argumentative essay about anti terrorism law

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Why Rights Groups Worry About The Philippines' New Anti-Terrorism Law

Julie McCarthy

A protester wearing a face mask demonstrates against the Philippines' new anti-terrorism law on July 4, in Quezon city, Metro Manila. Earlier this month, President Rodrigo Duterte approved a law that critics say could lead to more human rights abuses. Ezra Acayan/Getty Images hide caption

A protester wearing a face mask demonstrates against the Philippines' new anti-terrorism law on July 4, in Quezon city, Metro Manila. Earlier this month, President Rodrigo Duterte approved a law that critics say could lead to more human rights abuses.

Updated at 5:12 p.m. ET

Petitions have piled up at the Philippines' Supreme Court to overturn a new anti-terrorism law championed by President Rodrigo Duterte, which could jail suspects without charge for weeks.

The government says it needs the legislation to combat insurgencies and that it safeguards freedoms. The Philippine Foreign Affairs Department even sent a letter to U.S. Congress members to allay concerns over the law, saying , "The Philippines remains committed to the protection of civil and political liberties as well as human rights."

But human rights groups warn that the hard-line Duterte administration could use the legislation to prosecute political opponents. The Philippine Catholic Church went so far as to compare the legislation to China's new national security law imposed on Hong Kong .

The law took effect Saturday at a time when the authorities are battling the coronavirus and arresting those caught breaching the lockdown. It follows widespread condemnation of the Duterte administration for harsh tactics against drug suspects and against government critics, as well as for undercutting civil liberties such as a free press, according to human rights advocates.

Here are some key takeaways from the debate around the Philippines' Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

The law greatly expands the definition of terrorism

It includes such broad offenses as "engaging in acts intended to endanger a person's life," intended to "damage public property" or "interfere with critical infrastructure," where the purpose is to intimidate the government.

The National Union of People's Lawyers has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the law on the grounds it is overly broad and essentially criminalizes intent.

One new offense, inciting to commit terrorism, is particularly problematic, the rights advocates say. The text says inciting others through "speeches, writings, proclamations, emblems, banners, and other representations tending to the same end" could carry a punishment of 12 years in prison.

"It chills freedom of expression. It chills free speech. It chills freedom of the press. It chills freedom of association," says Neri Colmenares, a leading human rights lawyer who is petitioning the Supreme Court.

The law does state, however, that it is not intended to punish advocacy, protest, dissent, industrial action and strikes, so long as they don't create "a serious risk to public safety."

"But who defines what is and what isn't a serious risk?" asks Aaron Sobel with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Defending the provision, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon tells NPR that under the law, "activism is not terrorism."

But lawyer Colmenares argues that, for the Duterte administration, "terrorism is any form of dissent."

Most countries have anti-terrorism laws. The Philippines is no outlier

More than 140 governments have passed anti-terrorism laws since Sept. 11, 2001, with many expanding that legal arsenal over time.

The Philippines' legislation undeniably diminishes due process protections, but it does not widely diverge from what other countries in the region do.

Under the law, a terrorism suspect could be detained for 14 days without charge, a period that can be extended to 24 days. Human rights attorneys say that violates a constitutional provision that a person must be charged within three days of detention.

Esperon, the national security adviser, says it's not possible to build a terrorism case in 72 hours. "We need time to address criminals the likes of terrorists, especially when they're really good at covering their tracks," he says.

He says the government needs strong laws to prosecute militants aligned with the Islamic State and a decades-old communist insurgency.

He notes that the United States has held terrorism suspects far longer than 14 days. "And you keep some of them in Guantánamo, right? For how long?" he says.

The U.S. has held many detainees at the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for over a decade. Forty detainees remained at the facility as of 2019.

Around the world, advocates argue, terrorism suspects held for extended time without a charge could be subject to abuse or even torture.

Esperon says the Philippines' detention period is "one of the most limited" in the region, putting it on par with Australia and well below Singapore's two-year-long period of warrantless arrest for terrorism suspects.

The new law, however, includes a possible punishment of life imprisonment without parole, which rights advocates say leaves no chance for rehabilitation. The law also allows wiretaps and lengthy surveillance, which raises privacy concerns, according to rights activists.

Duterte's rights record hardens opposition to the law

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte discusses issues related to the new coronavirus during a meeting with an infectious disease task force at the presidential guest house in Panacan, Davao City, southern Philippines, on July 7. Arman Baylon/Malacanang Presidential Photographers Division via AP hide caption

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte discusses issues related to the new coronavirus during a meeting with an infectious disease task force at the presidential guest house in Panacan, Davao City, southern Philippines, on July 7.

The Duterte government's poor human rights record has amplified apprehensions over the new anti-terrorism law.

Duterte's drug war has killed at least 8,600 Filipinos since 2016, with "near-impunity," according to a United Nations report in June.

Recently, the government shut down broadcaster ABS-CBN and prosecuted veteran journalist Maria Ressa, CEO of the news website Rappler, for cyber libel, which ended with her conviction. Both outlets have aggressively reported on Duterte's leadership.

'It's Unbelievable': Shutdown Of Philippines' Major Broadcaster Worries Many

Philippine Journalist Maria Ressa Found Guilty Of Violating Cyber Libel Law

The government has also jailed thousands of suspected violators and protesters of a lockdown to contain the rapid spread of the coronavirus.

Attorney Colmenares says, anti-lockdown protesters and violators "are afraid" that putting more power in the hands of police and President Duterte would "triple or quadruple" the arrests.

The new law replaces the 2007 Human Security Act, which security specialist Sidney Jones says was "one of the worst anti-terror laws that was ever passed because it had so many safeguards that it was never used or almost never used."

In the old law, authorities were fined $10,000 for every day a suspect was illegally detained. The new law eliminates that.

But analysts and rights advocates say they're concerned about how Duterte will use the new one.

Countries such as Egypt and Turkey have illustrated how governments led by populists, like Duterte, are using anti-terrorism laws to infringe on civil liberties and consolidate power, according to the Carnegie Endowment's Sobel.

"To me the Philippines is extremely emblematic of that. [Duterte's] firebrand type of speech helped him get elected and for a very long time he's been very popular," Sobel says, "and he's used that to erode civilian checks and balances."

• Philippines
• counterterrorism
• The Philippines
• anti-terrorism law

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

A CLOSER LOOK ON THE PHILIPPINE ANTI-TERROR LAW

2020, Asia Pacific Law and Policy Review

The Philippines has been plagued with terrorism for a number of decades. Countless of terror attacks took place. Lives of thousands of civilians, military, police, and terrorists are lost. Millions of families have been displaced. Billions worth of properties have been damaged or totally destroyed. In July 3, 2020, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020 which repealed the Human Security Act of 2007 was signed into law. For the government, this is a big development as the country continues to curb terrorism. However, critics of the new anti-terror law are adamant and appalled that it shall only be used as a mechanism to silence the Duterte administration’s political opponents, the activists, and the dissenters of the government. This research paper discussed the controversial ATA 2020, its alleged unconstitutionality as the detractors claim, the possible human rights violations that may be committed by law enforcers as the law is already in force, and the advantages of having ATA 2020 to combat terrorism and, to finally attain peace in the country so beleaguered for a long period of time.

Related Papers

Pauline Eadie

This article will outline why the Philippines is a significant topic of research in relation to the ‘War on Terror’ and the legislation designed to counter and manage terrorism. The influence of the United States’ PATRIOT Act on the crafting of the HSA and the extent to which the influence of the Patriot Act on the HSA is contested in the Philippines will be examined. This article focusses on the legislative dimensions of the PATRIOT Act and the HSA in relation to surveillance and redress. The legislative provisions on surveillance are assessed against the constitutions of the US and the Philippines respectively. I argue that the HSA was designed to be at one and the same time a sop to the US and unworkable in practice.

