints division began investigating as well.
The Order: NPC Hits the Brakes
Driving the news: On October 08, the NPC published its 66-page Cease and Desist Order to halt all of Worldcoin's data processing activities in the country.
The NPC, the country's independent data privacy watchdog, declared Worldcoin's operations in violation of the Data Privacy Act, citing several key findings:
Invalid Consent: The crypto incentive created "undue financial pressure," meaning users' consent wasn't freely given.
Excessive Data: Collecting immutable biometric data (iris scans) was "not proportional" to the goal of proving someone is human.
Unproven Claims: The company failed to provide technical proof that it immediately deletes sensitive biometric data from its Orbs.
The NPC justified the immediate shutdown by citing the risk of "grave and irreparable injury" to citizens from the potential compromise of their unchangeable biometric data.
The Pushback: Worldcoin Vows to Fight
After the NPC’s ruling had been publicized, World's local operator, Ryuji Wolf, said the company would file a Motion for Reconsideration to appeal the order.
What they're saying: Wolf called the NPC's decision a "surprising reversal," suggesting it stemmed from a recent "change in leadership" at the commission.
He insisted the company was in "full compliance" with the law and, crucially, highlighted its close cooperation with another government agency: the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), where it was part of a tech "Sandbox Program."
A Cabinet Secretary Steps In
The story explodes: DICT Secretary Henry Aguda was alongside Ryuji Wolf in a TV interview to discuss the project and the NPC's order. Wolf reiterated his previous statements while the Secretary mentioned his earlier statement about eyeing the use of TFH technology for biometric scans.
The Clapback: The NPC Draws a Line
On Monday, the NPC fired back. Without naming names, the commission issued a blistering official statement that served as a direct rebuttal to TFH.
The NPC's three-point message:
Registration isn't endorsement: It clarified that a company's registration or participation with the government (like in the DICT's Sandbox) does not imply its operations are lawful.
We are the sole authority: It asserted its "exclusive and independent" jurisdiction as the sole government body that can rule on data privacy legality in the Philippines.
Only our Official Orders are official: It stated its formal position is only expressed through official Orders, and any other assertions "should not be construed as the Commission’s official position."
In an interview, the NPC Deputy Commissioner mentioned this in the context of World’s assertion that they have been approved before but a change in NPC leadership changed the regulator’s stance as well.
Why it matters: This is the NPC publicly defending its turf. It's a formal declaration that the opinion of another cabinet secretary does not override its legal authority.
What’s next: This appears to me as a high-stakes institutional showdown between Tools For Humanity (with DICT) and the NPC. (This is the same conclusion that another publication, Newsbytes, arrived at.)
So, will the NPC’s legal mandate withstand Tools For Humanity’s full court press? Or will the privacy regulator prevail in asserting its authority?
What do you think?
Final words
Thank you for reading! If this is interesting, let us know by replying on this email!
Please share the newsletter with everyone who you think will find it worth reading.
For the latest news and updates, do not forget to follow BitPinas!