Alyannah Hidalgo

3LM4

INDUCTIVE

The Anti-Terror Law and how it terrorizes Human Rights.

The creation of a new law was seen as a necessity by the current Duterte Administration.

They aimed to amend the Human Security Act of 2007, or Republic Act No. 9327, which was

signed by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, through the passage of RA 11497, otherwise

known as Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. Although both aimed to provide better counter-terrorism

measures for the Philippines, legal luminaries counter attacked the current law for various

reasons. Despite being a necessity, the current version of the Anti-Terrorism Bill is in no way

helpful in the counter-terror attacks and maintaining safety and security in the country, and the

question lingers. Passed during the 18th Congress, last July 22, 2020, legal luminaries and

opposition groups have raised various questions regarding the Anti-Terror Law. It was

questioned to have vague definitions of terrorism and made it prone to abuse by state forces and

authorities to tag activists, the opposition and any one they like as terrorist. More so, the

vagueness of the terms in the act were the main loopholes for power manipulations. Various

organizations and groups have pointed out the violations of such Bill which they coincided with

the 1987 constitution and how the bill violated certain provisions in the most powerful law of the

land. The University of Santo Tomas Artlets Student Council, reiterated that the Article 3,

Sections 4 and 18 of the Philippine Constitution, which states that, “No Law shall be passed

abridging the freedom of speech, expression, or of the press…” and “No person shall be

detained solely by the reason of his political beliefs and aspirations”, respectively, were violated

by Section 9 of the the Anti-terror Law. Riyaz ul Khaliq (2020) in his article in Anadolu Agency,
said that there is at least 25 petitions running in the Supreme Court against the said Law. He also

pointed out that certain amendments in the ATL were deemed dangerous by numerous

lawmakers, and concerns were raised that it may aggravate the even worsening human rights

abuses in the Philippines. Julie McCarthy (2020), in her article “Why Rights Groups Worry

about the Philippines’ New Anti-Terrorism Law”, said that despite the law being a legal teeth

that counters insurgencies and terrorism and despite the current administrations lip service that

the law will safeguard freedom, it still instil fear amongst its countrymen. McCarthy referenced

back to the petition of the National Union of People’s Lawyers which stated that the law stands

to criminalize intent because it is masked behind a broad and vague concepts. Moreover, NUPL

pointed out how the law can penalize speeches, banners and the likes as terrorist movements

under the Anti-Terrorism Council. Another problem seen in the current law, is the definitional

process of determining what terrorism is and what is not. This question was the main contention

by legal luminaries and the left-leaning opposition. More so, just a mere suspicion, under the

current law, is punishable, and would ultimately give power to authorities to detain anyone they

suspect as terrorist without a warrant from the court, as long as the arresting body have the

authority from the ATC. This is the problem, in Article 3, Section 2, warrants of arrests should

only be issued by a judge upon determined probable cause. This rejects the concept of separation

of power and could ultimately lead to someone being arrested just because the ATC said so. The

existence of probable cause is nowhere to be found in the current bill’s Section 29 and such

disregards the mandate of the constitution and in the Sta. Maria Petition, it is pointed out that

“mere suspicion cannot be the basis of a warrantless arrest”. Former Ombudsman Conchita

Carpio-Morales reiterated that to fight terrorism, the state should not be the main caucus

promoting terror and impunity. She was further supported by Retired SC Associate Justice
Antonio Carpio which has submitted their contention to the Supreme Court against the said Bill,

together with UP Legal Experts (OneNews, 2020). Ret. Ass. Justice Carpio argued that the

current version of the ATL is a defective measure and can place the Philippines in a permanent

“Martial Law” situation. There is uncertainty on proper implementation and this can be traced

back to NTF-ELCAC and other groups have been red-tagging and labelling legitimate activism

as terrorism and Carpio Experts with their team, in their petition have pointed out that these

kinds of cases would be more prevalent and rampant during the implementation of the ATL, and

can be aimed anytime against dissent and against legitimate critical calls. Even Amnesty

International have called this Law as a setback for human rights.

Unless questions against the newly instituted Anti-Terror Law of 2020 is addressed and

vagueness and ambiguity is answered and given focus, this Law, being aimed by the

administration to counter insurgencies and terrorist attacks may remain as a questionable faction

of the Philippine legal system and will remain as a huge attack to human rights and activism.

DEDUCTIVE

The Duterte Administration have amended the Human Security Act of 2007, or Republic

Act No. 9327, which was signed by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, through the

passage of RA 11497, otherwise known as Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 which was crafted to

counter insurgencies and terrorism.

The anti-terror law was signed as a teeth to counter terrorism in the country. The ATL

aims to punish terrorist acts – threatening to commit terrorism, inciting other to commit terrorist

acts, acting as an accessory to terrorism or Joining Terrorist Groups. Moreover, the current ATL

has defined terrorism as;

 a. Engaging in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person or
endangers a person’s life;
b. Engaging in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or
public facility, public place, or private property;
c. Engaging in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage, or destruction to
critical infrastructure;
d. Developing, manufacturing, possessing, acquiring, transporting, supplying, or using
weapons; and
e. 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.
However, concerns were raised by legal luminaries and opposition groups as ATL have

vague definitions of terrorism and that such ambiguity can be prone to abuse by the state itself.

