essay about anti terror law in the philippines

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Philippines' high court upholds most of a terrorism law, but strikes down a key point

Julie McCarthy

Hundreds of demonstrators carry anti-terrorism bill placards as they march at a university campus in Manila on June 4, 2020, a day after lawmakers passed the sweeping legislation. The Philippines' Supreme Court upheld most of the law in a partial verdict announced this week. Ted Aljibe/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Hundreds of demonstrators carry anti-terrorism bill placards as they march at a university campus in Manila on June 4, 2020, a day after lawmakers passed the sweeping legislation. The Philippines' Supreme Court upheld most of the law in a partial verdict announced this week.

The Philippines' Supreme Court largely upheld an anti-terrorism law this week that spawned rancorous challenges, in a ruling that could have far-reaching impacts in the Southeast Asian country. But the court struck down one measure, representing a partial win for petitioners who feared its sweeping definition of terrorism.

Philippine rights advocates, lawyers, journalists and clerics have been jailed, harassed and worse the past five and a half years under the leadership of President Rodrigo Duterte. Human rights activists fear the legislation could spell further suppression.

Among its provisions, the law punishes anyone officials deem to have incited terrorism through "speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners and other representations."

The government maintains that it needs the anti-terrorism act to fight insurgencies.

But critics brought an unusually high number of legal challenges against the legislation, signed into law by Duterte last year. And on Thursday, the Supreme Court previewed its verdict in a brief advisory that left petitioners stunned: In essence the court let the Anti-Terror Act of 2020 stand, declaring most of its provisions "not unconstitutional."

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

There was one notable exception. The court struck down a portion of a provision defining what constitutes terrorism, declaring it overly broad because it could have interpreted terrorism to include the exercise of civil rights like advocacy, protests and work stoppages.

Clan politics reign but a family is divided in the race to rule the Philippines

Many Filipinos, whose mass demonstrations ousted a dictator three decades ago, are wary of any such encroachment on their rights. And the court in essence said activism is not terrorism.

However, opponents of the sweeping law said the provisions the court has validated would prolong the detention of suspects, violate the right of presumed innocence and encourage unreasonable searches and seizures. They insist the law remains draconian.

Philippines Anti-Terror Law Sparks Outrage

Activists are especially alarmed by the creation under the law of a presidentially appointed anti-terrorism council that's been conferred with vast powers.

"This includes the authority to examine bank accounts and freeze assets or organizations, to designate individuals and organizations as terrorists, apply for broad surveillance powers — this is all without notice and judicial process," explains Rachel Chhoa-Howard, who researches the Philippines for Amnesty International.

International Criminal Court Backs Probe Of Duterte's War On Drugs In The Philippines

Nine justices declared it was unconstitutional for the anti-terrorism council to be allowed to designate people and groups as terrorists based on the requests of other countries or international organizations, such as ASEAN or the EU. Petitioners called it a blatant violation of due process, because it deprived an accused the opportunity of any hearing in the Philippines before being designated a terrorist.

It was the only other provision the court invalidated. But the court upheld a clause that gives state security forces the power to arrest suspected terrorists and detain them for up to 24 days without charge.

While some rights activists welcome what they call "a partial win," the ruling overall appears to be a significant victory for President Duterte. Several petitioners say they are planning to apply to the court for a reconsideration of the case.

The full text of the judgment is expected next week.

• rodrigo duterte
• Philippines
• anti-terrorism law

• Subscribe Now

Anti-terror law oral arguments: Personal freedoms or national security?

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.

ORAL ARGUMENTS. Associate Justice Amy Lazaro Javier interpellates UP Professor John Molo on Day 4 of anti-terror law oral arguments.

Supreme Court PIO

Supreme Court justices debated on Day 4 of the anti-terror law oral arguments the need to balance upholding personal freedoms and protecting the country’s national security.

Petitioners argued that the feared law violates as many as 15 out of the 22 items in the Bill of Rights , such as rights to privacy and due process.

