We use cookies to help give you the best browsing experience.

By continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of

cookies.
Accept

Today’s Headlines

o ARTHALAND's Notice Of 2020 Annual Stockholders' Meeting

o DILG Suggestion: Convert Motorcycles In Lieu of Backriding
o Lawyers, Other Groups Terrified By Anti-Terror Bill. Here’s Why

Archives

Search
 

About OneNews.PH

Advertise

Partner

Contact

POWERED BY

2019, Cignal TV, Inc.

Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
  
POWERED BY

Watch 
June 3, 2020
June 4, 2020

Lawyers, Other Groups Terrified By

Anti-Terror Bill. Here’s Why
Lawyers are alarmed over possible abuses of poorly worded provisions that they say could be
used as weapons against people critical of the government’s policies.

Vince Nonato
  
A protester in a vehicle flashes a streamer calling on the government to junk the proposal to amend the Anti-
Terror Law in front of the House of Representatives on June 3, 2020. The rallyists said authorities should focus
on mass testing for coronavirus disease 2019 instead of the terror bill. Photo by Michael Varcas, The
Philippine STAR

Why are lawyers alarmed over the “imprecise and poorly worded” provisions of the
proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 that President Duterte has prioritized in the
middle of a raging pandemic?

To understand, try putting yourself in the shoes of a person who is mistaken for a
terrorist or is accused of terrorism after criticizing the government.

A key sponsor of the bill in the House of Representatives, Assistant Majority Leader
Jericho Nograles of Puwersa ng Bayaning Atleta party list, assured opponents of the
measure that “activism is not terrorism” under the law that both chambers have
approved and are set to send to Malacañang for President Duterte’s signature.

Speaking to “The Chiefs” on Wednesday night, June 3 on One News / TV 5, Nograles

also invoked the presumption of regularity in government as he reassured the public
that sufficient safeguards against abuse are in place in the bill.

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana also stressed earlier on Wednesday that

protesting against the government does not constitute terrorism as he defended the
bill.

Rep. France Castro of ACT-Teachers party list, on the other hand, feared that the
measure would aggravate red tagging of groups like hers. She told The Chiefs that the
only remedy left is to challenge the measure before the Supreme Court once it is
enacted into law.

Senate Bill No. 1083 (read the full text here) seeks to repeal and replace the Human
Security Act (HSA) of 2007, the current Anti-Terrorism Law that Lorenzana on May
30 described as “no longer responsive to the evolving nature of the threats we face.”

The Senate passed the bill on third and final reading on Feb. 26 and the House of
Representatives adopted it at the level of the public order and defense committees on
May 29.

On June 1, as public furor boiled over the suffering of workers due to the
government’s restrictions on public transportation, Duterte certified the measure as
urgent, allowing the administration-allied House majority to fast-track its passage.

On June 2, the House approved the bill on second reading during a session in
which no amendments were entertained. Finally, on June 3, the House approved it on
third and final reading with 173 votes in its favor and 31 against it; another 29
abstained.

The bill defines “terrorism” as the commission of certain violent acts in order to
intimidate the public, spread a message of fear, destabilize society, create an
emergency or undermine public safety. It also stated that one of the purposes of
terrorism is to “provoke or influence by intimidation the government” or “any of its
international organizations.”

Commission on Human Rights lawyer Rosselle Tugade posted on Twitter

a comparison of the provisions in SB 1083 and the HSA Act of 2007.

Warrantless arrests, longer detention without charges

A person suspected of violating the proposed Anti-Terrorist Act may be detained for
as long as 24 days without being informed of the specific charges.