Chester Cabalza

The Human Security Act of 2007, otherwise known as Republic Act No. 9372, was enacted by the 13th Congress of the Philippines that took effect on July 15, 2008 providing legal framework for the government’s anti-terrorism strategy and security policies. However, this newly crafted statute does not have a landmark case yet. Proposition one looks at the absence of terrorism’s definition that makes the law as vague, ambiguous, and highly susceptible to abuse; thus, the said Act is also too broad. Proposition two compares the special law to some provisions of the 79-year-old Revised Penal Code or R.A. No 3815. Upon the enactment of the HSA, criticisms were thrown, especially among leftists or militants and civil libertarians or members of the civil society, that the Human Security Act will be used by the government to commit human rights abuses. Proposition three dissects some provision of the anti-terrorism law which may be contrary to basic human rights as it tackles controversies on wiretapping, detention, and the issue on writ of amparo. Lastly, proposition four discusses the view on whether or not the penalties and damages are just and admissible. All in all, this paper shall examine the pros and cons of the four-year old Human Security Act of 2007, using various perspectives in social sciences including legal and security studies dimensions to better understand the country’s continuous fight against terrorism that impedes social and economic development, as a major form of non-traditional security risk and human-induced disaster.

SSRN Electronic Journal

Dion Lorenz Romano

Last June 1, 2020, President Duterte certified the Anti-Terrorism Bill as urgent. Subsequently, Congress adopted the Senate version and passed it in the shortest time possible. The bill was intended to provide measures for the protection of the ordinary Filipino from acts of terrorism, and should have been with support and approval under normal circumstances. But this time is far from normal, and the bill has attracted opposition not only from the left, but from a broader sector of society. This brings us to these questions: what were the compelling reasons to certify the bill as more urgent than say, the extension of the extraordinary powers of the President to address the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ordinary Filipino and our economy? Is the bill aligned with our constitution? Will it solve the domestic security problems festering for decades? What drives the objections against the bill? But perhaps the most disturbing concern among most members of society – do we have ...

Roland Simbulan

State terror in Asia has long been used to fight what governments have unilaterally declared as “terror.” Wars and counterinsurgency have long been pursued as a strategy against “terrorism” in Asia, and the war against “terrorism” has always been made an excuse by states to promote militarist and authoritarian dictatorships supporting Western expansionist, strategic and economic objectives. Today, the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the subsequent declaration by the United States of a global war on terrorism has created a pretext for governments to extend and justify the use of draconian national security laws and measures to suppress movements for democracy and human rights.

I N T E R F E R E Journal for Critical Thought and Radical Politics

Jove Jim S Aguas

Australian Outlook

Balazs A Kovacs , DB Subedi

The new anti-terrorism law in the Philippines is aimed at addressing violent extremism and terrorism. However, imprecision in defining terrorism has blurred its boundary with armed conflict, which means the law can be misappropriated to close the space for peacebuilding in the Mindanao region.

Danilo Mahilum Jr.

International Progress Organization

Hans Koechler

CONTENTS (I) Preliminary remarks: The United Nations Organization in the global power constellation (II) Obstacles to the enforcement of the international rule of law in a unipolar power structure (III) Implications of a unipolar world order for the United Nations’ capacity to act as global guarantor of the rule of law, and in particular for the fight against terrorism (IV) The history of United Nations codification efforts and measures against terrorism (V) The way out of the dilemma: comprehensive definition of terrorism by means of integration into existing instruments of international humanitarian law (VI) The conditions for a consistent anti-terrorist policy of the United Nations (VII) Concluding remarks

Verity: Jurnal Ilmiah Hubungan Internasional (International Relations Journal)

Rachel Kumendong

Since 2014, the Islamic State (IS) has emerged as one of the deadliest threats to world peace and security, as evidenced by the increasing number of terrorist attacks carried out by IS worldwide, and the number of fatalities caused by these attacks. IS established its strongholds in Iraq and Syria and is determined to create a global caliphate through the creation of IS wilayats across the world. In 2016, IS began to weaken and lose territory in the Middle East which resulted in it strengthening its power in Southeast Asia by forming a wilayat in the Southern Philippines.The presence of IS in the Philippines has been perceived as a national security threat in the country. President Rodrigo Duterte has formulated a national strategy to combat global terrorism in the country. This study aims to determine the strategy to eradicate global terrorism in the Philippines and explain the considerations behind the formation of that strategy. This research uses neoclassical realist perspective...

Activists are not terrorists: the criminalisation of human rights defenders in the Philippines

Debates Indígenas

As in many other areas of the world, Philippine Indigenous Peoples are being forced to defend their territories from extractivism; however, the main problem they are facing here is the State’s attempt to criminalise them through accusations of terrorism. Massacres, persecution of leaders, illegal arrests, false evidence and police and military repression are just some of the emerging consequences of the new Anti-Terrorism Law. By Signe Leth for Debates Indígenas

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

AL-IHKAM: Jurnal Hukum & Pranata Sosial

Abdurrahman Haqqi , Satria Unggul

IJASS PUBLICATION

IJASS JOURNAL

AHKAM : Jurnal Ilmu Syariah

Yayan Sopyan

Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies

Jeroen Adam

ROHAIDA NORDIN

Zainab Mustafa

Ginette Lopez

RELIGION, CULTURE & STATE JOURNAL

Luthfi Muttaqin

IOSR Journals

Saqib Jawad

Pacific Focus

Dong Yoon Lee

Ateneo Law Journal

Ruby Rosselle Tugade

kelasinterhukum 2019

Nina Johnen

Heru Susetyo

Annals of Global Health

Teodoro Herbosa

International Affairs Review

Anushka Kapahi

published in Marwill N.Llasos and Modesta Apesa H. Chungalao, eds., Perspective on Terrorism in the Philippine Context (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Law Center, 2018), pp. 51-77.

Rommel Banlaoi

Ariana Franco

Saroja Dhanapal

IIUM Law Journal

Sholahuddin Al-Fatih

Hussein Solomon

Journal of Social Science

Arief Fahmi Lubis

Gracesy prisela Christy

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Anti-Terror Act remains dangerous and fundamentally flawed

Media quote.

Responding to the judgement by the Supreme Court of the Philippines declaring two portions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 as unconstitutional, Butch Olano, Amnesty International Philippines Section Director said:

“The decision by the Supreme Court highlights key dangers of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 – its overbroad definition of terrorism and the overreaching powers it grants the Anti-Terrorism Council. However, only two portions of the law were declared unconstitutional, and it remains deeply flawed and open to abuse by government authorities.

“Even with the Supreme Court’s decision, the law still allows the police and military to detain suspects without a warrant or charge for up to 24 days, which violates international law and standards. It grants overbroad powers to security forces to conduct surveillance, and to the Anti-Terrorism Council to designate groups and individuals as ‘terrorists’ without due process and without clear procedures to remove such designation. Other dangerous provisions also remain.

We reiterate our call for the government to amend the  Anti-Terrorism Act to ensure it is consistent with international human rights law and standards. Until this happens, the law will continue to pose a threat to human rights defenders, activists as well as members of marginalised groups and others wrongly accused of terrorism by granting the government excessive and unchecked powers and being susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

“We reiterate our call for the government to amend the  Anti-Terrorism Act to ensure it is consistent with international human rights law and standards. Until this happens, the law will continue to pose a threat to human rights defenders, activists as well as members of marginalised groups and others wrongly accused of terrorism by granting the government excessive and unchecked powers and being susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”

On 9 December, the Supreme Court of the Philippines announced that Justices voted to strike down two portions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

The qualifier under Section 4(e) – that terrorism as defined by the law does not include advocacy, protest, dissent and similar actions “which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety” – is declared unconstitutional “for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression”, according to the Supreme Court. With this decision, this part now reads: “Provided, that terrorism as defined in this section shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights.”

