NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020; A Critical Analysis

1
 Submitted by: Alican B. Karim, J.D 1B

Submiited to: Atty. Nur Halifah Dilangalen, CPA

I. Introduction

The constitution of the Philippines is the fundamental law of the

land to which all laws must adhere to it. Thus, no law shall be passed
violating any of the provisions of the above-mentioned constitution,
otherwise it will be declared unconstitutional.

The recent enacted Anti-Terrorism Law had gained huge

criticisms for it allegedly violated some provision of the constitution.
During the proposal of the said law many groups of people including
those in the legal field, private personalities, public and private
organization showed their strong opposition on the approval of Senate
Bill no. 1083 and House Bill version no. 6875. some of them filed their
petition for the disapproval of the said bill. However. The government
is determined in enacting the said bill. Hence, the Anti-terrorism act of
2020 which is officially designated as Republic Act No. 11479.

2
Background of the Research

Conflicts with ideologically motivated groups, both armed and

unarmed have frequently been labeled “terrorist, rebels, bandits”
throughout the Philippines’ history. (ROMMEL BANLAOI, THE
MARAWI SIEGE AND ITS AFTERMATH: THE CONTINUING
TERRORIST THREATS 2020). Philippines has been in various threats
recently the Marawi Seige which caused by the tagged local and
international terrorists the Maute Group and ISIS.

Insurgency, terrorism and other form of rebellion against the

government had been reflected in Philippine history since the colonial
era. Philippine government is urged to battle and put an end to this
kind of conflict through a law that seeks to counter-terrorism.

Recently, a bill was introduced in the senate of the Philippines

Senate Bill No. 1083 which was published on september 30, 2019. it was
authored by Tito Sotto, ping Lacson, Imee Marcos, et. Al. As well as in
the House of Representatives of the Philippines as House Bill No. 6875
it was published on May 30, 2020 and introduced by Narciso Bravo Jr.

3
(Masbate-1st), Raul Tupas (Iloilo-5th), et. Al. The bill was signed into
law by President Rodrigo R. Duterte on July 3, 2020 and become
effective on July 18, 2020.

What is Terrorism?

Terrorism under section 3 of the Human Security of Act of 2007

is any person who commits an act punishable under any of the
following provisions of the revised penal code:

a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or

in the Philippine Waters);

b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);

4
 c. Article 134-a (Coup d’Etat), including acts committed by
private persons;

d. Article 248 (Murder);

e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);

f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under

(1) Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);

(2) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and
Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);

(3) Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and

Liability Act of 1968);

(4) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);

(5) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway

Robbery Law of 1974); and,

(6) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying

the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in,
Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)

thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and

extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce
the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the
crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of
imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as provided for under Act
No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended. (An Act to secure the state and protect our people from
terrorism, Republic Act No. 9372, § 3 2007).

The Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism defines

terrorism as an act of violence that target civilians in the pursuit of
political or ideological aims. (Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, HUMAN RIGHTS, TERRORISM
5
AND COUNTER-TERRORISM 2008). Hence, a criminal acts including
against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious
bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a
state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or
particular persons.

What is Republic Act No. 11479?

Republict Act 11479 an act to prevent, prohibit and penalize

terrorism, thereby repealing republic act no. 9372, otherwise known as
the “Human Security Act of 2007”

This recently enacted law repealed some provision of the Human

Security Act of 2007 including the definition of terrorism and
procedural aspects that pertains to the act of terrorism.

6
 II. Discussion and Analysis

On February 26, 2020, the Senate passed on third and final

reading Senate Bill No 1083 or the Anti-Terror Bill. On June 1, 2020,
President Rodrigo Duterte certified the bill as urgent. Two days later,
despite opposition from various groups, the House of Representatives
approved its version, House Bill No 6875. The bill’s intent is to amend
and repeal Republic Act No 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007
(HSA), which, while the subject of criticisms from human rights
groups for possible abuses on the part of enforcers and misuse or
usurpation of the term human security at the time it was enacted, was
also unwanted by those who had to enforce it because of the
safeguards it had against abuse. If anything, the Anti-Terror Bill
removes the safeguards present in the Human Security Act of 2007 and
lessens the penalties for abuse of discretion by concerned authorities.

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that no law

shall be enacted depriving any person of his or her life, liberty, and
property without due process of law. (PHIL. CONST. Art. III, § 1.). In
this regard all laws must adhere to the provisions of the 1987
constitution While we recognize the problem terrorism poses and the
need for law enforcers to respond effectively, people should also be
concerned about how the newly enacted law may affect individual and
collective human rights. In particular, the researcher would like to
direct attention to the following issues.