 One of the more striking amendments include prolonging the

time during which a terrorism suspect may be kept in detention
without being charged in court, on the “mere inkling of
involvement and engagement in indefinable acts of terrorism,”
as the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) put it.
 The Anti-Terrorism Law allows law enforcers to arrest suspects
on the basis not of a judicial warrant, but a mere authorization
from the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), which is composed of
several Cabinet secretaries and security officials. Notably, these
people are part of the executive branch of government and are
not independent in theory like judges.
 Normally, under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, a
detainee must be “deliver(ed) to the proper judicial authorities”
within 12 to 36 hours, depending on the severity of the offense.
Section 18 of the HSA allows law enforcers to arrest suspects
without any judicial warrant and gives them three days counted
from the moment of apprehension, arrest or custody without
judicial warrant.
 Now, the bill proposes to extend the current three-day period
almost five-fold to 14 calendar days. The period of detention
may be extended for yet another 10 days maximum, if it is
established that further detention is necessary to preserve
evidence and prevent the commission of “another” terrorist act.
 No requirement to check for torture
 The bill deleted the current requirement for officers to present
an arrested suspect to a judge, for assessment of whether the
suspect has been subjected to physical, moral or psychological
torture.
 Many crimes under the proposed Anti-Terrorism Law are
punishable with life imprisonment – and would thus be
nonbailable, unless the prosecution’s evidence is not strong
enough to justify indefinite detention.
 The Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties (CLCL) says the
extended period is unconstitutional. Article 7, Section 18 of the
Constitution provides that even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended, the maximum period that a person
can be detained without charges is three days. Otherwise, the
person should be released.
 Lorenzana, however, said in an interview with CNN
Philippines that law enforcement agencies wanted to use the
long period to keep a suspect detained even if they have not yet
established if the person is a terrorist.
 “We want a longer detention period so that we can hold the
suspect if he is really a terrorist. He cannot commit a terror act,”
Lorenzana said. “We do not have time to substantiate your
charges. You cannot research. You cannot make any allegations.
So, 36 hours are too short.”
 He called the 36-hour limit under the Revised Penal Code a
“joke.”
 National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) chair
Nonoy Espina zoomed in on the nature of the warrantless
arrests: “The Anti-Terror Council can determine probable cause
to arrest and detain persons without judicial warrant? Isn’t that
terror?”
 Earlier, the National Task Force to End Local Communist
Armed Conflict or NTF-ELCAC had accused NUJP, news
websites Bulatlat and Northern Dispatch, media outfits
Altermidya Network, Kodao Productions, Tudla Productions
and Kilab Multimedia as well as student organizations College
Editors Guild of the Philippines and Union of Journalists of the
Philippines – UP Diliman of being “creations” of the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).
 NTF-ELCAC did not provide any proof for its red-tagging
allegations, which were hinged on criticism of the government’s
order for ABS-CBN to stop broadcasting.
 Under the bill, many of the officials who currently sit in the
NTF-ELCAC would also form part of the ATC. News5 chief
correspondent Ed Lingao, co-host of The Chiefs and a veteran of
wartime reporting, pointed out: “This early, we already have
members of the Cabinet and their undersecretaries and assistant
secretaries red-tagging civil society groups and media
organizations as terrorists or terrorist-affiliates.”
 Bagong Alyansang Makabayan secretary-general Renato Reyes
suspected that the ATC would be composed of former generals
who would have unbridled power to order arrests and freeze
assets without due process. “No hearings. No chance to defend
yourself. They’re not even a court. How is this not wrong?”
Reyes said.
Young activists in Baguio City join protest rallies to mark Labor
Day on May 1, 2019. Photo by Andy Zapata Jr., The Philippine
STAR
 Travel ban and wiretapping
 Another concern is that Section 30 of the proposed bill would
limit the persons who can have access to a detained terror
suspect.
 Religious ministers and members of accredited national or
international non-government organizations – who are normally
allowed to make visits under Republic Act No. 7438 or the law
defining certain rights of person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation – are excluded from the list. The visitors
are limited only to the legal counsel, family members or
relatives, and a physician of choice.
 Another important change is that Section 16 of SB 1083 seeks
