Republic of the Philippines

JOSE RIZAL MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY

The Premier University in Zamboanga del Norte
Main Campus, Dapitan City

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Master of Science in Criminal Justice
With Specialization in Criminology

MSC 103 – TRANSNATIONAL CRIME AND TERRORISM

DISSECTING ANTI-TERROR BILL IN THE PHILIPPINES:

A SWOT ANALYSIS

Presented to:

Rheychold J. Daymiel , Ph. D

Professor, MSCJ

Presented by:

Lourey Kaye R. Treňo, RCrim

Student, MSCJ
At the end of the report you will be able to:
 Learn about the Anti-Terror Law;
 Know what are the strength, weakness, threats and opportunity;
 Identify the problems, gaps and implementation of the law.

STRENGHT

On the 3rd of July 2020, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law the 'Anti-

Terrorism Act of 2020', which replaces the Human Security Act of 2007. In practice, the
President's administration has effectively crafted a new weapon to brand and hound any
perceived enemies of the state. The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 amends the Human Security
Act of 2007. It expands the definition of terrorism to include acts intended to cause "death or
serious bodily injury to any person," "extensive damage and destruction" to a government
facility, private property or critical infrastructure and when the purpose of those acts is to
"intimidate the general public," "create an atmosphere or message of fear," or "seriously
destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic and social structures of the country."
Those found guilty face life sentences without the chance of parole. The act also criminalizes
the "threat, planning, training, facilitating of" and "proposal" and "inciting" to terrorist activities
by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, banners and emblems. It also subjects suspects
to surveillance, warrantless arrest and detention for up to 24 days. In addition, it removes
compensation for the suspect in the event of acquittal and boosts the Anti-Terrorism Council,
the implementer of the law, whose members are appointed by the president.

Backers of the bill say the legislation seeks to end terrorism in the country, which is
still battling decade’s long communist and Islamic insurgencies. In 2017, Islamic State-
aligned militants laid siege to the southern city of Marawi; last year the southern region was
rocked by suicide bombings.

The Anti-Terror Bill just like the Human Security Act of 2007 is being opposed by the
political opposition and human rights group who are claiming that the bill contains
dangerous provisions that could be abused by authorities once implemented. Others are
saying that it has unconstitutional provisions that would undermine the Bill of Rights
enshrined on the 1987 Constitution.

The said Bill just like the Human Security Act of 2007 is very controversial and is
confronted by debates between the realist/pragmatist who are cognisant of the need for
tougher and compelling counter-terrorism legislation grounded on actual realities, and those
who are out of touch and have failed to recognise the enormity and seriousness of numerous
terrorist confronting the country.
 The Philippines is indeed facing serious security challenges on multiple fronts.
Muslims extremist groups and the NPA are certainly taking advantage of the COVIS-19
outbreak, and are continuously pursuing acts of violence and aggression against government
forces and innocent civilians. Now more than ever, it becomes imperative for the
government to effectively respond not only to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 virus
but also the threats of terrorism in our country.

Even the lockdown did not stop terror, according to presidential spokesperson Harry
Roque, who cited the communist rebels' attacks on soldiers securing the distribution of financial
aid and attacks by Islamic militants in late May that led to an evacuation in the country's south
that uprooted over 6,000 people. Sen. Panfilo Lacson, a former police chief and proponent of
the bill, said the Human Security Act of 2007 "has proved to fail in terms of its efficacy as an
anti-terrorism measure," partly because it's lenient for offenders and restrictive for enforcers.

"Under the current Human Security Act, there are only four instances for terrorists to be
prosecuted under the law," Lacson said last year. "On the other hand, there are a total of 20
instances where law enforcers can be charged and penalized for violations of the Human
Security Act."

The principal author of the bill, Senator Panfilo Lacson argued that the “Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2020” aims to secure the country and its people from domestic and foreign
terrorist attacks. He said that with the help of his colleagues in the Senate, he has made sure
that the Bill adheres to the Bill of Rights enumerated in the 1987 Constitution. He even
stated that he incorporated most of the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism laws of the strong
democracies like Australia and the US, which by far are guided by the standards set by the
United Nations (UN).