“You favor individual liberty over the security, the life, the very survival of our country and our people?” Associate Justice Amy Lazaro Javier asked University of the Philippines (UP) Law Professor John Molo, to kickstart the interpellations on Tuesday, March 2.

It was a recurring theme in the last 4 days of oral arguments, as some justices grilled petitioners on the practical necessity of the tough provisions of the feared law.

Molo answered emotionally, saying his father was a soldier and his grandfather a local police chief in Bicol, both of whom had fought communist rebels.

“My father is a soldier who fought in Leyte and the jungles of Sulu, who saw his fellow soldiers die at the hands of the New People’s Army (NPA). I will never favor terrorists,” said Molo.

“But my father and my lolo – who kept Bicol free from the NPA – also taught me in waging a war, we cannot afford to lose the hearts and minds of our people. We cannot afford to lose our constitutional values,” said Molo, who teaches constitutional law at UP.

Interpellated by Associate Justice Edgardo delos Santos, Molo said: “I am in favor of law and order. Unlike the people behind me, I am pro national security, actually, your honor, it’s just that the law is too overbroad.”

State vs fundamental freedoms

Interpellating Molo, Associate Justice Mario Lopez said national security carried more weight than fundamental rights.

“Since this involves a crime against national security, it is more than the fundamental rights. Why? Because what is affected in crimes against national security is not only the people’s right in national security of the state, what is involved is the right of the people, the state’s rights to its sovereignty, to its government and that of its territory,” said Lopez.

Lopez was making the point that governments can restrict freedoms if there’s a compelling state interest – protecting the country from terrorists, in this case.

Molo said that governments that need to restrict freedoms should pass a strict scrutiny test, such as narrow tailoring. Narrow tailoring is making the restrictive law so narrow that it avoids only the evil it wants to avoid, and not run the risk of stepping on other liberties.

“Since as I have shown there, it is the national state security which is involved, there may be a higher level of scrutiny, more than a strict scrutiny test,” said Lopez.

Molo disagreed, saying that the burden of passing the strict scrutiny test lies with government. The burden should not be on fundamental freedoms.

Anti-terror law: Lopez grills on criminal law, ends with deference to Congress

‘What’s missing is good intel’

Former Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) national president Jose Anselmo Cadiz told the Supreme Court that what’s needed in the fight against terrorism is not a harsher law, but better intelligence from law enforcement.

“With good intelligence work, and with good police work, we can be able to prevent these things from happening,” Cadiz told Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, referring to terrorism.

“So the matter really is implementation, the matter really is execution, you need not declare the law unconstitutional if it’s a problem merely of execution?” Zalameda asked.

Cadiz answered: “No your honor, it’s not a problem of execution, it is a clash between this law and the Constitution.” – 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, [newspoint] a little walk-back.

Not yet justice, but SC ruling gives activists fighting chance vs red-tagging

Rappler Talk: How does SC’s red-tagging ruling change the game

China claims it has audio recording of ‘new deal’ with Wescom chief | The wRap

Finally, Supreme Court defines red-tagging as a threat

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+

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

‘regime machinery operating efficiently’ as tunisia cracks down on dissent, why egypt backed south africa’s genocide case against israel in the icj, us sanctions two rsf commanders as fighting escalates in sudan’s darfur, the lost souls of syria – part 1.

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.