The Supreme Court also declared unconstitutional the power of the Anti-Terrorism Council to designate a person or a group as terrorists based on a request by another country and upon determination that it meets the criteria of relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

On 3 July 2020, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020”, which replaced the Human Security Act of 2007. Amnesty International had called on the Philippine government to  reject  the law on the basis that it contained dangerous provisions and risked further undermining human rights in the country.

ANTI – TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The Philippines’ anti-terror bill is poised to cause more terror

The government needs to accept that there are no shortcuts to peace and retract the bill.

As the world is plagued by COVID-19, an impending anti-terrorism bill is creating more fear in the Philippines.

Recently passed by Congress , the bill is set to be signed into law by President Rodrigo Duterte. If this happens, the bill will not only suppress the fundamental rights and freedoms of Filipinos, it will also terrorise the same conflict-affected communities it seeks to protect, as it undoes decades of peacebuilding work.

Keep reading

‘pure terrorism’: world reacts to israeli settler attack in west bank, ‘sadc should speak out’: zimbabwe activists face crackdown ahead of summit, murky waters: a humanitarian’s fight for justice, taliban ‘deliberately deprived’ 1.4 million girls of schooling: un.

Despite protests against the bill and mounting calls to provide more time for deliberations, Congress has quietly fast-tracked its passage while the rest of the country braced for the impact of COVID-19. The bill will allow for a lengthened period of warrantless detention and expanded surveillance of those law enforcement deems suspicious. It will also remove stiff penalties for wrongful detention.  

Most importantly, the bill carries a vague definition of “terrorism” that offers little distinction between organisations that commit acts of terror and revolutionary armed movements, which is important for those doing mediation among warring parties. The bill will provide law enforcers with broad powers to determine what constitutes a “terrorist”, shifting the burden of proof to suspected individuals and organisations. This is not only a threat to dissent and democracy, but also to peace.

Threat to peace in Mindanao

For more than half a century, the Philippine government has been trying to quell secessionist and communist armed movements in the country.

Bangsamoro, an autonomous region in the south of the Philippines, is currently in transition after decades of fighting between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. While much remains to be done, significant strides have been taken , with a transitional regional government installed last year and the decommissioning of combatants and arms under way. These gains have been made possible primarily by the peace talks and reconciliation processes.

The ill-advised and shortsighted fear of the ISIL (ISIS) armed group taking root in Mindanao, and the increased framing of the communist armed movements as “terrorist”, distract the government from seeing the gains of dialogue and peacebuilding.

The threat of terrorism is real, but it is not the main threat to peace.

In fact, militaristic approaches to counterterrorism have caused the most suffering and displacements, prompted  breakdowns in ongoing peace processes , and given birth to more aggressive splinter groups like the Abu Sayyaf, Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, and Maute Group.

Insensitivity to the local context and the peace process in prioritising fighting terrorists in Mamasapano in 2015 and Marawi in 2017 delayed the passage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law and undermined reconciliation across communities in the country. These should not be forgotten, and should not be repeated.

Opening old wounds

Due to a long history of discrimination, the Moro and Muslim minorities in the Philippines are often most affected not only by terrorist attacks but by harassment and warrantless arrests packaged as “counterterrorism”.

This profiling of Muslims as violent “terrorists” continues to this day. In January, it was discovered that the Manila Police District was collating information about Muslim youth and students in the National Capital Region for its “ preventing violent extremism” initiatives .

Two months before, in November 2019, the police barged into the office of a long-established Mindanao-based peacebuilding organisation , without a warrant, checked the living quarters, and inspected the bags of young Moros from Marawi who were attending a psychosocial support training.

Being a woman while being both Moro and Muslim adds another layer of vulnerability, especially with the heightened visibility that comes with wearing a headscarf. Women widowed by war and children orphaned by conflict are also disproportionately affected by counterterrorism that narrowly sees them as vulnerable to being recruited into terrorism, instead of partners who can inform policies for change.

This bill will undermine efforts at reconciliation, as it will make it easier to target Muslims and open old wounds anew.

Ending or escalating the communist insurgency?

The military generals clearly see the impending anti-terrorism bill as a way to “end” the world’s oldest existing communist insurgency. But the bill is more likely to reignite war and bring further insecurity.

Following the termination of the peace negotiations between the government, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in 2017, the government has since branded the CPP-NPA as “terrorist” and filed a petition seeking to declare them terrorist organisations under the Human Security Act, the current counterterrorism law. Following delayed progress through the courts, the government has taken a new tack: change the law directly. Thus, the Anti Terror Bill.

The argument about whether the CPP-NPA is a terrorist organisation or a revolutionary movement is fraught with a lot of biases, and a long, violent history between the communist armed movement and the military. What is clear is that the impending declaration of the CPP-NPA as terrorist organisations will impede any future peace talks, and escalate violence and displacement in communities.

As lessons have not been learned, the military should be reminded that the CPP-NPA was at its strongest under the martial law regime of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos. It is not activism that pushes communities towards violence. Rather, it is crackdowns on nonviolent civic action that will push communities to lose trust in government and take alternative routes for affecting change.

‘Activism is not terrorism’

The government assures the public that crackdowns on activists will not happen under the guise of counterterrorism, but in the same breath the Speaker of the House tells activists to “not allow terrorists to hide within [their] ranks.” This statement itself is telling of the government’s narrow and misinformed mindset about activism and terror – that those who are radicalised through activism will participate in armed rebellions and, therefore, to prevent “violent extremism” the state should stop “radicalisation” made possible through activism.  

Given this bias, and the weak intelligence capacity of law enforcers, the bill will crush progressive organisations and student activists who the state perceives are communist fronts; mediators who are perceived as communist sympathisers; and Indigenous people who are perceived as the main targets of recruitment by the NPA.  

These groups are already being “red-tagged” or wrongly targeted for alleged links with the CPP-NPA .  Even without the new law and under the martial law in place until last year, young Indigenous people who work on peacebuilding in Western Mindanao were reportedly wrongly included in the military’s “terrorist lists,” and asked to show themselves to law enforcers and prove they are not linked with the NPA. As the Senate president admitted, there is no need for martial law once this bill becomes law.

The looming anti-terror law will assume rather than fairly test the guilt of civilians, as law enforcers will have free reign to arrest and detain individuals based on mere suspicion. This is both unconstitutional and dangerous.

No shortcuts to peace

If implemented, the new anti-terrorism bill will not only impede our ability as peacebuilders and human rights defenders to bridge divides or raise the alarm when atrocities occur. It will also put our lives and limbs at risk. It will undo years of peacebuilding and further devastate the communities worst affected by terror. 

If it is sincere in its “ whole-of-nation approach” to peacebuilding , the government must retract the bill, re-open deliberations and listen to a wide range of voices across society, especially the voices of those who have borne the brunt of both terrorist violence and abusive counterterror laws.  It  must heed the lessons from community leaders and peacebuilders. We need a policy that addresses the underlying roots of terrorism, and that prevents further distrust, injustice and escalations in violence.  

Yet as I write this, trust in the government is also under threat. What is left of our democracy is under threat. Peace is under threat.

It is our collective duty to end violence against civilian communities. For this same reason, we cannot take shortcuts to peace.

This rushed and unrestrained anti-terror bill will cause terror – and it will come from the state.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Philippine e-Legal Forum

Philippine laws and legal system (pnl-law blog).

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020: Salient Points of Republic Act No. 11479

[Update: On 3 July 2020, the President signed Republic Act No. 11479, otherwise known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. Earlier this year, the Senate passed Senate Bill No. 1083, a proposed law to prevent, prohibit and penalize terrorism, and repeal Republic Act No. 9372 , otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of 2007.” The provisions of SB 1083 were adopted in House Bill No. 6875, certified as urgent by the President on 1 June 2020. On 3 June 2020, the House of Representatives approved HB 6875 on third and final reading. The enrolled bill was transmitted to and received by Malacanang on 9 June 2020. The salient points of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 are discussed below.]