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is the most recent effort to address the issue of terrorism
and all allied activities, while at the same time ensuring the protection of our civil and political
rights. In the preparation of the implementing rules and regulations, the Anti-Terrorism Council
revisited the Constitution, prevailing laws, other implementing rules and regulations,
jurispridence, even the Rules of Court. This is to ensure that executive prerogatives are
tempered by the Constitution, prevailing law, and jurisprudence and, if necessary, by available
judicial remedies.
The implementing rules and regulations seeks to explain how to put the Anti-Terrorism
Act of 2020 into effect and what a citizen must do -- or must not do -- to comply with the law.
The implementing rules and regulations thus contain very detailed provisions on terrorism and
terrorism-related crimes, on surveillance, on designation of terrorist individuals and
organizations, on proscription, on the examination of bank accounts, among others.
More importantly, the implementing rules and regulations, consistent with the declared policy
of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, very clearly sets out the role that the Anti-Terrorism Council
will play in ensuring that policies and programs are in place to address terrorism and its root
causes.
The Anti-Terrorism Law was passed last year complements the Duterte Administration’s
arsenal of tools, giving it the ability to label, detain and eliminate government critics using a
vague definition of ‘terrorism’. In the prevailing climate of impunity and attacks against human
rights defenders, this law granting the government excessive and unchecked powers will only
further jeopardize the safety of defenders.
Duterte, who was urged not to rush to sign the act into law, has rejected concerns about
its scope. Those not planning to bomb churches and public utilities to derail the nation had
nothing to fear, he recently told the public, adding that communists were among the terrorists.
The government continues to fight a decades-long communist insurgency, as well as threats
from Islamist groups, in the south of the country.

In a televised address on Wednesday, he said: “Do not be afraid if you are not a terrorist.”

WEAKNESS
Under Anti-Terrorism Law people can be apprehended without a warrant and detained for
weeks prior to appearance before a judge. Not only is the law broad enough to permit the
detention of people for social media posts critical of the government, it also makes it a criminal
offense to ‘incite others’ to commit terrorism through ‘speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, banners,’ further restricting freedom of expression and the media. This builds
on existing cases of arrests for social media posts made during the pandemic, blatant attacks on
the right to freedom of expression, as well as red-tagging of civilians and activists. 

Various petitions have been filed against the Law at the national level, and a group of UN
Special Procedures expressed concern that the law will ‘further dilute human rights safeguards,
by justifying the arrests of human rights defenders and government’s critics.’

While advocacy continues at the national level toward the passage of a specific law for
the protection of human rights defenders, they are now even more vulnerable with the passage
of this law’, said ISHR’s Programme Manager and Legal Counsel Tess McEvoy. ‘This law not
only fails to comply with international human rights law, it will severely restrict due process
and the rule of law in the Philippines’, McEvoy added. This law passed in the context of
ongoing violations against defenders in the country, with recent instances of judicial harassment
of defenders and targeting defenders with smear campaigns. It is the most recent example of the
country’s worsening human rights record, and while steps have been taken at the UN to address
the situation, the recent report of the UN High Commissioner highlights widespread and
systematic killings and arbitrary detention in the context of the war on drugs, silencing of
independent media and critics, and stark and persistent impunity. We echo the call of
national civil society and UN Special Procedures for an independent investigation mechanism
into the human rights situation in the Philippines,’ added McEvoy.

The Philippines' Commission on Human Rights said the broad definition of "terrorism" in
the bill "paves the road for possible abuse."By this broad definition, starting a fight in a bar
could technically be classified as an act of terrorism," said Human Rights Watch, which called
the act "a human rights disaster in the making." The overreach, according to CHR, could also be
used "to limit substantial freedoms, including expression of dissent, while [with] the vague and
overly broad definition, authorities could wantonly tag [the] exercise of rights as terrorist
expressions." Fears are also on the rise due to the Duterte's administration's history of cracking
down on political opposition and the recent arrest of government critics during the lockdown.
"It's not about going after terrorists," human rights lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno said, "but critics
of this administration." The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said the bill
"dilutes human rights safeguards, broadens the definition of terrorism and expands the period of
detention without a warrant from three to 14 days, extendible by another 10 days. The vague
definitions in the Anti-Terrorism Act may violate the principle of legality."

The law uses an overbroad definition of terrorism that can subject suspects, apprehended
without a warrant, two 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.”