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

DB Subedi , Balazs A Kovacs

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

RELATED PAPERS

Francesco Caglioti

Felipe Jerez

Kamu Yönetimi

Civil War and the Collapse of the Social Bond

Michele Lowrie

Warda cahyani

warda cahyani

Physical Review B

Tempo Social

Roberto Lima

American Journal of Legal History

Taisu Zhang

Jurnal Ilmiah Mandala Education

Indah Nur faizah

eric walberg

Frontiers in Earth Science

amin jafari

International Journal of Poultry Science

Gururaj Kulkarni

Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical

Janos Polonyi

Khoa Tiếng Anh

Health Science Reports

Osaretin Uche Chimah

Anna Maria Geretti

Jose Luis Bocco

Journal of Molecular Medicine

NOEMI ANNA PESCE

IEE Proceedings - Control Theory and Applications

Mario Innocenti , Dimosthenis Fragopoulos

Reproductive biomedicine online

Ralf Henkel

Lorenzo Laporta

Chemical Papers

Jaroslav Stejskal

Valéria Csépe

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

Jürgen Freiwald

RELATED TOPICS

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

• Account Details
• Newsletters
• Group Subscription

Philippines' anti-terror law poses a direct threat to democracy

It will be up to the country's next president to decide how to implement it

Criselda Yabes is a journalist based in the Philippines. She is author of "The Battle of Marawi," her 10th book, which was published last year.

When the Philippine Supreme Court voted to uphold most of President Rodrigo Duterte's controversial anti-terror law in December, the person who stood to benefit the most was Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the current front-runner to win the May 9 presidential election.

Duterte's party backs front-runner Marcos for Philippine president

Marcos keeps big lead in latest philippine presidential poll, philippine presidential candidates ring alarm over covid surge threat, philippines' back-to-office order unsettles call centers, philippine activists warn of voting anomalies ahead of election, philippines allows foreigners to own telcos, airlines and railways, latest on opinion, chinese aircraft carrier's voyage hints at plan for 'post-u.s.' navy, japan inc. is changing the way it assesses leadership, west must face up to paradox of green transition, sponsored content, about sponsored content this content was commissioned by nikkei's global business bureau..

Nikkei Asian Review, now known as Nikkei Asia, will be the voice of the Asian Century.

Celebrate our next chapter Free access for everyone - Sep. 30

ANTI TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

‘If you’ve got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’, but a detailed analysis of the human rights cost of the fast-expanding security state all over the world suggests otherwise.

The New Normal

Governments have rejected the view that they should provide security so people can enjoy their rights, and adopted the view that they must restrict rights to provide security. Many countries have made it easier to invoke and extend states of emergency and other emergency measures; what should be exceptional and temporary powers have increasingly become permanently embedded in ordinary criminal law.

Overly broad definitions of terrorism are a big part of the problem. Because there is no universally agreed definition, states and international bodies have created their own. But in that process, definitions of terrorism have become increasingly vague, so that they can be arbitrarily applied, meaning law-abiding citizens can be subjected to unwarranted surveillance , administrative orders which restrict their liberties, intrusive searches, arbitrary arrests, red-tagging or even worse, extrajudicial executions. 

In the context of ‘countering terrorism’, states must ensure the respect of international human rights and humanitarian law. Currently, the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in the Philippines is in violation of international standards on human rights and counter-terrorism.

The law risks granting further excessive powers to the Philippine executive, which has presided over serious human rights violations in the country under President Duterte. The Duterte administration continues to pursue its “ war on drugs ” despite the tens of thousands already killed by the police and by armed individuals. Attacks against human rights defenders and critics of the government – including activists, journalists, lawyers, church leaders, trade union leaders, and individuals and groups affiliated with the political left – have increased under a climate of impunity; they have repeatedly been ‘red-tagged’ and accused of being “terrorists” because of their perceived links to communist groups.

A disturbing picture is emerging in which unchecked powers are trampling freedoms we have all taken for granted.

The Act defines terrorism as:

• Engaging in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person or endangers a person’s life;
• Engaging in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place, or private property;
• Engaging in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage, or destruction to critical infrastructure;
• Developing, manufacturing, possessing, acquiring, transporting, supplying, or using weapons; and
• Releasing dangerous substances or causing fire, floods or explosions when the purpose is to intimidate the general public, create an atmosphere to spread a message of fear, provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures in the country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety

Under the law, persons who propose, incite, conspire, and participate in the planning, training, and facilitation an offence under the act, as well as those who provide support to ‘terrorists’ as defined under the act, or recruit members of a ‘terrorist organisation’, could face life imprisonment without parole.