WHO IS A TERRORIST INDIVIDUAL

A “terrorist individual” is a natural person who commits any of the following proscribed acts: 

• (i) Terrorism ;
• (ii) Threat to commit terrorism ;
• (iii) Planning, training, preparing and facilitating the commission of terrorism ;
• (iv) Conspiracy to commit terrorism ;
• (v) Proposal to commit terrorism ;
• (vi) Inciting to commit terrorism ;
• (vii) Recruitment to and membership in a terrorist organization ;
• (viii) Foreign terrorist ; and 
• (ix) Providing material support to terrorist .

At this juncture, it is important to emphasize that the Anti-Terrorism Council has the authority to label or designate any person or group as a terrorist or terrorist group, respectively, and cause the warrantless arrest of any person suspected of committing the aforementioned proscribed acts.

WHAT IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION

A “terrorist organization” or “terrorist group” is: (1) any entity organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism; or (2) any group of persons, organization or association who commits any of the acts enumerated above; or (3) United Nations Security Council-designated terrorist organization. The proposed law provides the procedure for proscription of terrorist organizations.

JURISDICTION AND SCOPE OF APPLICATION

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020  has extraterritorial application. The proposed law applies to the following:

• (1) Any person who commits the proscribed acts within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of the Philippines.
• (2) A Filipino citizen or national who commits any of the proscribed acts outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines; 
• (3) Individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the proscribed acts inside the territorial limits of the Philippines; 
• (4) Individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the proscribed acts on board Philippine ship or Philippine airship: 
• (5) Individual persons who commit any of the proscribed acts within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity; 
• (6) Individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit the proscribed acts against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; and
• (7) To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit the proscribed acts directly against the Philippine government. 

In case of an individual who is neither a citizen nor a national of the Philippines who commits any of the proscribed acts outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, the Philippines shall exercise jurisdiction only when such individual enters or is inside the territory of the Philippines.

WHAT IS NOT CONSIDERED TERRORISM

Terrorism does not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety. 

(i) TERRORISM

To constitute the crime of terrorism, the purpose of the act, by its nature and context, must be to: (i) intimidate the general public or a segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear; (ii) provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any of its international organization; (iii) seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country; or (iv) create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety.

Terrorism is committed by any person who, within or outside the Philippines, for any of the purposes enumerated above, regardless of the stage of execution:

• (1) Engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life.
• (2) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place or private property.
• (3) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure. “Critical infrastructure” refers to an asset or system, whether physical or virtual, so essential to the maintenance of vital societal functions or to the delivery of essential public services that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on national defense and security, national economy, public health or safety, the administration of justice, and other functions analogous thereto. It may include, but is not limited to, an asset or system affecting telecommunications, water and energy supply, emergency services, food security, fuel supply, banking and finance, transportation, radio and television, information systems and technology, chemical and nuclear sectors.
• (4) Develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons, explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons.
• (5) Release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods or explosions.

A person who commits the act of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole.

(ii) THREAT TO COMMIT TERRORISM

Any person who shall threaten to commit any of the above-enumerated acts of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years. 

(iii) PLANNING, TRAINING, PREPARING, AND FACILITATING THE COMMISSION OF TERRORISM

It shall be unlawful for any person to participate in the planning, training, preparation and facilitation in the commission of terrorism, possessing objects connected with the preparation for the commission of terrorism, or collecting or making documents connected with the preparation of terrorism. “Training” refers to the giving of instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill in relation to terrorism as defined hereunder, as opposed to general knowledge.

The accused, if found guilty, shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole. 

(iv) CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TERRORISM

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of terrorism and decide to commit the same. Any conspiracy to commit terrorism shall be penalized by life imprisonment without the benefit of parole.

(v) PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TERRORISM

Proposal to commit terrorism is committed when a person who has decided to commit any of the proscribed acts proposes its execution to some other person or persons. Any person who proposes to commit terrorism shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years.

(vi) INCITING TO COMMIT TERRORISM

A person commits inciting to commit terrorism when, without taking any direct part in the commission of terrorism, he/she incites others to the execution of any of the above-enumerated acts of terrorism by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end. The imposable penalty is imprisonment of 12 years. 

(vii) RECRUITMENT TO AND MEMBERSHIP IN A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION

Any person who shall recruit another to participate in, join, commit or support: (i) any terrorism; or (ii) a terrorist individual; or (iii) any terrorist organization, association or group of persons, shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole.

The same penalty shall be imposed on any person who organizes or facilitates the travel of individuals to a state other than their state of residence or nationality for the purpose of recruitment which may be committed through any of the following means: 

• (a) Recruiting another person to serve in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign state, whether the armed force forms part of the armed forces of the government of that foreign state or otherwise; 
• (b) Publishing an advertisement or propaganda for the purpose of recruiting persons to serve in any capacity in or with such an armed force; 
• (c) Publishing an advertisement or propaganda containing any information relating to the place at which or the manner in which persons may make applications to serve or obtain information relating to service in any capacity in or with such armed force or relating to the manner in which persons may travel to a foreign state for the purpose of serving in any capacity in or with such armed force; or 
• (d) Performing any other act with the intention of facilitating or promoting the recruitment of persons to serve in any capacity in or with such armed force. 

Any person who shall voluntarily and knowingly join any terrorist organization, association or group of persons, knowing that such is a terrorist organization, association or group of persons, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years. 

(viii) FOREIGN TERRORIST

The following acts are unlawful and shall be punished with the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole:

• (a) For any person to travel or attempt to travel to a state other than his/her state of residence or nationality, for the purpose of perpetrating, planning, or preparing for, or participating in terrorism, or providing or receiving terrorist training; 
• (b) For any person to organize or facilitate the travel of individuals who travel to a state other than their states of residence or nationality knowing that such travel is for the purpose of perpetrating, planning, training, or preparing for, or participating in terrorism or providing or receiving terrorist training; or 
• (c) For any person residing abroad who comes to the Philippines to participate in perpetrating, planning, training, or preparing for, or participating in terrorism or provide support for or facilitate or receive terrorist training here or abroad. 

(ix) PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS

Any person who provides material support to any terrorist individual or terrorist organization, association or group of persons committing any of the proscribed acts , or knowing that such individual or organization, association, or group of persons is committing or planning to commit such acts, shall be liable as principal to any and all terrorist activities committed by said individuals or organizations, in addition to other criminal liabilities he/she or they may have incurred in relation thereto. 

“Material support” refers to any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (one or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation.

THE ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL (ATC)

The ATC, created under the proposed law, is composed of: (1) the Executive Secretary, as Chairperson: (2) the National Security Adviser, as Vice Chairperson; and (3) the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; (4) the Secretary of National Defense; (6) the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government; (6) the Secretary of Finance; (7) the Secretary of Justice; (8) the Secretary of Information and Communications Technology; and (9) the Executive Director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council or AMLC Secretariat. 

AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE TERRORIST INDIVIDUALS OR TERRORIST GROUPS

The ATC is given the power to label or designate any person or group as a terrorist or terrorist group, respectively. The ATC may designate an individual, groups of persons, organization, or association, whether domestic or foreign, upon a finding of probable cause that the individual, groups of persons, organization, or association commit, or attempt to commit, or conspire in the commission of the proscribed acts . 

The designation includes the authority to freeze, through the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), the assets of the designated individual, groups of persons, organization or association. The designation shall be without prejudice to the  proscription  of terrorist organizations, associations, or groups of persons.