The 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 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.

It includes such broad offenses as "engaging in acts intended to endanger a person's life,"
intended to "damage public property" or "interfere with critical infrastructure," where the
purpose is to intimidate the government. The National Union of People's Lawyers has petitioned
the Supreme Court to overturn the law on the grounds it is overly broad and essentially
criminalizes intent.

One new offense, inciting to commit terrorism, is particularly problematic, the rights
advocates say. The text says inciting others through "speeches, writings, proclamations,
emblems, banners, and other representations tending to the same end" could carry a punishment
of 12 years in prison."It chills freedom of expression. It chills free speech. It chills freedom of
the press. It chills freedom of association," says Neri Colmenares, a leading human rights
lawyer who is petitioning the Supreme Court. The law does state, however, that it is not
intended to punish advocacy, protest, dissent, industrial action and strikes, so long as they don't
create "a serious risk to public safety."

The bill was denounced by a large number of people in the Philippines. The hashtag
#JunkTerrorBill has started trending on social media, with celebrities, government officials
and even business groups expressing concern over it. Many fear the security forces could abuse
their wide-ranging powers."The bill labels anyone who expresses dissent a terrorist. It will give
authorities more reasons to punish Muslims who are wrongfully perceived as terrorists," Khads
Sarael, a 20-year-old Muslim student who participated in a protest, told DW.

A group of lawyers and educators has asked the Supreme Court to stop the enforcement
of the newly-signed measure, saying it contained provisions that were “repugnant” to the
Constitution. The Calleja Law Firm, led by lawyer Howard Calleja, said the group filed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary and writ
of preliminary injunction and/or other injunctive remedies against the Anti-Terrorism Act of
2020.

Many of the participants indicated that it was too early to gauge the impact of the Anti-
Terrorism Act as many of the most contentious powers created by it have not yet been used.
There have been no substantial investigative or prosecutorial successes and no use of the
preventive arrest power. The investigative hearing provision has been used only once (in the Air
India case) and the witness in that case has challenged the requirement to provide compelled
testimony.
Ní Aoláin said the term terrorism was an “inherently suspect category”, however, and that
the government was deliberately using the cover of counterterrorism to suppress rights.

Many fear the law’s sweeping definitions will provide a new tool to silence those who are
calling for accountability for abuses committed under Duterte’s leadership, including
extrajudicial killings carried out during an anti-drug crackdown launched after his election in
2016. “The hand is already on the trigger and the law will provide the impetus to press the
trigger,” added Olalia.

Over the past few months alone, action has been taken one of the country’s most
prominent media outlets. In June, executive editor of Rappler, Maria Ressa, a critic of Duterte,
was convicted of cyber libel - over a story she did not write, and under a law that did exist at the
time the article was published. Meanwhile, the country’s largest broadcaster, ABS-CBN, which
has been repeatedly threatened by the president, has been forced off air. Duterte has denied that
either of these cases were politically motivated.
Among those challenging the anti-terror law are Christian Monsod and Felicitas Arroyo, who
were part of a commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution. Several more groups are expected
to file petitions.

The vast majority of supreme court justices are Duterte appointees. “We will push back,
we will fight back,” said Olalia.

OPPORTUNITY

New anti-terrorism legislation will give greater powers to authorities to arrest people
without a warrant and carry out surveillance. The 2020 Anti-Terrorism Bill is an upgrade of the
Human Security Act of 2007, which the military says is outdated and insufficient to fight
modern-day terrorism, which involves online recruitment and planning of terrorist activities.
The new measure enables security forces to arrest suspects without a legal warrant, hold them
without charges for a longer period of time and wiretap them for up to 90 days. Additionally,
there will be an anti-terror council in place to define what constitutes terrorism.

Supporters of the bill argue that there are enough safeguards in the new legislation to
ensure freedom of expression. "Those who protest peacefully are not terrorists. Our constitution
ensures peaceful rallies, as they are protected by the Bill of Rights," Secretary of National
Defense Delfin Lorenzana said in an interview.
 Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana on Sunday appealed to the public to give the newly
signed anti-terror law or Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 a chance and “not be swayed by
misinformation and disinformation.” He urged the public to read and understand the law,
assuring that the government will “strictly implement” the law and it will not be abused.”