to expand the list of persons who may be subjected to
surveillance or wiretapping. It wants to include persons who are
merely “suspected” of committing any of the crimes penalized
under the anti-terrorism law. The period of surveillance would
also be doubled to 60 days from the current 30.
 The definition of “surveillance activities” under Section 3(i) of
the bill includes the tracking of individuals, and not just
members of organizations declared by the courts as terrorist.
Tugade notes that the provision should be subjected to the “strict
scrutiny” test by the courts because of how it affects the right to
privacy of individuals.
 CLCL noted that “the general tone of the bill supports secret
surveillance,” as the bill would require that the court be
informed only upon the filing of charges. “In short, subjects of
surveillance and ‘suspected’ persons will have already been
hauled to jail before they are made aware of the actions against
them.”
 Additionally, restrictions on the right to travel would now be
part of a Congress-authored law, at least for terrorism suspects.
 Even before a case is filed in court and the investigation is still
pending, the prosecutor may seek a precautionary hold departure
order from a Regional Trial Court under Section 34 of the bill.
The PHDO was first introduced by the Supreme Court
through A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC on Aug. 7, 2018.
 Chilling effect
 What worries lawyers, civil libertarians and activists the most is
the “chilling effect” caused by the inclusion of new crimes –
something that they fear can be easily abused and wielded
against dissidents and ordinary people who dare complain about
the government.
 These are the new crimes of “proposal to commit terrorism”
under Sections 3(g) and 8, “threat to commit terrorism” under
Section 5, “planning, training, preparing and facilitating the
commission of terrorism” under Section 6, “inciting to commit
terrorism” under Section 9, and “recruitment to and membership
in a terrorist organization” under Section 10.
 Specifically, “inciting to commit terrorism” is defined as
committed by a person “who, without taking any direct part in
the commission of terrorism, shall incite others to the execution”
of violent acts considered to be terrorist. Methods include
“speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other
representations tending to the same end.”
 “Preparing” and “recruitment and membership” are penalized
with life imprisonment without benefit of parole or good
conduct time allowance, while “proposal,” “threat” and
“inciting” are punishable by 12 years’ imprisonment.
 Section 4 of the bill does say that terrorism “shall not include
advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass
action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights.”
 But it also includes the catch that acts in the exercise of rights
“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.” Like many other provisions of the bill, it is not
made clear how expressions of dissent can be cleared as having
no intention to cause harm.
 Tugade warned that this “potentially produces a chilling effect
on or violates the freedom of expression.”
 Meanwhile, the criminalization of “recruitment to and
membership in a terrorist organization” may be prone to abuse
because of the vague definition of the term “terrorist
organization,” and may potentially infringe on the freedom of
association and expression by legitimate groups, she said.
 She noted that the crime of “preparing” may include “even
mere possession of objects or documents deemed connected to
acts of terrorism.”  She also flagged the vagueness of the
“threat” provision because “it could give rise to various
interpretations that may include a wide range of acts.” She
added that the term “training” could be used as an excuse to
“crack down on legitimate organizations that provide
educational discussions.”
 CLCL – which counts deans Manuel Quibod, Chel Diokno,
Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio and Tony La Viña as well as lawyers
Neri Colmenares, Ted Te, Erin Tañada, Jojo Lacanilao and
Kristina Conti as its convenors – pointed out that the
government is not new to targeting personalities “with color and
force of law.”
 It noted that the premise of the Anti-Terrorism Law shifted
from the effects of terrorism on the people toward the effect of
opposition to the government.
 “The danger therein lies with how the government can construe
legitimate acts of dissent or opposition within these definitions –
it gives the government almost free rein in determining who are
‘suspected terrorists.’ Even ordinary citizens airing their
grievances against government on social media may fall within
its ambit,” CLCL pointed out.
 The Ateneo Human Rights Center sees the bill as a “tool for
repression rather than for thwarting terrorism.” It adds: “While
any form of terrorism is unacceptable, national security can
never be at the expense of the fundamental rights and freedoms
enshrined in the Constitution.”
 The Association of Law Students of the Philippines