PROSCRIPTION OF TERRORIST GROUPS

The Court of Appeals (CA) is given the jurisdiction to hear and decide applications for proscription to declare any group of persons, organization or association as a terrorist and outlawed group of persons, organization or association. The verified application is filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), with authorization from the ATC and recommendation from the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA). 

A  preliminary order of proscription  is issued, within 72 hours from the filing of the application, when the CA makes a finding of probable cause, that the issuance of an order of proscription is necessary to prevent the commission of terrorism. The CA shall immediately commence and conduct continuous hearings, which must be completed within 6 months from the time the application has been filed, to determine whether: 

• (a) The preliminary order of proscription should be made permanent; 
• (b) A permanent order of proscription should be issued in case no preliminary order was issued; or 
• (c) A preliminary order of proscription should be lifted. 

The applicant has the burden of proving that the respondent is a terrorist and an outlawed organization or association before the CA issues an order of proscription, whether preliminary or permanent. The permanent order of proscription, if granted, shall be posted in a newspaper of general circulation. It shall be valid for a period of 3 years after which, a review of such order shall be made and if circumstances warrant, the same shall be lifted. 

DETENTION WITHOUT JUDICIAL WARRANT OF ARREST

The ATC is empowered to authorize any law enforcement agent or military personnel to arrest any person  SUSPECTED of committing any of the proscribed acts . The person arrested may be detained, without any warrant, for a period of 14 calendar days, subject to a 10-day extension if it is established that: (a) further detention of the person/s is necessary to preserve evidence related to the terrorism or complete the investigation; (b) further detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the commission of another terrorism; and (c) the investigation is being conducted properly and without delay. 

[See also Valid Warrantless Arrests in the Philippines and Valid Warrantless Searches in the Philippines ]

The arresting officer has no duty to turn-over the accused to judicial authorities. However, the arresting officer must notify the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest of the following facts: (a) the time, date, and manner of arrest; (b) the location or locations of the detained suspect/s and (c) the physical and mental condition of the detained suspect/s. The arresting officer must furnish a copy of the written notice to the ATC and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). 

RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL

The prosecution may apply for a precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) before filing an information for any violation of the proscribed acts , or a hold departure order (HDO) upon filing of the information. If the evidence of guilt is strong, the court shall immediately issue an HDO and direct the DFA to initiate the procedure for the cancellation of the passport of the accused.

In cases where evidence of guilt is  not strong , and the person charged is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to:

• (a) Within the municipality or city where he/she resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety. Travel outside of said municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of his/her bail, which shall be forfeited; or
• (b) House arrest, at his/her usual place of residence. While under house arrest, he/she may not use telephones, cellphones, e-mails, computers, the internet, or other means of communications with people outside the residence until otherwise ordered by the court. 

The restrictions shall be terminated: (a) on motion of the prosecutor or of the accused, subject to court approval; or (b) upon dismissal of the case; or (c) upon acquittal of the accused.

SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING OF COMMUNICATIONS

Law enforcement officers or military personnel may apply for a court order (Court of Appeals) to secretly wiretap, overhear and listen to, intercept, screen, read, surveil, record or collect, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic,  mechanical or other equipment or device or technology now known or may hereafter be known to science, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for the above purposes, any private communications, conversation, discussion/s, data, information, messages in whatever form, kind or nature, spoken or written words: 

• (a) of any person charged with or suspected of committing any of the proscribed acts.
• (b) between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization.
• (c) between members of a designated person, as defined in Republic Act No. 10168, to wit:
• (ii) any organization, association, or group of persons proscribed pursuant to Section 17 of the Human Security Act of 2007; or
• (iii) any person, organization, association, or group of persons whose funds or property, based on probable cause are subject to seizure and sequestration under Section 39 of the Human Security Act of 2007.

Surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized. [See also Illegal Interception of Computer Data, Warrant to Intercept (WICD): Rule on Cybercrime Warrants ]

The law enforcement agent or military personnel shall likewise be obligated to file an ex-parte application with the Court of Appeals for the issuance of an order to compel telecommunications service providers (TSP) and internet service providers (ISP) to produce all customer information and identification records as well as call and text data records, content and other cellular or internet metadata of any person suspected of any of the crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of the proposed law. 

The authorizing division of the Court of Appeals must make a determination that: 

• (a) there is probable cause to believe based on  personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the a proscribed act has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed; and 
• (b) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that evidence, which is essential to the conviction of any charged or suspected person for, or to the solution or prevention of, any such crimes, will be obtained. 

Any authorization granted by the Court of Appeals is effective for the length of time specified in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals which shall not exceed a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the written order by the applicant law enforcement agent or military personnel. It is subject to a 30-day extension.

The written order granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, as well as the application for such order, shall be deemed classified information . The penalty of imprisonment of 10 years shall be imposed upon any person, law enforcement agent or military personnel, judicial officer or civil servant who, not being authorized by the Court of Appeals, reveals in any manner or form any classified information.

NO TORTURE OR COERCION IN INVESTIGATION AND INTERROGATION

The use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment, at any time during the investigation or interrogation of a detained suspected terrorist is absolutely prohibited and shall be penalized under said law. Any evidence obtained from said detained person resulting from such treatment shall be. in its entirety, inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing. 

RIGHTS OF A PERSON UNDER CUSTODIAL DETENTION

The moment a person charged with or suspected of committing any of the proscribed acts is apprehended or arrested and detained, he shall forthwith be informed of his or her right to: 

• (a) be informed of the nature and cause of his arrest, to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel of his or her choice, the law enforcement agent or military personnel concerned shall immediately contact the free legal assistance unit of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). It shall be the duty of the free legal assistance unit of the IBP or the PAO thus contacted to immediately visit the person/s detained and provide him or her with legal assistance. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of his/her counsel of choice; 
• (b) be informed of the cause or causes of his/her detention in the presence of his legal counsel; 
• (c) be allowed to communicate freely with his/her legal counsel and to confer with them at any time without restriction; 
• (d) be allowed to communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the members of his/her family or with his/her nearest relatives and to be visited by them; and,
• (e) be allowed freely to avail of the service of a physician or physicians of choice. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF DETAINEES

Any law enforcement agent or military personnel who violates the rights of persons under his/her custody shall be liable for imprisonment of 10 years. Unless the law enforcement agent or military personnel who violated the rights of a detainee or detainees as stated above is duly identified, the same penalty shall be imposed on the head of the law enforcement unit or military unit having custody of the detainee at the time the violation was done. 

FALSE EVIDENCE; WITNESS PROTECTION

Under the proposed law, a 6-year imprisonment is imposed on any person who knowingly furnishes false testimony, forged document or spurious evidence in any investigation or hearing conducted in relation to any violations covered by the proposed law. 

This penalty may not be applicable because the proposed law also provides for immunity and protection of government witnesses.

BAN ON EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION

No person suspected or convicted of any of the proscribed acts shall be subjected to extraordinary rendition to any country. Extraordinary rendition refers to the transfer of a person, suspected of being a terrorist or supporter of a terrorist organization to a foreign nation for imprisonment and interrogation on behalf of the transferring nation. The extraordinary rendition may be done without framing any formal charges, trial, or approval of the court. 

• Recent Posts

• Extension of Filing Periods and Suspension of Hearings for March 29 to April 4, 2021: SC Administrative Circular No. 14-2021 (Full Text) - March 28, 2021
• ECQ Bubble for NCR, Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna and Rizal: Resolution No. 106-A (Full Text) - March 27, 2021
• Guidelines on the Administration of COVID-19 Vaccines in the Workplaces (Labor Advisory No. 3) - March 12, 2021
• Human Security Act of 2007 (Republic Act No. 9372): Full Text
• Effect of Certification by President that a Proposed Law is Urgent; Engrossed/Enrolled Bill
• Special Court could Oversee Anti-Terror Law

14 thoughts on “ The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020: Salient Points of Republic Act No. 11479 ”

It’s extremely dangerous. The way the police planted evidence on that solider they killed in broad daylight and the way Sinas is exonerated of what was clearly a wrong, imagine giving them almost absolute power to declare anyone a terrorist and make arrests. Judge and executioner rolled into one.