Former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, a Filipino Intellectual, reiterated that to fight

terrorism, the state should not be the main caucus promoting terror and impunity (OneNews,

2020). The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace saw the Bill as an attack towards the

dissent, aiming to silence valid criticisms and opposition by tagging them as terrorists (Sobel,

2020). This was further strengthened by the statement of Ret. Ass. Justice Antonio Carpio, who

argued that the current version of the Anti-Terrorism Act is a defective measure and will

ultimately place the country in a permanent “Martial Law” situation. This is because there is

uncertainty on proper implementation and this can be traced back to NTF-ELCAC red-tagging

and labelling legitimate activism as terrorism. Legal Groups and Luminaries have been afraid

that the ambiguity of the ATL will make human rights abuses become more prevalent and

rampant and can be used by the state anytime to stifle dissent. More so, the widespread culture of

double-standards is a clear challenge in the Law’s proper implementation. Since the start of
quarantine, protocols were violated by people in power, Kiko Pimentel, Mocha Uson and the

now Police Chief Debold Sinas, among others, endangering the Filipino People but have not yet

faced charges and are still freely moving with power whilst Majority of Political Prisoners who

have been wrongfully detained via planting of evidences and the common charges of illegal

possession of firearms and explosives, like the Pride 20, the Manila 5 and the Cebu 7, who have

been arrested without charges just because they have voiced out the truth (Abad, 2020). The UN

Human Rights Office have released a report stating that around 248 activists were killed as of

June 4, 2020 (between 2015 to 2019) (HRW, 2020) and Carlos Conde (2020), a senior researcher

for the Asia Division of the Human Rights Watch, have pinpointed that during ECQ, Human

Rights Killings in the country were up by 50% and it is not possible that the numbers will

skyrocket as we continue living with the Anti-Terror Law.

Another problem that can be cited would be the unconstitutionality of the said law. Emil

Jurado (2020) in his article, published in Manila Standard have called the ATL as “Patently

Unconstitutional” from not having a bicameral session, and certifying the bill as urgent without it

being an emergency or a calamity, to authorizing a certain Anti-terrorism council to order arrest

when the constitution only allows the court to do so, and exemptions from criminal liabilities and

lifting even Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Various organizations have pointed out the

unconstitutionality of the said law and even the released IRR of the Department of Justice has the

same level of ambiguity to begin with.

These calls remain a strong standpoint in indicating that the Anti-Terror Bill is Terror

itself. It remains an attack against human rights and is a clear vindication that the state has been

manipulating the constitution to further their attacks on people and legalize their impunity and
abuses so that they may act on an immoral stance behind a law terrorizing its people, masked by

its legality.

References

Abad, M. (2020, October 20). LIST: In furlough requests, political personalities have edge over

political prisoners. Retrieved November 10, 2020, from

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/list-political-personalities-furloughs-compared-prisoners

Amnesty International. (2020, July 03). Dangerous anti-terror law in the Philippines yet another

setback for human rights. Retrieved November 08, 2020, from

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/07/philippines-dangerous-antiterror-law-yet-

another-setback-for-human-rights/

Conde, C. H. (2020, October 28). Killings in Philippines Up 50 Percent During Pandemic.

Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/08/killings-philippines-

50-percent-during-pandemic

Jurado, E. (2020, August 14). Patently unconstitutional. Retrieved November 10, 2020, from

https://manilastandard.net/mobile/article/331366

Khaliq, R. U. (2020, November 08). Philippines: Anti-terror act faces top court challenges.

Retrieved November 08, 2020, from https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/philippines-anti-

terror-act-faces-top-court-challenges/1938024

Khaliq, R. U. (2020, November 08). Philippines: Anti-terror act faces top court challenges.

Retrieved November 08, 2020, from https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/philippines-anti-

terror-act-faces-top-court-challenges/1938024

McCarthy, J. (2020, July 21). Why Rights Groups Worry About The Philippines' New Anti-

Terrorism Law. Retrieved November 08, 2020, from

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/21/893019057/why-rights-groups-worry-about-the-philippines-

new-anti-terrorism-law

Nonato, V. (2020, July 07). 'Vague And Unconstitutional': Here's Why Four Petitions Seek SC

Junking Of The Anti-Terrorism Act. Retrieved November 08, 2020, from

https://www.onenews.ph/vague-and-unconstitutional-here-s-why-four-petitions-seek-sc-junking-

of-the-anti-terrorism-act

Nonato, V. (2020, July 23). Unlimited Warrantless Arrests: Carpio, Morales, UP Law Ask SC To

Nullify Anti-Terrorism Act. Retrieved November 08, 2020, from

https://www.onenews.ph/unlimited-warrantless-arrests-carpio-morales-up-law-ask-sc-to-nullify-

anti-terrorism-act

Sobel, A. (2020, June 30). The Philippines' Antiterror Bill Will Stifle Dissent. Retrieved

November 10, 2020, from https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/06/30/philippines-antiterror-bill-

will-stifle-dissent-pub-82215

Special Council Would Usurp Court Powers. (2020, October 28). Philippines: New Anti-

Terrorism Act Endangers Rights. Retrieved November 10, 2020, from

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/05/philippines-new-anti-terrorism-act-endangers-rights