“We appeal to the public to give this law a chance and not to be swayed by
misinformation and disinformation,” Lorenzana said in a statement. “We urge everyone to read
and understand the law,” he added. Lorenzana maintained that the measure is “much-needed” as
it will give law enforcement agencies the “necessary” power to contain and eradicate terrorists.

“It is a much-needed measure to clothe law enforcement agencies with the necessary
power to contain and eradicate terrorists who don’t play by any rules and who hide behind our
laws to pursue their evil deeds,” he said. President Rodrigo Duterte has signed into law the
Anti-Terror bill despite strong opposition from diverse groups and individuals, warning of
possible violations of civil and political rights and the Constitution itself.

Early on, the bill generated extensive backlash and critique from different sectors across
youth groups, academia, church, business, and civil society. Critics had several objections: ill
timing; credibility issues among the implementing agencies; the risk of abuse; and potentially
unconstitutional provisions. The law created division when it should have unified the country
against the rising threat of terrorism. This article provides a sober review of terrorism issues in
the Philippines, and hopefully helps promote a better understanding toward a unified way
forward.

In a move that surprised many, in early June 2020 amid the Philippines’ COVID-19
pandemic challenges, President Rodrigo Duterte certified as “urgent” the Anti-Terrorism Act of
2020. In just a matter of days, the House of Representatives dispensed with any further review
process and accepted the Senate version of the bill, then promptly sent it to the president for
signature. On July 3, Duterte signed this bill into law, notwithstanding calls for him to veto it.

THREATS

Terrorists are very likely to try to carry out attacks in the Philippines. We should remain
vigilant at all times and report anything suspicious to the local authorities.

In the Philippines, the terrorist threat has taken a bloody evolution from killings,
kidnappings, and armed attacks in the past, to increased use of improvised explosive devices in
the last decade, and more recently in the last few years a deadly ramp up of suicide bombings.
Between July 2018 and November 2019, there were six suicide bombings in the country, with
evidence that further waves of bombings were set to take place but were foiled. Attacks include:

 July 2018: A suicide bomber, believe to be a Moroccan, detonated his explosives inside
his vehicle at a government checkpoint in Basilan, killing 10.
 January 2019: An Indonesian couple, who had tried to enter Syria but were deported by
Turkish authorities, blew themselves up at a cathedral in the southern Philippine town of
Jolo, killing 23 and wounding more than 100 during a Sunday Mass.
 June 2019: Two men – the first Filipino bombers – detonated their explosives outside an
army camp in Sulu, killing five, including themselves, and wounding 22 others.
 September 2019: A woman, believed to be an Egyptian, blew herself up at the gate of a
military base in Jolo, though causing no further casualties.
 November 2019: Suspected suicide bombers were foiled by government forces. Two of
the three suspected would-be bombers are believed to be the Egyptian bomber’s husband
and their son.

The suicide attacks were all in the Sulu archipelago, Abu Sayyaf’s stronghold, and were
all claimed by the Islamic State. Home-grown terrorists in the Philippines seeking to align with
IS, attempted to take Marawi city in May 2017, provoking a five-month siege, and inspired
foreign fighters to join the fight. Delays in rebuilding Marawi city and returning residents to
their properties and homes have raised concerns that terror groups are using this to recruit
among highly disgruntled residents.

Based on reports by both the media and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the first
Filipino suicide bombing took place in June 2019. This is a watershed moment in the country,
since it signals an extreme form of radicalizing home-grown terrorists.

Responding to news that Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte signed the Anti-Terrorism
Act into law, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Nicholas Bequelin, said.
“Under Duterte’s presidency, even the mildest government critics can be labelled terrorists.

“This administration has effectively crafted a new weapon to brand and hound any
perceived enemies of the state. In the prevailing climate of impunity, a law so vague on the
definition of ‘terrorism’ can only worsen attacks against human rights defenders.

“The approval of this law grants the government excessive and unchecked powers.
Legislation aimed at ‘countering terrorism’ must ensure respect for international human rights
and humanitarian law and protect basic liberties.

“This law’s introduction is the latest example of the country’s ever-worsening human
rights record. Once again, this shows why the UN should launch a formal investigation into
ongoing widespread and systematic violations in the country.”
On 3 July 2020, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law the “Anti-Terrorism Act
of 2020”, which replaces the Human Security Act of 2007. Amnesty International has called on
the Philippine government to reject this legislation that contains dangerous provisions and risks
further undermining human rights in the country.

