Why the ‘Anti-Terror’ Bill Imperils Philippine Democracy
/
Various groups rally against the “Anti-Terror” Bill (Photo by Darren Langit/Rappler)
The Abu Sayyaf has also carried out a series of high-profile kidnappings-for-ransom, targeting foreign tourists as well local residents to raise funds for recruiting members and purchasing arms to carry out depredations.
The numerous acts of terror during the period prompted the government to enact the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007. This law defines terrorism as a crime that "causes widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace." It also allows authorities to arrest terror suspects without warrants and detain them for three days without charges.
This law was enacted precisely to bring the Philippines in line with its Southeast Asian neighbors in battling Islamist militants especially in the southern island of Mindanao.
While the law proved its worth in reducing the terrorist threat by bringing suspected Islamist militants to justice, the 2017 siege of Marawi in central Mindanao by the Maute Group -- reinforced by hundreds of gunmen professing allegiance to the barbaric Islamic State -- again brought to the fore the reality that terror remains a distinct security threat.
The five months of intense fighting between government forces and the Islamist militants razed a big portion of the city to the ground and displaced thousands of families from their homes. To this day, Marawi lies in ruins despite efforts to rebuild the lives of its residents.
The specter of another Marawi siege in southern Philippines and continuing clashes between the Abu Sayyaf and government troops in Mindanao shows that the terrorist threat is not likely go away soon.
It is within this context that lawmakers apparently saw fit to amend the Human Security Act of 2007 to strengthen the hand of government in fighting a pernicious enemy.
The Senate approved its version of the Anti-Terrorism Bill in February. On June 2, the House of Representatives approved in entirety the Senate version, after President Rodrigo Duterte certified it as urgent. Congressmen voted 173-31 with 29 abstentions to approve the proposed measure.
The bill now goes to the desk of President Rodrigo Duterte for his signature. It is likely to be enacted into law soon as he had declared it a priority bill.
Ruins of Marawi after the battle between the Abu Sayyaf and government forces (Photo by Romeo Ranoco/Reuters)
Key provisions
The proposed Human Security Act of 2020 contains several new elements.
One, it expands the definition of terrorism to cover acts committed by persons within or outside the country seeking 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, or seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures in the country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety."
Terrorist acts are enumerated as those intended to: cause death or serious bodily injury to any person or endangers a person’s life; cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place, or private property; cause extensive interference with, damage, or destruction to critical infrastructure.
Also included are acts of developing, manufacturing, possessing, acquiring, transporting, supplying, or using weapons; and releasing dangerous substances or causing fire, floods or explosions. This is an amendment of HSA 2007 that defines terrorism as the violation of certain provisions of the Revised Penal Code—such as piracy, rebellion, insurrection, coup d’etat, murder, kidnapping and serious illegal detention -- for the purpose of sowing “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic” in the people in order to “coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.”
Two, the proposed law seeks to extend the length of time a suspected terrorist can be arrested without warrant and detained. Under the original law, this would only be for a maximum of three days. But the proposed amendment wants to extend the period of detention to 14, with an option to extend for another 10 days, if necessary, to preserve evidence, prevent an upcoming terrorist attack, or properly conclude an investigation.
Threats to commit terrorism and proposals to carry out a terrorist act will be punishable by imprisonment of 12 years while conspiring, planning, training, preparing, and facilitating to commit the act will be punishable by life imprisonment.
Three, while the old law currently allows up to 30 days of surveillance of a suspect's phone communications, provided there is probable cause and the law enforcer or military personnel gets permission from the Court of Appeals, the new anti-terrorism bill expands the original 30-day period to 60 days.
Four, it removes the provision under the Human Security Act of 2007 that directs the payment of P500,000 in damages for each day that a person wrongfully accused of terrorism is detained.
And five, it also empowers the Anti-Money Laundering Council to pry into the bank accounts of suspected terrorist groups and persons without a specific court order by freezing such accounts for 20 days, subject to six months’ extension by the Court of Appeals, as an exception to the “Law of Secrecy of Bank Deposits.”