(ALSP) stressed that “individuals and groups have the basic
right to gather and engage in peaceful demonstrations and
protests by virtue of their freedom to peaceful assembly.”
 “The Philippines, in fulfillment of its responsibilities as
signatory to several international human rights treaties, must
promote and protect the enjoyment of basic human right and the
lawful exercise of fundamental freedoms. The right to peaceably
assemble is also protected and sanctified by no less than the
1987 Philippine Constitution,” ALSP said.
 Diokno, a losing opposition senatorial candidate in the May
2019 elections, stressed: “Ang kailangan natin ay mas
demokratiko at makataong mga batas (What we need are more
democratic and humane laws).”
 “Sana patuloy nyo kaming samahang manindigan laban sa
terorismo ng estado – lalo na ’yung klase na noon pa natin
nakikita sa admin na ito (We hope you will continue to join us
in standing up against state terrorism – especially the kind that
we have long seen in this administration),” Diokno said.
Members of the militant group Anakpawis hold a protest in front
of the Department of Justice on March 16, 2018. Photo by
Miguel de Guzman, The Philippine STAR
 Less accountability for authorities
 SB 1083 will also make the punishment for abusive officers in
the Philippines much lighter.
 The penalty for unauthorized or malicious surveillance
activities would be fixed at 10 years’ imprisonment instead of
the current 10 to 12 years. The same change would also apply in
case of failure to notify a judge of the arrest of a terrorism
suspect.
 Officers who cause or allow the escape of a detained person
would be punished by imprisonment of 10 years instead of 12 to
20 in the case of escaped convicts and six to 12 years in the case
of detainees who are not yet convicted by final judgment.
 The reduction of penalty is much more significant for the crime
of knowingly furnishing false testimony, forged documents or
spurious evidence in investigations or hearings. Any person who
does this will face a six-year sentence – two to three times
shorter than the current 12 to 20 years.
 The crimes of public officers who abuse the powers under SB
1083 will be punished less than those committed by accused
individuals – something that CLCL found “aggravating.”
 The bill also deleted the liability of P500,000 in damages for
each day that a suspect is detained without warrant for an
unproven charge of terrorism, or that an acquitted suspect’s
properties and funds were seized.
 The NUPL said the “imprecise and poorly worded” provisions
of the proposed law “give the security forces, from the top
honchos to those on foot patrol, the license to commit rights
violations with impunity.”
 “The police and the military are given much elbow room to
subject to their own interpretations the concepts and adjectives
found in these provisions,” NUPL said.
 “Should this bill become a law, we should then expect
‘uninvited’ guests peering into our private spaces. This clearly
violates our right to privacy enshrined in our Bill of Rights.
Additionally, this proposed legislation legalizes red-tagging of
organizations on suspicion of engaging in abstrusely termed
‘terrorist acts.’ Thus, it essentially renders nugatory our freedom
of association,” it added.
 Lorenzana, however, brushed aside these concerns and
described the lighter penalties for abusive law enforcers and
public officers as “enough stringent sanctions.”
 Last-ditch effort
 On June 2, several congressmen made a last-ditch attempt to
tweak the Anti-Terrorism Act by including language that
explicitly limit and specify the kinds of speech that would be
considered as “acts of terrorism” and avoid criminalizing
dissent.
 For instance, Magsasaka party-list Rep. Argel Joseph Cabatbat
proposed that spontaneous violence during protests should not
be considered terrorism “without proof that it is premeditated or
that it is coordinated.”
 Cabatbat also wanted to exclude “acts due to outbursts of
emotions or isolated acts of people who go berserk due to
political frustrations, medical conditions or other personal
motives.” He said the law should state that these instances are
“considered as ailments of our society that need to be addressed
through reforms or constructive legislation to alleviate the
condition of our poorest sectors.”
 Rep. Jericho Nograles, brother of Cabinet Secretary Karlo
Alexei Nograles, rejected all amendments in behalf of the public
order and defense committees.
 “The committee wishes to pass the bill without amendments,”
Nograles said. “I am not authorized to accept the amendments in
behalf of the committee, and the committee chairperson has
instructed that no amendments will be accepted.”
 Despite worries that the overbroad provisions of the bill would
be abused, he argued that its protection of the constitutional
right to engage in activism was implied and there was no need to
make it explicit. “Those actions are already implied – that they
are not acts of terrorism,” he said.
 Quezon City 4th District Rep. Jesus “Bong” Suntay, who chairs
the House committee on human rights, stressed that he agreed