The law also punishes the following offences with 12 years’ imprisonment:

• Threatening to commit ‘terrorism’
• Inciting others or proposing to commit ‘terrorism’
• Voluntarily and knowingly joining any ‘terrorist group’
• Acting as an accessory in the commission of ‘terrorism’

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

End attacks against indigenous peoples

Irr further weaponize anti-terror law.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Duterte Signs Antiterrorism Bill in Philippines Despite Widespread Criticism

Human rights groups say the new law will give the police and military forces more powers to stifle dissent.

By Jason Gutierrez

MANILA — President Rodrigo Duterte signed a contentious antiterrorism bill Friday aimed at combating Islamic militancy in the south, a measure that critics warned could lead to more widespread human rights abuses.

Muslims living in the southern Philippines have spoken out against the legislation to broaden powers of arrest and detention. On Friday, a regional government in the southern island of Mindanao that includes former separatist rebels urged Mr. Duterte’s government not to go through with the measure.

The new law allows for terrorism suspects to be detained without a warrant, prolongs the amount of time that they can be detained without being charged in court, and removes a requirement that the police present suspects before a judge to assess whether they have been subjected to physical or mental torture.

Rights groups and activists say the new law is designed to give Mr. Duterte’s police and military forces more powers to stifle dissent against his populist rule amid his war on drugs, which has killed thousands of people.

Mr. Duterte’s spokesman, Harry Roque, said the new law was necessary to crack down on terrorism. “Terrorism, as we often said, strikes anytime and anywhere,” Mr. Roque said. “It is a crime against the people and humanity. Thus, the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach.”

He stressed that terrorist acts in the Philippines had long “caused unimaginable grief and horror,” and added that the president and his legal team had carefully reviewed the legislation before he signed it into law.

The law was signed days after the police and military forces killed four people believed to be Filipino militants linked to the Islamic State during a raid in Manila.

The militants were suspected of working as financial conduits for the local branch of the Islamic State, according to the military. Officials said they were working with Mundi Sawadjaan, one of the accused plotters behind the January 2019 bombing of a Catholic cathedral on the southern island of Jolo that killed 23 people.

The attack was carried out by an Indonesian couple wearing suicide vests. They were believed to have been directed by Hatib Hajan Sawadjaan, the leader of the Islamic State in the Philippines and Mundi Sawadjaan’s relative.

On Friday, Edre Olalia, of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, said the group would challenge the “draconian law.”

“This without a doubt is the most unpopular and perilous piece of legislation that could ever be pushed by a government that is fixated with the potion of power,” said Mr. Olalia, whose group represents activist and indigent groups.

Human Rights Watch said the new law gave security forces the power to arrest activists, journalists and social media users by simply saying that they are suspected of terrorist activities.

“The law threatens to significantly worsen the human rights situation in the Philippines, which has nose-dived since the catastrophic war on drugs began four years ago,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director for the group.

He said the law gave the green light for the “systematic targeting” of Mr. Duterte’s critics, as well as Filipinos who speak out against the his government.

Human Rights Watch expressed particular concern with provisions that permit warrantless arrests and allow people to be kept for weeks in solitary detention, elements that Mr. Robertson said could facilitate torture.

Earlier this week, Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, released a report that attributed thousands of “systematic” killings that were done with “near-total impunity” to Mr. Duterte’s war on drugs.

“The campaign against illegal drugs is being carried out without due regard for the rule of law, due process, and the human rights of people who may be using or selling drugs,” she said.

Ms. Bachelet cited “an unwillingness by the state to hold to account perpetrators of extrajudicial killings,” and had urged Mr. Duterte not to sign the antiterrorism bill, which she said blurred distinctions between what is criticism of the government and what is terrorism.