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 organization’, 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.

The act, which lawyers say uses a vague and overly broad definition of terrorism, permits
warrantless arrests and allows authorities to hold individuals for weeks without charge. It is to
be implemented later this month, though at least six petitions against the law have already been
filed in the supreme court.

The government says the powers will allow it to respond to threats by militants, but rights
groups warn the law could be used to lock up peaceful critics and may even limit access to
humanitarian aid. The law passed on Friday. “Particularly in the context of Covid, where the
role of humanitarian organizations has never been more important in terms of under-serviced
communities, any action that hampers work of humanitarian organizations is really
irresponsible,” said Professor Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion
and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

The law criminalises anyone who provides “material support” to an activity that is
deemed a terrorist act. Though an exemption for humanitarian groups is outlined, Ní Aoláin
says this is too limited, and the law could have a chilling effect on agencies delivering aid. Edre
Olalia, of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, who plans to file a petition opposing the law
in the supreme court, fears the law will have ramifications not just for media, activists and
opposition figures, but also members of the public who express opinions online.

He compared the powers provided under the anti-terror act to “a daily martial law”. “It is
unprecedented to give so much power to executive bodies,” he said. The definitions in the law,
he added, are “so expansive and broad that even legitimate activity can be considered
terrorism”.

Under the law, an anti-terrorism council, appointed by the president, will have the power
to designate individuals and groups as terrorists and detain them without charge for up to 24
days. The law also allows for 90 days of surveillance and wiretaps, and punishments that
include life imprisonment without parole.

GAPS, ISSUES AND CONCERNS ON THE PHILIPPINE ANTI-TERROR BILL

 Many concerns have been raised not only in Congress but also in various media about
the ATB passing soon into the ATA, be these concerns in terms of its substantive content, its
legislative process, its timing, its prioritization amidst a pandemic lockdown and, perhaps most
importantly, its likely significant consequences for Philippine democracy, fundamental
freedoms, civil liberties and human rights, especially about the Sec. 29 Detention Without
Judicial Warrant of Arrest on mere suspicion of committing terrorist acts or of membership in a
proscribed terrorist organization. We need not repeat, for the most part, those raised concerns
which are serious. If only to give just due to these serious concerns, which are not limited to
issues of constitutionality, the prudent thing now would be for the Congress leadership to
withhold transmitting the ATB to the President for him to sign it into law but instead reopen
legislative deliberations (like what was done for the ABS-CBN franchise renewal) OR, IF the
ATB has already been transmitted to the President, for him to veto it purposively to reopen
legislative deliberations. It will not do for him to merely not sign it, as it would then
automatically lapse into law 30 days from transmittal to him.

In the meantime, the HSA will still be there as the existing anti-terrorism law which
is the domestic law which primarily addresses terrorism, aside from R.A. No. 10168,
The Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012 (TFPSA). It is
interesting to note that the TFPSA makes reference to the HSA such as when it comes to
designated terrorist organizations and persons. However, while the ATB would repeal the HSA,
it would not repeal the TFPSA which the ATB in fact reiterates in Secs. 16, 35 and 36 when it
comes to surveillance of suspects and interception of communications, and to investigation and
freezing of bank deposits related to the financing of terrorism. So, even without an ATA, there
will still be an anti-terrorism law which is the HSA and the TFPSA. As it is, there has not been
much implementation experience of this 2007 anti-terrorism law, not many cases filed, hardly
any jurisprudence on it, and no congressional oversight review that would ordinarily be the
basis for the amendment and especially repeal of the HSA.

The only Supreme Court Decision on the HSA that I am personally aware of, as the
lead individual petitioner, is that in Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-
Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146 (2010), which dismissed several petitions, including those of
KMU, BAYAN, KARAPATAN et al., questioning the constitutionality of the HSA
immediately after its passage, declining to rule on this on procedural grounds basically of un-
ripeness for adjudication. The Decision practically required that the petitioners must first be
charged with violation of the HSA so that they may be said to have legal standing in an actual
controversy and only then can the Court take cognizance of the case. My old friends attorney
Edre U. Olalia of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers and Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate of the
Bayan Muna party-list group who have announced their intentions to challenge the ATA’s
constitutionality upon its signing by the President should take that requirement into
consideration.