“there should really be a law to protect our government from
acts of terrorism.”
 After Nograles rejected his proposal to amend the provisions on
warrantless arrests, Suntay said he would have to vote against
the bill because of “its clear and blatant violations of the
provisions of the Bill of Rights.”
Militant groups hold a protest rally against the proposed anti-
terror law on June 3, 2020 at the University of the Philippines’
Diliman campus in Quezon City. Photos by Michael Varcas,
The Philippine STAR
 Safeguarding rights a hindrance?
 During the session, proponents of the bill were more focused on
the notion that the safeguards contained in the current HSA
discouraged authorities from pursuing prosecutions for
terrorism.
 “In the past 13 years, there has been sparing use of the law
because of much restrictions on the police and military… it did
not address the problem of terrorism,” Muntinlupa Rep. Ruffy
Biazon said in his sponsorship speech.
 Senate President Vicente Sotto III said “terrorists or their
supporters are the only ones who will be afraid of the bill.”
 Presidential spokesman Harry Roque argued that the
Constitution would itself still provide enough safeguards even if
the Anti-Terrorism Law stoked fear that the rights enshrined in
the Charter would be transgressed.
 “Despite the law, the Constitution remains as the fundamental
guarantee of freedom of expression and the entire jurisprudence
that has grown from the Constitutional provision on freedom of
expression,” Roque said.
 He argued that unless there is a clear and present danger that the
State has the right to prevent, “the courts will not intervene and
will now uphold freedom of expression.”
 “Unless the state can establish that – and I think in the case of
terrorists the state can easily do so – then freedom of expression
will not be suppressed or infringed upon because according to a
decision of the Supreme Court, it enjoys a very high position in
the hierarchy of rights – even superior than property right,” he
said.
 Roque argued that terror suspects could petition the courts for a
writ of amparo should public officers abuse the law.
 Olalia, however, said the assurances that only true terrorists
would be targeted would not be enough, in light of the
opportunities for abuse.
 “We have mandatory rights of the arrested and accused in the
Constitution, the laws and rules; a strict law against torture; a
comprehensive law against disappearances; rules on habeas
corpus and the novel amparo. We are a signatory or party to all
but one international instrument on various human rights, and
we even have a bilateral agreement on human rights. And yet the
violations continue and are rampant and impunity prevails. And
we are assured there are enough safeguards in the Anti-
Terrorism Bill anyway?” he pointed out.
 No draconian provision?
 Roque, once a human rights advocate before deciding to be
Duterte’s mouthpiece, defended the timing of Duterte’s
certification of the bill’s urgency. Roque noted that even during
the 17th Congress, there were already moves to revise the Anti-
Terrorism Law. He also cited the country’s experience with
Maute terrorists in Marawi City and the Abu Sayyaf in Sulu.
 “I don’t think the timing is off because Marawi is still being
rebuilt. So the aftershocks of modern-day terrorism are still
being felt in Marawi. And of course the Sulu attack happened
and you saw how gruesome the murder of our soldiers,” he said.
“So I don’t think it is something that just cropped up. It’s a
problem that we have perennially faced.”
 Roque was one of the petitioners who had challenged the
constitutionality of several provisions in the HAS of 2007 before
the Quezon City Regional Trial Court. The government
questioned the RTC’s denial of its motion to dismiss the case,
and the Supreme Court ruled in the government’s favor in
a Sept. 24, 2013 decision.
 The SC’s decision did not directly tackle the constitutionality of
the terrorism law’s provisions. Instead, it ruled that Roque and
his fellow petitioners failed to show that they “are left to sustain
or are in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a
result of the enforcement of the assailed provisions.”
 In short, Roque and his fellow petitioners simply failed to
present a “real event” at the time to allow the petition for
declaratory relief to prosper. The legal questions hounding the
anti-terrorism law would thus seem far from answered.
 Former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, in a statement on
June 3, said it was “unfortunate” that the SC “never had the
chance to pass upon the constitutionality” of the current HSA.
But she said the upcoming enactment of SB 1083 “uncannily
recalls for me the dark days of Macros’ Martial Law,” which
dictator Ferdinand Marcos imposed through Proclamation No.
1081.
 “Our people must keep in mind that not a single claim of the
long-term benefits of the martial regime has been validated by
the Supreme Court,” Sereno said. “To the contrary, the wide-
scale plunder and suffering of the people and the economy are
sufficiently recorded in several of its decisions.”