Ambiguity and Abuse of Authority

Any law that imposes penalties on a convicted person or group

must be clear about how it defines an offense. Under the newly
enacted law, what qualifies as an act of “terrorism” has been expanded
and can be subject to a variety of interpretations. Ambiguity in the
definitions of “terrorist” and the “acts of terrorism” may lead to the
abuse of authority, especially when substantive institutional oversight
is reduced.

Furthermore, the bill expands the composition of the Anti-

Terrorism Council (ATC) to include other heads of executive
departments. (An act to prevent, prohibit and penalize terrorism,

7
thereby repealing republic act no. 9372, otherwise known as the
“Human Security Act of 2007”, Republic Act 11479, § 45 2020).
However, all of the members remain to be alter-egos or appointees of
any sitting president. The ATC has also been given the power to
designate persons or organizations as terrorists, in addition to those
already designated by the United Nations Security Council, for the
purposes of surveillance and investigations by the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC). Other than probable cause, the ATC has
no set criteria for the designation. This may be subject to arbitrary
interpretation and application, especially without the participation of
government bodies independent of the Executive, such as the
Commission on Human Rights (CHR). (An act to prevent, prohibit and
penalize terrorism, thereby repealing republic act no. 9372, otherwise
known as the “Human Security Act of 2007”, Republic Act 11479, § 25
2020).

Safeguards have been reduced. In the Congress-approved bills,

the penalties for unauthorized and malicious examination and
furnishing false evidence, forged documents, or spurious evidence
were reduced. (An act to prevent, prohibit and penalize terrorism,
thereby repealing republic act no. 9372, otherwise known as the
“Human Security Act of 2007”, Republic Act 11479, § 37, 43. 2020).

With too much discretion at the disposal of the ATC and

reduced penalties for abusive interpretation of the law, there can be
violations on the right to due process of an individual. Does this mean
that one is guilty until proven otherwise?

Rights of the Accused to be Informed

One of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of an accused is to

be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or
her. Under the newly enacted law, the arresting officer or the head of
the detaining facility is tasked to inform the accused of his or her
rights upon arrest and detention. (An act to prevent, prohibit and
penalize terrorism, thereby repealing republic act no. 9372, otherwise
known as the “Human Security Act of 2007”, Republic Act 11479, §
29,30. 2020). However, in the newly enacted law some of the existing
rights in the Human Security Act of 2007 has been removed.

8
 In the Human Security Act 0f 2007, the person under
surveillance or the accused has the right to be informed of the acts
done by the law enforcement agencies and to challenge the legality of
such interference before the court. (An Act to secure the state and
protect our people from terrorism, Republic Act No. 9372, § 9 2007).
The accused also has the right to be informed of the termination of the
surveillance, interception, and recording should there be no case filed
against him or her for any violation of the law (An Act to secure the
state and protect our people from terrorism, Republic Act No. 9372, §
10. 2007). But under the newly enacted law, these parts were deleted.

There are also restrictions and limitations imposed in accessing

records and logs, which may be used by the accused to file cases
against those who conducted malicious investigations (An act to
prevent, prohibit and penalize terrorism, thereby repealing republic
act no. 9372, otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of 2007”,
Republic Act 11479, § 32,37. 2020).

The accused may be rendered clueless about what is happening.

With limited information, the accused may not be able to respond
properly to any accusations lodged against him or her. This may also
constitute a violation of the right to due process. The so-called
“safeguards” usually do not protect the poor and the powerless.

Surveillance and Detention

Under the newly enacted law, the period of surveillance is

extended from 30 to 60 days. Surveillance includes tracking down,
following, or investigating individuals or organizations; or the
wiretapping, listening, intercepting, screening, reading, and recording
of messages, conversations, discussions, spoken or written words,
including computer and network surveillance, and other
communications of individuals charged with or suspected to be
engaged in terrorism (An act to prevent, prohibit and penalize
terrorism, thereby repealing republic act no. 9372, otherwise known as
the “Human Security Act of 2007”, Republic Act 11479, § 16 2020).
While judicial authorization is required before the conduct of
surveillance, the mechanisms and equipment used to conduct the
above-specified acts remain within the control and jurisdiction of
military intelligence units and personnel.