Defenders of the proposed law
Sen. Panfilo Lacson, sponsor of the bill in the Upper Chamber, defended it as providing "a strong legal structure that deals with terrorism to exact accountability, liability, and responsibility. Those who have committed, are about to commit, or are supporting those who commit terroristic acts should be prosecuted and penalized accordingly."
Sen. Panfilo Lacson (Photo by Joseph Vidal/Senate PRIB)
Lacson, a former national police chief, said the antiterrorism bill contained “enough safeguards” to prevent abuses by the authorities.
“The concerns being raised by the progressive and leftist groups, as well as human rights advocates, have been adequately addressed during the (Senate) hearings,” he stressed.
Lacson has described the Human Security Act of 2007 as a “dead letter law” because the military and police had “refused” to use it against terror suspects because of the provision giving compensation of P500,000 per day of detention to an accused who is subsequently acquitted. “Instead, they opted to file simple violations of the (Revised Penal Code) like murder, illegal possession of explosives, illegal possession of firearms, etc.,” he said.
Senate President Vicente Sotto III said “terrorists or their supporters are the only ones who will be afraid of the bill.” He assured government critics that the antiterror bill “has more than enough safeguards” against abuses.
Sen. Vicente Sotto III (Photo by Albert Calvelo/Senate PRIB)
Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque, a former human rights lawyer, said the proposed law follows those of other countries like England, United States, Europe and Australia. “There are no draconian provisions there. All provisions are based on laws of other countries which are more effective in combating terrorism,” he said. He also described as “unfounded fear” the concerns that critics of the administration would be Red-tagged and that police would abuse its power to arrest individuals supporting human rights organizations.
For his part, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana maintained that the measure was needed now “because the threat that terrorists [would] take advantage of the pandemic is very great.”
New information has surfaced that the proposed Anti-Terror Act of 2020 now awaiting Duterte's signature is in fact entirely the brainchild of military and police generals who are now trying to dismiss fears that it is prone to abuse, according to the online news site Rappler.
It appears that the police and military found HSA 2007 too cumbersome and claimed that the law effectively aided terrorists. In a Senate hearing in 2018, then-Armed Forces of the Philippines chief of staff General Carlito Galvez, now the chief implementor of the directives of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID), claimed they had to release captured suspects behind a bombing in Isulan town in Sultan Kudarat because of what he called "permissive" measures under HSA.
Since they could not build a case within the three days that the law required them to charge the suspects, the generals wanted a 30-day period for warrantless arrests to allow them to conduct their investigation. They said suspects normally give them information on the second or third week, obviously after intense interrogation. It was National Intelligence Coordinating Agency Director General Alex Monteagudo, a retired police general, who pushed for a 90-day surveillance period, or one month longer than what HSA allowed, Rappler said.
Opposition to the proposed law
Vice President Leni Robredo has questioned the intent and timing of the bill, saying that some of its provisions may be used to further crack down on dissent and free speech.
She noted that several provisions that focus on expanding the definition of a terrorist and on lessening the checks and balances against wrongful arrest can “cause a lot of fear.”
Robredo said the implementation of the proposed law, "especially in the hands of people who have no qualms about using disinformation, inventing evidence, or finding the smallest of pretexts to silence its critics—this power is very dangerous.”
Vice President Leni Robredo (Photo by Jay Ganzon)
Lawmakers
Sen. Kiko Pangilinan believes that the measure's definition of terrorism is "vague," making it open to abuses as common crimes can be framed by erring law enforcers. He added that the length of detention is an infringement on rights and liberty.
Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan (Source: kikopangilinan.com)
Sen. Risa Hontiveros said: "I fear that certain provisions of the bill, specifically those allowing the preliminary proscription of suspected terrorist organizations prior to their being given an opportunity to be heard as well as those lowering the standard for warrantless arrest and detention, go too far and might lead to a number of pernicious consequences."
Sen. Riza Hontiveros (Source: Senate PRIB)
House human rights panel chair and Quezon City Rep. Jesus Suntay cited several provisions that he said were “in violation of the Bill of Rights.” He said these include Section 29 that allows warrantless arrests, and another provision that extends the number of days a suspect can be detained without a warrant from three days to 14 days, extendable by another 10 days.