ARTHALAND's Notice Of 2020 Annual Stockholders' Meeting

DILG Suggestion: Convert Motorcycles In Lieu of Backriding

Politics & Other News Features

DILG Suggestion: Convert Motorcycles In Lieu of Backriding

“Lagyan na lang po ng sidecar iyong motor at pwede namang isama niya iyong kaniyang misis,” Interior and
Local Government Secretary Eduardo Año said.
Speed Up Bike Lanes, Cyclists Ask Gov't Amid Lack Of Transportation Lawyers, Other Groups
Terrified By Anti-Terror Bill. Here’s WhyEconomic Saviors No More: OFW Deployment Dips; 95,000
Seek To Go HomeNCR, Other Areas May Revert To ECQ. Are The People Responsible If This
Happens?

Youth & Education

College Enrollment May Plunge By Up To 70 Percent, Officials Warn

The economic downturn caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic would have an impact on
education, according to officials.
Here’s How Remote Enrollment Will Work Starting June 1; Duterte Agrees To Alternative Means of
LearningState-run IBC TV 13 Eyed As Alternative Learning PlatformOnline Enrolment In June,
Distance Learning By Aug. 24 To Proceed, But Is Everyone Prepared? No Vaccine, No Classes? School
Opening In Limbo; Alternative Modes Of Learning Pushed

Latest News
 Speed Up Bike Lanes, Cyclists Ask Gov't Amid Lack Of Transportation DILG

Suggestion: Convert Motorcycles In Lieu of Backriding ARTHALAND's Notice Of 2020

Annual Stockholders' Meeting Economic Saviors No More: OFW Deployment Dips; 95,000

Seek To Go Home No Buffets, No Drinking Sprees Under MGCQ Tired Of The

Quarantine? Even The Golden Bangus To Be Isolated SPC Power Corporation Notice Of

Annual Stockholders' Meeting San Miguel Food And Beverage Notice Of Annual Meeting Of

Stockholders NCR, Other Areas May Revert To ECQ. Are The People Responsible If This

Happens? Strictly By Appointment: Dentists Face COVID-19 Risks To Treat Patients

onefeedTop headlines from the OneNews network

ENACTED | Congress approves

controversial anti-terror bill, feared to silence critics

SURGING CASES | Philippines nears

20,000 coronavirus infections
ABS-CBN’s Lopez willing to give up US citizenship
Gambling regulator seeks reopening of casinos
Senators still want VFA review
Protesting is not terrorism – DNDPOOR PLANNING | Public complain lack of public tr

nsportation, dare officials to com

muteSTILL LIMITED | Philippines kee

s restrictions on religious activities

Disinfection services demand spikes as business operations resume
San Miguel’s Bulacan airport still a go, says Tugade

 About One News

 Advertise

 Contact Us

 #StaySmart

 Terms & Conditions

 Privacy Policy
  Sitemap
Skip to main content

DONATE NOW

Search

 new posts
 new posts
 new posts
 new posts






















June 5, 2020 6:00AM EDT

Philippines: New Anti-Terrorism Act
Endangers Rights
Special Council Would Usurp Court Powers
Click to expand Image

A protester carries a sign at a rally against the draft Anti-Terrorism Act in Quezon
City, Philippines, June 4, 2020. © 2020 Lisa Marie David/NurPhoto via AP

(Manila) – The Philippines government is on the verge of enacting a counterterrorism

law that will eliminate critical legal protections and permit government overreach
against groups and individuals labeled terrorists, Human Rights Watch said today.
The draft Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 passed both the House of Representatives and
the Senate, and President Rodrigo Duterte is expected to quickly sign the bill into law.

The draft law uses an overbroad definition of terrorism that can subject suspects,
apprehended without a warrant, to weeks of detention prior to an appearance before a
judge. A special body composed mainly of Cabinet officials appointed by the
president would provide the authority to enforce the law.

“The Anti-Terrorism Act is a human rights disaster in the making,” said Phil

Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The law will open the door
to arbitrary arrests and long prison sentences for people or representatives of
organizations that have displeased the president.”

In a letter to Congress on June 1, 2020, Duterte certified that passage of the Anti-
Terrorism Act was urgent, short-circuiting a more thorough debate of the legislation
and prompting the House of Representatives to quickly adopt in full a version of
the bill passed by the Senate. The measure would replace the existing Human Security
Act of 2007.

The draft law creates a new Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), consisting of members
appointed by the executive, that would permit the authorities to arrest people it
designates as “terrorists” without a judicial warrant and to detain them without charge
for up to 24 days before they must be presented before a judicial authority. Under
existing law, terrorism suspects must be brought before a judge in three days. Human
Rights Watch believes that anyone taken into custody should appear before a judge
within 48 hours.

