PhilReport.com Editorial Methodology
Last reviewed: March 2026 · Version 1.0 This page is updated when our standards change. The version date above is the date of the last substantive revision.
WHAT THIS PAGE IS FOR
Every editorial decision we make rests on a set of standards we have chosen and can be held to. This page documents those standards in enough detail that a reader, a subject of our coverage, or a critic of our work can evaluate whether we applied them correctly in any given piece.
We do not publish this page to perform transparency. We publish it because our coverage makes factual claims about Philippine institutions, and the people and institutions we cover have a right to know exactly what standard we applied before we published.
If you believe we failed to meet a standard described here, the process for telling us is at the bottom of this page.
OUR EDITORIAL POSITION
philreport.com is not neutral. Neutrality, in the Philippine press context, often means presenting every claim with equal weight regardless of what the evidence shows. That is not what we do.
We hold Philippine institutions to their own stated standards. When a government agency announces a target, we track whether the target was met. When an official makes a claim, we check it against the primary source data the claim is based on. When the evidence supports the official position, we say so. When it does not, we say that instead.
Our standard does not change depending on who is in Malacañang, which party controls Congress, or which agency is under scrutiny. We apply the same evidentiary threshold to a reform government we agree with as to an administration we are skeptical of. The consistency of that standard is the only editorial independence that matters.
One explicit commitment: the Philippine public has a right to accurate information about the institutions that govern them and the public resources those institutions manage. Everything we publish is organized around that commitment.
OUR CONTENT TYPES AND HOW EACH ONE WORKS
Press Check
Press Check is our primary fact-assessment format. Each Press Check takes a specific public claim — a press release, a speech, a social media post from a Philippine government agency or official — and evaluates it against the primary source data the claim is based on or would reasonably be expected to be based on.
How we select claims for assessment
We prioritize claims that are specific enough to be tested (a named figure, a stated percentage, an explicit before-and-after comparison), that come from agencies with significant public resource authority (DBM, DOF, DPWH, DOH, NEDA, PSA, BSP), and where the claim has reached a significant public audience through press coverage or social media.
We do not assess every government press release. We assess the ones where the gap between the claim and the evidence is most consequential for public understanding.
How we reach a verdict
Every Press Check produces one of four verdicts:
Verified — The primary claims are supported by the cited or verifiable primary source data. This does not mean the policy is good or the result is impressive. It means the specific factual claim checks out.
Partially Verified — Some claims are supported by the evidence. Others are not, or are framed in a way that produces a materially different impression from what the data shows.
Not Supported — The primary claims are contradicted by the available primary source data, or the data cited does not support the conclusion drawn from it.
Misleading Framing — The figures cited are accurate, but the comparison period, the baseline, or the selective presentation of data produces a materially misleading impression that a reader would not reach if they saw the full dataset.
Verdicts are reached by the editorial desk, not by a single author. A verdict can be challenged by the agency under assessment — the process for that is in the Corrections section below.
Press Check verdicts are journalistic assessments of factual support, not findings of legal liability or intent.
What we cite
We cite primary sources: PSA data releases, DBCC resolutions, COA audit findings, BSP data, DBM budget documents, specific GAA line items. We do not rely on secondary news coverage as a source for figures we are assessing. If a figure cannot be verified against a primary government data release, we say so in the assessment.
What we do not assess
We do not assess subjective claims (“the economy is strong”), political characterizations, or predictions. We assess specific, testable factual claims.
Field Notes
Field Notes is our compiled news format. Each Field Notes report draws on coverage from multiple Philippine news outlets, synthesizes the reporting, and adds specific value that the individual source stories do not provide.
Four conditions must be met before we publish a Field Notes report:
First, every source is credited by name, with a link to the original story, in the body of the report — not just in a footnote. The reader can verify every sourced claim against the original.
Second, philreport.com contributes genuine added value. This means one of the following: primary source data that contextualizes the individual stories; context from previous philreport.com coverage that the source stories do not have; a specific analytical angle or comparison that the source stories did not address; or documentation that the same data was reported differently across multiple outlets, where that divergence is itself the story.
Third, we do not reproduce quotes from source stories. We attribute information to the outlet that reported it. Quotes from primary sources — officials, experts, subjects of coverage — are attributed to those primary sources directly.
Fourth, every Field Notes report carries an explicit label — “Compiled Report” — and a source note at the top identifying the primary outlets whose reporting contributed to it.
Field Notes is not aggregation. If we cannot add value beyond what the source stories contain, we do not publish.
Investigative
Investigative reports are based on original document review, primary source interviews, and original analysis by philreport.com reporters or contributors.
Every specific factual claim in an investigative report is attributed to a primary source: a named document, a named official record, a named and on-the-record source, or a directly verifiable public dataset. We do not use unnamed sources for central factual claims without documentary corroboration.
When we cite a document, we identify it precisely: the document type, the date, the issuing agency, and the specific figure or finding we are citing. Vague attribution — “documents reviewed by philreport.com” without further specification — is used only when the identity of the document would endanger a source or compromise an ongoing investigation. We disclose when that is the case.
We do not use the words “reveal,” “expose,” or “bombshell.” Documents show. Records indicate. Testimony states. We do not add interpretive weight to evidence by describing it dramatically.
When a subject of investigative coverage is named, we send a detailed query to that person or institution before publication, specifying the claims we intend to publish and giving a reasonable deadline for response. We publish the response, or note that no response was received, in the final story.
Special Reports
Special Reports are long-form analytical pieces, typically 2,000 to 4,000 words, that synthesize a body of evidence — primary source documents, published research, data analysis, expert interviews — into a structured argument about a specific Philippine policy, institutional, or economic question.