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman questioned the President’s certification of the bill, saying Duterte “errantly considers more urgent the suppression of sporadic ‘acts of terrorism’ by instituting draconian measures than enacting an economic stimulus package granting relief to distressed people and businesses in the wake of the still raging COVID-19 pandemic.” He added that the bill would “tighten the noose on suspected terrorists at the expense of the protection of human rights and civil liberties like critical dissent and expression of grievances.”
According to Lagman, the bill “encourages, facilitates and legalizes” the Red-tagging of groups and persons belonging to suspected terrorist organizations.
Kabataan party-list Rep. Sarah Elago said the anti-terrorism bill "has no safeguards for the protection of human rights, redress of grievances. This can be weaponized to silence critics, suppress dissent."
Human rights advocates
Commission on Human Rights spokesperson Jacqueline de Guia warned that the prolonged detention of suspects without a judicial warrant, “may result [in] cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or torture.”
National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers president Edre Olalia said his group would challenge the bill’s “constitutionality” before the high court.
Amnesty International Philippines said the proposed bill "disproportionately restricts human rights in the name of security,” while the Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights described the bill as “extremely concerning,” as it could be weaponized by the administration.
The International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) warned of an “all-out escalation of rights abuses” once the antiterrorism bill becomes law. It said the proposed law is another way for Duterte to “institutionalize the war against dissent” even without the formal declaration of nationwide martial law and "could lead to violations of people’s right to security and privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to due process."
Lea Guerrero, Greenpeace Philippines director, said “activism is not a crime” and the people were not enemies of the government but its partners in nation-building. “Empowered participation and collective citizen action in political discourse, including opposing harmful government policies and business practices, are vital in protecting the health and well-being of Filipinos and the environment on which we depend,” she said.
The Karapatan human rights group decried the amendments to the Anti-Terrorism law as proof of "Duterte’s brutal campaign of State terrorism" in a bid to "establish a full-blown fascist dictatorship and de facto martial law."
“We think this is against the Constitution,” said human rights lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno. “Given the broader definition of terrorism, the administration’s critics could be tagged as suspected terrorists.”
Mel Sta. Maria, dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law, also strongly opposes the passage of the “dangerous” antiterror bill. He believes that the Anti-Terror Council to be created, which include the secretaries of defense and interior and the national security adviser, could “designate” any person or entity as a terrorist or a terrorist group. He thinks that since the measure has no provision where the person or group could present “countervailing evidence” or have a hearing or prior notice, these are violations of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
He said the bill will give any president “enormous executive power, which, if abused, can lead to the weaponizing of the law to create fear even among legitimate critics...Indeed, the availability of such executive power provides a tempting invitation for its misuse and abuse, a lure for which manipulative government officials may not be able to resist. If only for this reason, the antiterror bill should never be passed,” he said. “The bill, if passed into law, will be any despot’s deadly sword.”
““We think this is against the Constitution,” said human rights lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno. “Given the broader definition of terrorism, the administration’s critics could be tagged as suspected terrorists.””
Business
On June 5, eight business groups said in a joint statement that during the coronavirus pandemic, what the country needs is “national unity” and not an anti-terrorism bill that "poses clear and present danger to human rights."
The business groups—Bishops-Businessmen's Conference for Human Development, Information Technology and Business Process Association of the Philippines, Investment House Association of the Philippines, Judicial Reform Initiative, Management Association of the Philippines, Makati Business Club, Philippine Business for Education, and Subdivision and Housing Developers Association Inc.—voiced "in the strongest possible terms" their opposition to the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which they said is "highly divisive."
"We are all suffering and fighting for survival: businesses are closing down, people are losing their jobs, those who still have jobs find it impossible to find safe transportation to work, our children are going hungry and the continuity of their education is under threat...We need to come together, united around a set of relief and recovery measures that will help us come out of this pandemic a stronger and more resilient nation," the groups said.
They also called on both national leaders and the private sector to focus on developing policies that would address "multiple socio-economic shocks," strengthening the country's health systems, and improving investment climate to create more jobs, especially with thousands of overseas Filipino workers returning home.
Church
Church and religious leaders in the Philippines have likewise denounced the passage of the proposed anti-terrorism law, calling it a threat to basic freedoms and civil liberties.