ATC po ang magdedecide kung sino ang suspected terrorist, hindi police pakibasa naman po.

The ATC are only to give the authorization to any LAW ENFORCEMENT agent or military personnel to arrest SUSPECTED, again suspected from the proscribed acts mentioned, but not to declare a person or group as TERRORIST.

Pinapangunahan niyo kasi ang gobyerno. How about those soldiers who were attacked and killed by NPA? How about the youth that are being recruited by terrorist groups?

No to anti terrorism bill

Yes to Anti-Terrorism Bill

Okay naman pala. Wag kasi tamang hinala

Juno- Neuterte

Mga terrorists yang mga nag sasabing No to anti terrorism law

Thanks, but its a no for me. The ATC can just be appointed by the president; too much power– plus the people that will enforce this pa. This bill should be revised. It can be abused.

Sir, gamhanan kaayo ang ATC noh!

read and understand! kailangan natin yan para lalo tumatag ang bansa!

Waiting for the IRR. Yes to Anti Terrorism Bill

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

AttyAtWork * VisitPinas * ChatTimeWithJulia RSS Entries and RSS Comments

Read: UP Law IHR’s Guides to the Anti-Terrorism Bill

The recently enacted Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB) has raised apprehensions from various sectors within the Philippines. In light of this, the University of the Philippines Institute of Human Rights (UP-IHR) director, Professor Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan and senior lawyers Glenda Litong, Raymond Baguilat and Michael Tiu, Jr. drafted a Briefer entitled At a Glance: The Anti-Terrorism Bill, and a Primer: Facing Terror, to make sense of the proposed ATB.

At a Glance also digests and gives a rundown of the problematic provisions under the Anti-Terrorism bill and explains its consequences from a human rights perspective. Meanwhile, the Primer provides readers with a brief introduction of the ATB and the rationale for its enactment. It discusses in more detail provisions under the   ATB and compares it with other relevant legislation and jurisprudence. A critique on the impact of the ATB to the Bill of Rights, its inherent limitations, and the threat that it poses against Indigenous Peoples and Muslim Filipinos is also conveyed.

It is hoped that the Institute’s contributions to the discussion on the ATB will spark further discourse and inform both lawyers and non-lawyers alike about the potential consequences of the enactment of this bill.

Click here to download the PDF copy of the At a Glance Briefer

Click here to download the PDF copy of the At a Glance Briefer (Slides)

Click here to download the PDF copy of the Primer

• Post category: News
• Post published: June 16, 2020
• Post last modified: June 27, 2020

Atty. Fina dela Cuesta-Tantuico

• Assistant to the Dean for Alumni Affairs
• Senior Lecturer, UP College of Law
• Professorial Lecturer, Lyceum of the Philippines College of Law
• Fellow, 1st UP Creative Writers’ Workshop (1980)
• Instructor I, UP Department of English and Comparative Literature (1982)
• Trustee and Corporate Secretary, UP Law Alumni Foundation Inc.; Justice George Malcolm Foundation Inc.
• Past President, UP Women Lawyers’ Circle
• Past President, Philippine Bar Association
• UP College of Arts and Sciences, A.B. English, cum laude (1982)
• UP Law Class 1988

Atty. Rizalde Laudencia

• Member, Sangguniang Panlungsod, San Fernando, La Union
• Studied at Confucius Institute, Ateneo de Manila University
• Does Chinese Painting ( Lingnan Style)
• Writes poems in English, Tagalog, and Ilocano
• UP A.B. Political Science (1978)
• UP Law Class 1982

Dr. Rolando Tolentino

• Professor, UP Film Institute
• Director, UP Institute of Creative Writing
• Former Dean, UP College of Mass Communication
• Member, Manunuri ng Pelikulang Pilipino and the Film Development Council of the Philippines
• Awardee: UP Press Centennial Publication Award; National Book Award, Obermann Summer Research Fellowship; Manila Critics Circle Award; Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature
• A.B. Economics, De La Salle University
• M.A. in Philippine Studies, De La Salle University
• Ph. D. in Film, Literature and Culture, University of Southern California

Atty. Nicolas Pichay

• Director, Legislative Research Service, Senate of the Philippines
• Poet, playwright, essayist
• Hubert Humphrey Fellow, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University 2018
• Awardee: Carlos Palanca Literary Prize (2007 Hall of Fame); NCCA Literary Awards; CCP Literary Awards; Asian Cultural Council; and Gawad Pambansang Alagad ni Balagtas of UMPIL (2016)
• UP A.B. Political Science (1984)

Atty. Alden Lauzon

• Assistant Professor 7, Department of Art Studies, UP College of Arts and Letters (CAL)
• Associate Dean for Administration, CAL (June 2015 – June 2021)
• Senior Partner, Pedregosalaw Offices
• UP M.A. Art Studies, Art History (1998)
• UP Law Class 2000

Dr. Jose Dalisay Jr.

• Professor Emeritus , English and Creative Writing, UP
• Fellow and Former Director, UP Institute of Creative Writing
• Author, writer
• Awardee: 16 Carlos Palanca Awards in 5 genres
• UP College of Arts and Sciences, A.B. English, cum laude (1984)

Jayvee Arbonida del Rosario (Student)

Fever dream (I want to stay)

What is to wake? As days blur by and memory fails, so too does the line between dream and reality fade. One is as ephemeral as the other. Perhaps, it is in this realm of warped time and lost futures, of muted joys and terrors, where things make more sense.

Marissa Lucido Iñigo (Admin Staff)

Pagsulong sa kabila ng pagsubok

Bagamat matagal at paulit-ulit na tayong naghihigpit at lumuluwag sa mga kwarantin na ipinapatupad sa ating bansa, iisa lang ang nababakas sa mga buhay ng mga Pilipino araw-araw, pagsulong at pagtataguyod sa pamilya sa kabila ng pagsubok na sinasagupa araw-araw.

Nababata ng mga manggagawa ang lahat para sa kanilang mga pamilya. Nadagdag isuot araw-araw ang proteksyon laban sa nakakahawang sakit, pero talaga nga bang napoproteksyunan tayo sa totoong sakit sa bansa?

“Ano nga ba ang tunay na pagsubok? Ang Pandemya o ang sistema?” – Tanong ng Pilipinong lumalaban.

Gianina O. Cabanilla (REPS)

Stay with me till the sun sets and we rise together

The fury, the fire, the glory of endings and beginnings, the bone melting pain of it all

Life goes on… and we will not stop pushing for a better tomorrow. Not now, not ever.

Note: This e-book is intended for online viewing only. It is not intended as an actual publication. Click on the thumbnail to view the winning entries.

(To view  all entries , click here )

Recommended internet cookies are used by this website to improve your browsing experience. These cookies include Google Analytics, Facebook, Instagram, WordPress and Zendesk products or widgets. Your consent is important to us.

The Anti-Terrorism Law: A law against terrorists, or a terrifying law?

Republic Act (RA) 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020 is different things to different people--and there lies the difficulty.

The statute's title clearly states "anti-terrorism," but the law itself terrifies a lot of people.

There are important nuances that must be discussed, but we must first go back to the beginning.

The Anti-Terrorism Bill was first pursued during the previous 17th Congress as a replacement to the Human Security Act of 2007, but it didn't prosper.

Then, in early June during the current 18th Congress and amid the pandemic, Malacañang certified the measure as urgent, with Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque saying later that month that "Terrorists have not stopped launching attacks even if we are grappling with COVID-19."