Under the draft law, those convicted on the basis of overbroad definitions of
“terrorism” face up to life in prison without parole. An individual, as well as a group,
commits terrorism when he or she “engages in acts intended to cause death or serious
bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person's life,” or “causes extensive
damage to public property,” in order to “create an atmosphere or spread a message of
fear.” While the definition also includes aims often associated with terrorism, such as
seeking to “seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental social, economic or
political structures of the country,” it does not require such intent. By this broad
definition, starting a fight in a bar could technically be classified as an act of
terrorism, Human Rights Watch said.

The draft law also makes it a criminal offense to “incite others” to commit terrorism
“by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other
representations tending to the same end.” The law, which does not define incitement,
poses a danger to freedom of the media and freedom of expression by providing an
open-ended basis for prosecuting speech. The Anti-Terrorism Council would be the
sole arbiter to determine whether a threat should be considered serious. Those
convicted would face up to 12 years in prison.

The bill exempts advocacy, work stoppages, and humanitarian action from the
definitions of terrorism, provided they 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.” But the council’s powers to determine what constitutes a serious risk
undermines those protections.

The draft law also relaxes accountability for law enforcement agents who violate the
rights of suspects, particularly those in detention. Under existing law, law
enforcement agents who wrongfully detain suspects can be penalized 500,000 pesos
(US$10,000) for every day of wrongful detention. But this safeguard provision against
government misconduct is excised from the new version of the law.

The broad role of the Anti-Terrorism Council under the new law places people’s
liberty rights at considerable risk, Human Rights Watch said. It is an executive
department-led agency chaired by the president’s executive secretary and composed
of presidential appointees such as the secretary of national defense. The council’s
secretariat will be run by the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA), the
government’s main intelligence body composed primarily of security force officials.

NICA, along with the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed
Conflict created by the Philippines National Security Council, has been carrying out a
long-running surveillance, harassment, and suppression campaign against activists
and groups that operate openly and legally. The agency has frequently accused these
groups and individuals of being front organizations, members, or supporters of the
New People’s Army, the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines.
 Over the years, the government has targeted hundreds of community activists, tribal
leaders, farmers, environmentalists, trade union leaders, and local journalists with
threats, harassment, and prosecution on suspicion of being communists or communist
sympathizers. The UN Human Rights Office in Geneva released on June 4 a report on
the Philippines saying that at least 248 activists have been killed between 2015 and
2019 in relation to their work. The military and police, and their inter-agency forms of
the NICA and the task force, have similarly accused leftist political groups of being
front organizations for the New People’s Army.

“The new counterterrorism law could have a horrific impact on basic civil liberties,
due process, and the rule of law amid the Philippines’ shrinking democratic space,”
Robertson said. “The Philippine people are about to face an Anti-Terrorism Council
that will be prosecutor, judge, jury, and jailer.”

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights

violations and save lives around the world.

$50

$100

$250

$500

$1000

Other

DONATE NOW
Region / Country

 Asia

 Philippines
 Topic

 Terrorism / Counterterrorism

MORE READING
 May 27, 2020  News Release

Philippines: Lasting Harm to Children from ‘Drug War’

 May 6, 2020  News Release

Philippines: Put Network Back on Air

 REPORTS
 January 29, 2018  Report

Locked Up Without Evidence

Abuses under Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act

 June 29, 2014  Report

"We are the Walking Dead"

Killings of Shia Hazara in Balochistan, Pakistan

MOST VIEWED
1. June 1, 2020  Letter

Letter to US Senate Judiciary Committee: Reject the EARN IT Act, S. 3398

2. May 12, 2020  Report

Covid-19 Fueling Anti-Asian Racism and Xenophobia Worldwide

3. June 1, 2020  News Release

US: Senate Should Reject EARN IT Act

4. May 29, 2020  Report

The Case for Reparations in Tulsa, Oklahoma

5. May 5, 2020  Report

China: Covid-19 Discrimination Against Africans

 Protecting Rights, Saving Lives

Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in 90 countries worldwide,

spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice
DONATE NOW

Get Updates On Rights Issues From Around The Globe

Sign Up

Connect With Us
 Twitter

 Facebook

 YouTube

 Instagram

Footer menu
 Contact Us
 Corrections
 Privacy Policy
 Permissions

© 2020 Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch | 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor | New York, NY 10118-
3299 USA | t 1.212.290.4700