Special Reports are authored by individuals with documented expertise in the subject area, either staff writers or contributing experts. The author’s institutional position and any relevant conflicts of interest are disclosed at the bottom of each report.
When a Special Report is commissioned — by a government agency, a development organization, or any other external party — the commissioning party is disclosed at the bottom of the report. Commissioning does not give the commissioning party editorial approval over findings or conclusions. If a commissioning party disputes a finding, we publish their response alongside the report. We do not amend findings based on objections that are not supported by evidence. Commissioned reports are limited to analytical and research work, not coverage of the commissioning party’s own conduct.
Opinion and Editorial
Op-Ed pieces represent the views of the named author, not philreport.com as an institution.
Editorials under the “philreport.com Editorial Board” byline represent the institutional position of philreport.com. We publish editorials when we have a specific, evidence-based position we are prepared to defend. We do not publish editorials for occasions — elections, anniversaries, significant events — where institutional comment is expected but we do not have a committed position to offer.
Opinion contributors are required to disclose any financial, institutional, or personal stake in the subject they are writing about. Undisclosed conflicts of interest are grounds for retraction.
AI USE DISCLOSURE
philreport.com uses AI tools in specific, bounded parts of our editorial process. We disclose this because our readers have a right to know how our content is produced.
Where we use AI:
Research assistance — identifying publicly available documents, datasets, and published research relevant to a story in progress. All primary source verification is done by human editors against original documents.
Draft generation — in some cases, AI-generated drafts are used as a starting point for fact-checked, human-edited final copy. In every case, the human editor is responsible for the accuracy of every factual claim in the published version.
Translation and transcription assistance — for documents and interview material in Filipino and other Philippine languages.
What AI does not do at philreport.com:
AI does not set editorial direction, select stories for coverage, determine verdicts in Press Check assessments, or make decisions about what to publish. Those decisions are made by human editors.
AI does not interview sources, review original documents, or conduct physical verification of conditions described in stories. Those tasks are done by human reporters and contributors.
Every piece that involved AI assistance in its production carries an “AI-Assisted” tag, visible in the article metadata. If you see a piece without that tag, it was produced without AI tools in the drafting process.
We review our AI use policy as the tools and the standards evolve. This section will be updated when our practice changes.
CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES
We publish a public Corrections and Updates log, updated in reverse chronological order, at [philreport.com/corrections].
How we categorize corrections:
Correction — A factual error in a published piece that has been established by evidence and corrected. The original text is not deleted. The correction is appended to the piece and logged publicly.
Update — New information that materially changes the picture described in a published piece, where the original reporting was accurate at the time of publication. Updates are appended to the piece and logged.
Clarification — A passage that was technically accurate but produced a materially misleading impression, corrected by adding context rather than changing a factual claim.
Retraction — A piece withdrawn from publication because its central claims were wrong and cannot be corrected by amendment. Retractions are rare because most errors are correctable by amendment.. When they happen, we explain precisely what was wrong and why we failed to catch it before publication.
How to challenge a Press Check verdict:
Agencies and officials assessed in a Press Check may submit a formal challenge to [email protected], specifying: the verdict being challenged, the specific claim in our assessment that is disputed, and the primary source evidence supporting the challenge. We review all formal challenges within ten business days. If the challenge is supported by evidence, we revise the verdict and log the revision publicly. We do not revise verdicts based on disagreement with our analytical framing, objections to our choice of comparison data, or assertions of good intent unsupported by primary source evidence We revise verdicts when primary source evidence shows our factual assessment was wrong.
Challenges that do not include primary source evidence are acknowledged but not processed as formal challenges.
FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE
philreport.com does not accept advertising from:
Government agencies whose communications we assess in Press Check or whose programs we cover in investigative and special report content. The list of agencies in that category includes, but is not limited to: DBM, DOF, NEDA, DPWH, DOH, PSA, BSP, COA, PCSO, and all attached agencies.
Companies that are the primary subjects of our investigative or special report coverage.
Political parties, electoral campaigns, or political consultancies.
philreport.com does not publish sponsored content, native advertising, or branded content of any kind. If an article appears on this site, it was published because our editors judged it newsworthy — not because anyone paid to have it published.
When a piece is externally commissioned, that fact is disclosed in the piece. The commissioning party paid for our time, not our conclusions.
Our revenue model, editorial structure, and ownership are described on our About page.
SOURCING STANDARDS ACROSS ALL CONTENT TYPES
Figures must be sourced to a specific primary data release, identified by agency, date, and document title or report name. We do not cite figures from secondary news coverage without independent verification against the primary source.
When two primary sources report conflicting figures on the same subject, we report both figures, identify the methodological difference that explains the discrepancy, and do not resolve the conflict by choosing the figure that supports our argument.
When primary source data is unavailable or has not yet been published, we say so explicitly rather than using estimates or projections without labeling them as such.
Dates of measurement matter. “GDP grew 3.9 percent” is not a usable citation. “GDP grew 3.9 percent in the third quarter of 2025, according to PSA national accounts data released January 29, 2026” is. The difference between those two sentences is the difference between a claim a reader can verify and a claim they have to take on faith.
Much of our work consists of fair comment and analysis on matters of public concern, grounded in publicly available records and disclosed sources.
QUESTIONS AND CONTACT
For questions about our methodology, corrections submissions, Press Check challenges, and tip submissions:
Response time for formal corrections and Press Check challenges: ten business days.
Response time for tip submissions: we cannot guarantee a response to every tip, but we read all of them.
For everything else, including contributor inquiries: [email protected]
philreport.com is committed to the public’s right to accurate information about the institutions that govern them. This methodology page is part of that commitment — not a statement of aspiration, but a standard we can be held to.