9
 The period of detention without judicial warrant of arrest of
suspected terrorists is also increased from three days to fourteen days
and may be extended by a maximum of ten days. Furthermore, the
arresting officer may not need to present the suspect before any judge
(An act to prevent, prohibit and penalize terrorism, thereby repealing
republic act no. 9372, otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of
2007”, Republic Act 11479, § 19 2020). These provisions encroach upon
the rights to communication and privacy of the people that this state
has sworn to serve and protect.

No Court Order Needed

A portion of the the newly enacted law is dedicated to the

authority to investigate, inquire into and examine bank deposits of the
accused. In the repealed law, a written order from the Court of Appeals
(CA) is required to access bank deposits of the accused. This is a
safeguard placed to ensure that no malicious investigations are
conducted and no one’s right is violated.

In the proposed law, the Anti-Money Laundering Council

(AMLC) no longer needs a court order to conduct investigations (An
act to prevent, prohibit and penalize terrorism, thereby repealing
republic act no. 9372, otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of
2007”, Republic Act 11479, § 35 2020). This can lead to an investigation-
spree by the AMLC, under the instruction of the ATC, of political
enemies, critics, and vocal opposition to any administration.

Role of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)

The proposed law retains the expectation on the Commission on

Human Rights (CHR) to give “the highest priority to the investigation
and prosecution of violations of civil and political rights of persons in
relation to the implementation” of the law. The CHR, however, will no
longer have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute persons who may
have violated the civil and political rights of persons suspected of or
detained for the crimes defined and penalized (An act to prevent,
prohibit and penalize terrorism, thereby repealing republic act no.
9372, otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of 2007”, Republic
Act 11479, § 47. 2020).

10
Oversight

In order to prevent abuses on the part of the executive,

legislative oversight is necessary. However, the oversight powers,
under the proposed law, have been watered down (An act to prevent,
prohibit and penalize terrorism, thereby repealing republic act no.
9372, otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of 2007”, Republic
Act 11479, § 50. 2020).

The report of the ATC to Congress was changed from

semiannual to annual. The report does not have to include
recommendations for reassessment, amendment, or repeal of the Act
and other provisions regarding the authorization of surveillance of
suspected and charged persons. Lastly, courts handling cases will not
be required to report the status of the cases to the two Houses of
Congress and the President.

The reduction of oversight power opens the possibility of abuses

in the implementation of the law. Instead of serving as checks on the
powers given to the executive, the other branches of government
become accomplices to the systematic disenfranchisement of rights.
Many people wondered what brought this urgency of the law especially
that the country is in the state of crisis.

11
 III. Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusion

The country is in the state of health crisis brought about by the

deadly virus called COVID19 Pandemic. The government should have
focus in resolving the spread of the virus in our country than
prioritizing in enacting this law. This kind of action can wait and be
set on a timing situation. The researcher submits that this law should
have given a lot of time and should not be put into such urgency
considering that it has to be undergone thorough analysis to ensure
that this law would promote social justice and would not violate any
provision of the 1987 constitution. Furthermore, the country already
have existing law on terrorism which is the Republic Act No. 9372 An
Act to secure the state and protect our people from terrorism. In this
law it clearly defines the word terrorism and the act of terrorism.

Moreover, There is so much speculation in enacting this law for

it obvious that Some members of the House of Representatives, in

12
particular, have not been given a chance by the House leadership to
introduce amendments to the Senate version.

Has there been a thorough review of the existing provisions and

careful deliberation of the amendments? What demands this kind of
urgency especially under a public health emergency?

Recommendations

The researcher would like to recommend this study to all legal

researcher enthusiasts to provide further study on this newly enacted
law considering the fact that the R.A 11479 is abusive and derogatory of
human rights, civil liberties and fundamental freedoms. Hence, a
thorough analysis and scrutiny on every section of the Republic Act
No. 11479 must be done.

REFERENCES

Primary Sources

PHIL. CONST. Art. III, § 1.

An act to prevent, prohibit and penalize terrorism, thereby

repealing republic act no. 9372, otherwise known as the “Human
Security Act of 2007”, Republic Act 11479, S 37, 43. (2020).

13
 An Act to secure the state and protect our people from terrorism,
Republic Act No. 9372, (2007).

H.B No. 6875 , 18th Cong. (2020)

S.B No. 1083, (2020)

Secondary Sources

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human

Rights, HUMAN RIGHTS, TERRORISM AND COUNTER-TERRORISM
(2008).

ROMMEL BANLAOI, THE MARAWI SIEGE AND ITS

AFTERMATH: THE CONTINUING TERRORIST THREATS (2020).

14