Human Rights Watch is a 501(C)(3) nonprofit registered in the US under EIN: 13-

2875808
×













WORLD, ASIA - PACIFIC

Philippines: Lower house passes anti-terrorism

bill
Presidential spokesman dismisses concerns that government could use law to target opposition,
progressive groups
Pizaro Gozali Idrus   |04.06.2020
JAKARTA, Indonesia

The lower house of the Philippines’ parliament on Wednesday approved tougher new anti-
terrorism legislation that has been criticized by the opposition and human rights groups.

According to the state-run Philippine News Agency (PNA), the House of Representatives
approved the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 on its third reading.

If passed into law, the bill would effectively repeal the Human Security Act of 2007 and replace
it with a harsher law.

“It introduced provisions imposing life imprisonment without parole on those who will
participate in the planning, training, preparation, and facilitation of a terrorist act; possess objects
connected with the preparation for the commission of terrorism; or collect or make documents
connected with the preparation of terrorism,” said the PNA report.
Under the bill, any person who threatens to commit terrorism can be jailed for up to 12 years,
while the same term will be given to those who propose any terrorist acts or incite others to
terrorism, said the agency.

“Any person who shall voluntarily and knowingly join any organization, association, or group of
persons knowing that such is a terrorist organization, shall suffer imprisonment of 12 years and
those who will recruit another to join, commit, or support any terrorist organization will be
punished with a penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole,” the bill states.

Harry Roque, the presidential spokesman, dismissed concerns that the government could use the
law to target the opposition and progressive groups, calling them “unfounded.”

In a press briefing on Wednesday, he said the country is still facing threats from terrorist groups
in the Marawi region of the southern Philippines.

“We saw that there was an attack again in Sulu perpetrated by the Abu Sayyaf [group] and that
it's a never-ending cycle,” he said.

“The right to strike is again protected by the Constitution,” he added.

‘Cruel, inhuman’

With President Rodrigo Duterte expected to sign the bill into law this year, human rights groups
and lawyers have expressed concern over its imminent approval.

In a statement, Human Rights Commission spokesperson Jacqueline de Guia warned that

prolonged detention under the bill may result in “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or
torture.”

The Marawi region is still the hub of a Daesh-linked armed group which has carried out multiple
attacks on Filipino soldiers.

In 2017, clashes between government forces and the Daesh-linked Maute group, supported by
Abu Sayyaf guerrillas, forced nearly 400,000 residents to flee towns in the Lanao del Sur
province.

The conflict, which lasted from May to October, killed more than 1,000 people, mostly militants,
according to the Philippines Armed Forces.

*Writing by Rhany Chairunissa Rufinaldo from Anadolu Agency's Indonesian-language services

in Jakarta.

Anadolu Agency website contains only a portion of the news stories offered to subscribers in the AA News Broadcasting
System (HAS), and in summarized form. Please contact us for subscription options.

Related topics
anti-terrorism act Human Rights Commission Philippine
Bu haberi paylaşın
     
Coronavirus

Tunisia reopens mosques amid coronavirus

Zimbabwe arrests over 1,300 in 24 hours amid lockdown

Turkey's coronavirus fight receives praise

Anadolu Agency's Morning Briefing - June 5, 2020

‘Hackers trying to steal British vaccine research’

Related news
Philippines: Lower house passes anti-terrorism bill

Corporate
History

Editorial Guideliness

Social Media Policies

Executive Team

Domestic Offices

International Offices
Media Center

Contact

RSS

Human Resources

Subscription Requests

Announcement Service

Quality Management

Privacy and Cookies Policy

Information Policy

Diary

Coronavirus Infection Map

Network
Company News

Finance Terminal

Anadolu Images

Energy Terminal

News Academy

Your source of trusted news

IPhone Application

IPad Application

Android Application

Windows Application

Anadolu Agency © 2019

We use cookies in a limited and restricted manner for specific purposes. For more details, you can see "our data
policy".