By July 3, President Duterte had signed the controversial measure into law.

The first of 27 petitions

But less than 24 hours later--the ink of Duterte's signature barely dry--a group headed by lawyer Howard Calleja and former Education Secretary Armin Luistro electronically filed a petition challenging various provisions of the much-criticized law.

As of this writing, the Supreme Court has received a total of 27 petitions filed by representatives of nearly all sectors of society.

Expanded definition of terrorism

The law's purpose is to prevent, prohibit, and penalize terrorism in the country in a way that the Human Security Act supposedly failed to do.

It will do this by providing authorities with an expanded definition of terrorism, on top of the creation of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), among other provisions.

ATA allows the detention of suspects without a judicial warrant of arrest for 14 days, which can be extended by 10 more days. The same can be placed under surveillance for 60 days, which can also be extended by up to 30 days, by the police or military.

Bayan Muna Party-List Rep. Carlos Zarate and Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman--who are behind two separate petitions before the High Court--have both cast aspersions on these provisions, calling them unconstitutional and outright dangerous.

"On the pretext of amending the Human Security Act of 2007 to make it more effective in the fight against terrorism, this new anti-terror law has expanded and overly broadened the definition of terrorism to make it easier for authorities to declare legitimate acts of expression, collective action, and dissent protected by the Constitution as terrorism," claimed Zarate on June 4, a day after the measure gained final approval in the House of Representatives.

Not against suppression of terrorism

In his counter-speech to President Duterte's State of the Nation Address (SoNA) last July 28, opposition congressman Lagman said: "Those of us opposing the Anti-Terror Act are not against the suppression of terrorism. What we are protesting against is using the fear of terrorism as a pretext to curtail civil liberties."

Lagman said this fear was "validated" when newly-installed Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gilbert Gapay said last week that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of ATA would be used to regulate social media.

"The Gapay statement extends the infringement of free speech to social media in general despite the absence of a specific provision in the ATA on regulating the Internet platform. The inclusion of the regulation of social media as proposed by Gapay in the IRR of the ATA does not have any legal basis because the IRR cannot modify or amend the law," Lagman said.

Petitioners raise numerous legal arguments

The SC petitioners raised numerous legal arguments, sought the repeal of the entire law or deletion of certain provisions and called for a temporary or permanent injunction of its implementation.

However, a common plea bonded the petition – that is the prayer asking SC magistrates to strike down the law, in part or in whole, for its unconstitutionality.

The bevy of petitioners included former Vice President Jejomar Binay; retired Supreme Court Justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales, Senators Leila De Lima and Francis Pangilinan, Reps. Edcel Lagman and Kit Belmonte; the Makabayan bloc composed of six partylist solons and former Sen. Rene A.V.Saguisag; former Comelec Chairman Christian Monsod and Ateneo Human Rights Center lawyer Felicitas Arroyo. Petitioners from the academe included Dean Mel Sta. Maria and law professors of the Far Eastern University; former Dean Pacifico Agabin of the University of the Philippines College of Law; Dean Anna Maria Abad of the Adamson University College of Law; JV Bautista from the John Wesley School of Law ; Rose Liza-Eisma-Osorio of the University of Cebu school of Law and Dean Maria Soledad Deriquito of the Lyceum School of Law. Indigenous peoples were also opposed to the perceived unconstitutionality of the law. They were represented by Beverly Longid, of the Kabribu, Windel Bolinget of the Cordillera People’s Alliance; Samira Gutoc, Ako Bakwit; Drieza Liningding of Moro Consensus Group, among others. Leaders of various faiths called on the High Court to throw out the law. Among them are Bishop Broderick Pabillo of the Archdiocese of Mania; Bishop Normal Marigza, United Church of Christ in the Philippines; Rev. Rex Reyes, Episcopal Church in the Philippines; Dr. Aldrin Penamora of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches and Bishop Gerardo Alminaza of the Roman Catholic Dioceses of San Carlos City.

Sections sought to be declared ‘unconstitutional’ 

Sought to be declared unconstitutional were Sections 4,5,6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (b), 25, 26, 27 and 29 of RA 11479. These provisions contain the definition of terrorism (Section 4) and acts to be penalized (Sections 5-12), which petitioners assailed for being “vague and violative of due process of the law.”

Carpio and Morales noted that while Section 4 provides that terrorism does not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, the qualifier have been rendered vague by the succeeding phrase “which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life or to create serious risk to public safety.”

Read the law — Cayetano

As for the other side of the fence, those who have argued in favor of ATA have a common message: read the law, and relax.

“Basahin natin before we criticize, because ang daling sabihin eh (na may) repression, wala ng democracy, draconian (Let's read it before we criticize because it's easy to say that there is repression, there is no more democracy, that it is draconian)," House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano said last June 5.

Referring to terrorists, the Speaker said: "The enemy also evolves, becoming more fierce, determined, and innovative in their efforts to destroy and kill people."

But in case there would be abuses to the law, Cayetano guaranteed that it would be amended. This will take time, of course.

Include section dedicated to accountability - Nograles

Another supporter of RA 11479, Puwersa ng Bayaning Atleta (PBA) Party-list Rep. Jericho Nograles, proposed on June 21 to include in the IRR a whole section dedicated to the accountability of public officers. In that section, Nograles batted for the automatic filing of criminal, administrative and civil cases against public officers who abuse their discretion in carrying out anti-terrorism operations.

“The safeguards in the law must be clear in the IRR to be very sure that the anti-terror law will only be used against terrorists,” the solon stresed.

Safeguards to prevent abuse - Torres-Gomez

Meanwhile, these viral remarks from pro ATA-solon, Leyte 4th District Rep. Lucy Torres-Gomez also lit up both social and traditional media: "It's not a valid reason to reject needed legislation like the anti-terrorism bill because theoretically speaking, all laws can be abused, even social welfare laws that are very benign and charitable they can be abused. That is why there are safeguards in place to prevent those abuses from happening."

"We have to read the bill with the right target in mind. This is a bill that aims to (bring) terrorists to justice, this isn't about making life difficult (for) activists," Torres-Gomez added.

Stronger law vs terrorism-financing- Biazon

Asked point-blank if he believes that the Philippines is now safer with the ATA, Muntinlupa lone district Rep. Ruffy Biazon said yes.

"Naging stronger yung batas natin pagdating sa terrorism-financing. That's the fuel of terrorism eh--paano ba sila nakakapagrecruit? Kasi may pera sila (We now have a stronger law to address terrorism-financing. That's the fuel of terrorism--how are they able to recruit? It's because they have the money)."

Unique position on the law

Biazon's position on the law is somewhat unique--he pushed for it during the 17th Congress, and again in the 18th Congress; during the House plenary vote, he voted "no" to the bill and withdrew his authorship after learning that the Senate version was to be adopted; despite this, he insists that the country needs ATA.

He noted one key detail that has been "lost in the public discourse"--the Philippines' gray-listing by the France-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) should the country fail to upgrade its laws in response to terrorism. "That's one of the principal reasons for the law during our discussions in the 17th Congress. Kasi yung atin (Because our) financial system may (has) certain loopholes with regard to combating terrorism-financing. Ang consequence sa atin malalagay tayo sa gray list (We would be gray-listed) as a consequence," Biazon said.

Explaining this, he said, "We are seen as vulnerable to be used by terrorists in terrorism financing or money-laundering. So isa yun sa mabigat na (That was one of the important) reasons why we needed to update the Human Security Act."