It may be also interesting to note that there is a pending (?) February 2018 Petition by the
Department of Justice (DoJ) against the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and New
People’s Army (NPA) for their proscription as terrorist organizations under Sec. 17 of the
HSA docketed as Case No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV before RTC Branch 19 Manila. I am not
aware of any successful service of summons to the respondents CPP and NPA which have no
permanent address, much less of any entry of appearance by any counsels for respondents and
their submission of a Comment. If the HSA is repealed shortly, that proceeding would no longer
proceed. If ever, a new Petition for proscription of the CPP and NPA as terrorist organizations,
this time under Sec. 26 of the ATA, would have to be filed. And again, there will be interesting
questions of service of summons, appearance of counsels for respondents and their Comment
against the Petition. Or it could be a default Order of Prescription?!?

The systematic employment by states, groups or individuals of acts or threats of violence

or use of weapons deliberately targeting the civilian population, individuals or infrastructure for
the primary purpose of spreading terror or extreme fear among the civilian population in
relation to some political or quasi-political objective and undertaken with an intended
audience.” You will see at the outset that the concept that states are just as capable of
committing terrorist acts as are non-state armed groups. And so, if the Philippine
government, particularly Congress, is truly sincere in suppressing terrorism in all its forms or
sources, including state terrorism, I challenge it to incorporate this concept in our anti-
terrorism law. Of course, this would need more legislative as well as public deliberation and,
yes, debate, for which reasonable time should be given.

The basic rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in the Constitution” would
be upheld, and whether “respect for human rights, which shall be absolute and protected at all
times,” would not be prejudiced, pursuant to the ATA’s declared policy. The general and
historical experience in the Philippines has been that the law and its implementation are two,
sometimes very, different things. The difference may be attributed to the criminal justice system
and its several pillars, most crucially that of law enforcement led by the police. And in the
particular case of the ATA, it is “law enforcement agents or military personnel” who would be
the front-liners in its implementation. Given particularly the recent experience of this
administration’s “war against drugs,” it should not be seen as asking too much that a certain
necessary measure or level of police reform be achieved first before passing or
implementing the ATA. Let this be our counterpart to the call for police reform in the US
now arising from the killing of George Floyd, one too many among Blacks who have lost
their lives in the brutal hands of predominantly White policemen, as a function of systemic
racism.

Both police and military personnel who will be assigned to ATA implementation work, such as
surveillance of suspects, interception and recording of communications, filing of written
applications with the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, custody of intercepted and
recorded communications, joint affidavits for this purpose, written notifications of the judge
nearest the place of apprehension, informing detained persons of their rights, maintaining an
official custodial logbook, and filing of the appropriate cases before the Public Prosecutor’s
Office, will need some special training for this. There is no ATB provision for this as well as for
the special training of designated specific divisions of the Court of Appeals or certain branches
of the RTC as anti-terror courts to handle ATA cases. As a rule, the Implementing Rules and
Regulations cannot fill the substantive gaps in the law itself.

And so, all told, the better part of anti-terror valor is some prudence. To reiterate our call,
reopen legislative deliberations on the ATB for a better and more socially acceptable ATA, and
for the necessary institutional preparation for its implementation, in the interest of Philippine
democracy, fundamental freedoms, civil liberties, human rights, and the right fight against
terrorism.

REFERENCES

Strength - The-Philippines-Anti-Terrorism-Act-of-2020-Five-things-to-know
Weakness - philippines-anti-terrorism-law-further-threatens-safety-human-rights-defenders

- why-rights-groups-worry-about-the-philippines-new-anti-terrorism-law
- philippine-anti-terrorism-law-triggers-fear-of-massive-rights-abuses/a-
53732140

Opportunity - https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/

- https://thediplomat.com/

Threats - https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/07/philippines-dangerous-
antiterror-law-yet-another-setback-for-human-rights/

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/09/dutertes-anti-terror-law-a-dark-
new-chapter-for-philippines-experts-warn

Gaps and issues- https://www.bworldonline.com/on-the-new-anti-terrorism-bill/

- Soliman M. Santos, Jr. is a Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City,
Camarines Sur