"Unfortunately, ang focus ng mga discussions napunta doon sa issues raised ng mga oppositors--yung mga concern about freedom of expression, suppression ng speech, mga ganun eh. Na-limit yung discussion (the focus of the discussions went to the issues raised by the oppositors--the concern about freedom of expression, suppression ng speech, and the like. It limited the discussion)." (Benjamin Rosario, Ellson Quismorio)

• Subscribe Now

Cheat sheet: Supreme Court anti-terror law oral arguments

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Members of the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), lawyers of the Ateneo Legal Services (ALSC), and several other lawyers file a petition asking the Supreme Court to nullify portions of Republic Act Nom 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Law at the Supreme Court in Manila on April 18, 2020.

Photo by KD Madrilejos/Rappler

After a long wait, and one postponement , the Supreme Court oral arguments on the contested and highly divisive anti-terror law will finally take place next Tuesday, February 2, beginning 2:30 pm.

Solicitor General Jose Calida will defend President Rodrigo Duterte’s pet law against 13 lawyer s – handpicked collectively by the 37 groups of petitioners – led by former solicitor general and former Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) national president Jose Anselmo Cadiz.

Here’s your cheat sheet for the all-important oral arguments.

This expanded the definition of terrorism.

It removed the predicate crimes – or common crimes such as piracy or rebellion – that, if committed to sow extraordinary fear, become terrorism.

In Republic Act 11479, there are no more predicate crimes – instead there are 5 offenses listed with vague wordings such as “acts intended to cause extensive interference with critical infrastructure.”

The petitioners will argue that this section is void for being vague. Petitions have argued that this definition makes it easy for the government to penalize any form of dissent, putting activists at most risk.

The government’s defense for Section 4 is a caveat, but one called a killer caveat for the petitioners, because while it says that dissent is not terrorism, it also requires that such dissent be proven not to have a terroristic intent. It’s a two-faced clause as it essentially shifts the burden of proof to the suspect.

In the preliminary discussion, the petitioners will also argue that if Section 4 is declared unconstitutional, then the law in its entirety should be automatically declared unconstitutional.

Speakers for petitioners on this topic:

Sections 5-14

They criminalize threat to commit terrorism; planning, training, preparing and facilitating to commit terrorism; conspiracy to commit terrorism; proposal to commit terrorism; inciting to commit terrorism; recruitment to and membership in a terrorist group; providing material support to terrorists; and being an accessory to terrorism.

These crimes are new: threat; planning, training, facilitating; proposal; inciting; and recruitment.

Petitions argue that these new crimes, especially inciting to terrorism, violate freedom of speech. Any group that helps people suspected of being terrorists can be penalized under “providing material support” which runs counter to the freedom of association, and ultimately, freedom of religion. It will be “guilt by association,” say the petitions.

For Moros, for example, petitions argue that if Muslims practice and therefore espouse Islam, they can be suspected of being terrorists especially since their religion has long been targeted.

Speakers for petitioners on this topic: Cadiz, Tabayoyong, Diokno, Te, and Molo.

Sections 16-19

In the new law, the Court of Appeals (CA) authorization to surveil suspected terrorists can last up to 60 days, compared to 30 days in the old law. Under Section 16, designated terrorists – meaning people and groups who have not yet been declared as terrorists by any court – can also be surveilled.

Petitioners will argue that these provisions violate the constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and violate the constitutional right to privacy of communication.

Petitioners will argue that the court’s authorization will take away from surveillance subjects the option to file for extraordinary remedies such as the writ of habeas data.

In this new power, the anti-terror council (ATC) can designate people or groups as terrorists based only on its own secret hearings. This is a separate power from the court process of proscription.

Once the designation is done, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) is automatically authorized to freeze the assets of the designated persons.

In the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), the designated people’s names are published on the website . The IRR added the option of applying for delisting, which is a process not found in the law.

Petitioners will argue that this unilateral power of the ATC is unconstitutional because it encroaches on the powers of the courts and violates due process.

Sections 35 and 36 of the law specifically give AMLC the power to freeze assets upon designation. Senators who voted for the bill belatedly realized the danger of this AMLC power, especially since AMLC has admitted to not having enough investigative manpower to carry out this task

Petitioners will argue that Sections 35 and 36 are also unconstitutional.

Speakers for the petitioners on this topic:

In the old law, proscription as terrorists happen after a full trial. Under Section 27, there can be a preliminary proscription that can happen, even as quickly as 72 hours, without a single hearing.

The permanent proscription, or the lifting of the preliminary proscription, will follow after the trial.

Petitioners will argue that these amount to an ex post facto law, a law that punishes an act which was not a crime before the law was passed. 

Simply put: Acts committed before the anti-terror law was passed, which didn’t result in people and groups becoming declared as terrorists, will now get them punished because of new definitions.

Speakers for petitioners on this topic are Colmenares and Cortez.

This provision allows the ATC to authorize the arrest and detention of suspects for as long as 24 days, even without a court warrant.

Rule 9.1 of the IRR added a requirement for law enforcers to first submit a sworn statement to the ATC before they can be authorized to make arrests. 

Still, if law enforcers cannot submit a sworn statement at the time they want to make an arrest, they can still do so, provided they belatedly submit the statement within 36 hours.

Petitioners will argue that this not only violates the constitutional right to due process, it also violates the Revised Penal Code and the Rules of Court.

The Revised Penal Code allows law enforcers to keep someone they arrested without a warrant for only up to 36 hours, otherwise they should be released if not charged in court.

Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution says that if the nation is under martial law and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, a suspect can be kept for up to 3 days only.

Section 29 of the anti-terror law puts the country under a “permanent state worse than martial law,” said retired supreme court senior associate justice Antonio Carpio, also a petitioner.

Section 34 can impose house arrest. The heading of Section 34 lists down even bailable crimes such as threat to commit terrorism; proposal to commit terrorism; and inciting to commit terrorism.

The IRR – Rule 10.13 – clarifies that house arrest is only imposed for non-bailable crimes but where the court has granted bail. (Courts can grant bail upon application in non-bailable crimes.) (PODCAST: Law of Duterte Land: Deep dive into anti-terror law IRR )

Nevertheless, petitioners will still argue that Section 34 violates not only the right to bail, but also the right to travel. It also amounts to torture, petitioners will argue, as Republic Act 9745 punishes mental and psychological torture that can occur in detention.

Section 56 repeals RA 9372 or the Human Security Act (HSA).

Petitioners will argue that the repeal violates the mandate to compensate victims of torture; and the right to due process.

In the HSA, if a suspect is acquitted, the government must pay P500,000 for each day that that the suspect was detained. This scared law enforcers and deterred them from arresting suspects so that so few were prosecuted under the HSA. This provision has been removed in the anti-terror law.

Also removed is the provision for a grievance committee that would evaluate complaints against implementors of the law.

The law also removed an HSA provision that gave the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) prosecutorial power over erring law enforcers and public officials. CHR currently does not have prosecutorial power.

It also removed the provision where the law is automatically suspended one month before and two months after any election.

In this discussion, petitioners will also argue that the law violates Indigenous Peoples’ and Moros’ rights to self-determination and self-governance. 

Tune in to Rappler for live coverage and streaming of the oral arguments on February 2, at 2:30 pm. – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended Stories

{{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}, supreme court of the philippines, fact check: no mandatory drug testing for all judges and court employees.

Supreme Court invalidates Comelec’s proclamation of Magsasaka Party-list faction

Supreme Court rules: QC government can’t seize Manila Seedling Bank property

Pimentel-led group seeks to block P89B transfer of Philhealth fund to national budget

9 of the top 10 passers of 2024 Shari’ah Bar exams are women

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

Home / Essay Samples / Government / Philippine Government / Philippine Constitution: Analyzing the Anti-Terror Law of 2020

Philippine Constitution: Analyzing the Anti-Terror Law of 2020

• Category: Government , Law
• Topic: Constitution , Constitutional Conventions , Philippine Government

Pages: 2 (1051 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Democracy Essays

Ruby Bridges Essays

Reign of Terror Essays

Gun Control Essays

Community Policing Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->