The group calling itself "One Faith, One Nation, One Voice" and composed of prominent Church leaders, including Bishop Broderick Pabillo, Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of Manila; Bishop Reuel Norman Marigza, general secretary of the National Council of Churches of the Philippines; and former Education Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro, among others, said the law will "cause a further shrinking of democratic space and weakening of public discourse that will be detrimental to our nation.”
The religious group added that the proposed measure will “insidiously strip away respect for human rights and other civil liberties. A thriving democracy upholds freedom of speech, the rights to assembly and association, the right to expression of beliefs, and other inalienable rights of our people,” they pointed out.
“Now more than ever, we need the power of dissenting voices in the current state of political and public health in our country,” said Bishop Gerardo Alminaza of the Diocese of San Carlos. “It is high time that citizens and members of civil society organizations set aside their differences to combat the passage of this bill,” he said.
Bishop Ruperto Santos of Balanga warned that “truth will be the first casualty” of the proposed measure.
Bishop Arturo Bastes, retired prelate of Sorsogon, noted that Congress seemed to have become “too subservient to the president to whom many of them owe their political position...I am sure that with the bill turned into law, Duterte will have a heyday violating human rights with impunity.”
The Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines (AMRSP) also warned that acts of dissent, free speech, right to assemble, the right to organize, and freedom of belief are threatened by the proposed anti-terror law, and expressed deep concern over what it described as “troubling developments” even amidst the coronavirus pandemic.
“When the anti-terrorism law is placed in the hands of the wrong people, it represents a clear, present and grave threat to Philippine democracy.”
Journalists
For the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, “this bill, which is much worse than the repulsive Human Security Act of 2007, would negate so many of our rights, including those to freedom of the press and of expression, and institutionalize impunity with the removal of justifiably harsh penalties against abusive implementors of the law.”
Labor
The Nagkaisa Labor Coalition claimed that the "extremely broad definitions of terrorism" in the proposed measure, "would virtually criminalize almost all forms of dissent."
"Another equally appalling provision would be the warrantless arrests and detention of suspects, which basically overturns every Filipino’s right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise," it said.
Social media
Netizens likewise slammed Congress for its hasty passage of the bill, citing amendments that authorize basic human rights violations in the country.
A netizen pointed out: "Activism is not terrorism," while another said: "Our heroes spent decades fighting for this country's democracy yet this government is removing the right of freedom of speech (and) criminalizing criticism. This is not what we need during this pandemic."
Celebrities
Even show business stars and two beauty queens have weighed in against the proposed anti-terror law and expressed concern over its "broad and vague" provisions. Among them are popular show biz personalities Anne Curtis, Angel Locsin and Bea Alonzo, as well as two Miss Universe title holders: Pia Wurtzbach and Catriona Gray. They have not only actively initiated campaigns to help the poor and vulnerable sectors during the COVID-19 pandemic, but they also have demonstrated awareness of current political issues by warning Filipinos against possible abuses under the proposed anti-terrorism law.
Misses Universe Pia Alonzo Wurtzbach and Catriona Gray (Source: Instagram/Photo by @rynong)
What can we expect once the bill is signed into law?
All these voices point in one direction: This proposed law could well mean martial law without any formal declaration. This is very clear from its very broad definition of what constitutes terrorism.
Duterte can have his critics and opponents rounded up by simply calling them terrorists and the police and the military can detain and prosecute them so that they can be sent behind bars for a long time.
It is also likely to open the floodgates to more arbitrary arrests and detention of people who are simply protesting inefficiency, incompetence and corruption in government and charging them with inciting to sedition and taking part in terrorist planning.
The police and the military are already doing this. Let us not forget that the military for the longest time has been referring to suspected and captured members of the New People's Army (NPA) as "communist-terrorists."
With the new law, they can accost people as terrorist suspects even without any arrest warrant and detain them for an extended period than that prescribed by our Constitution.
The proposed law would be another tool for repression and lead to a spike in human rights abuses by persons in authority. The state can go after party-list groups identified with the militant Makabayan bloc as well as legal organizations of workers, peasants, women, youth, the religious, and indigenous peoples asking for protection of their rights. Anyone who criticizes government and public officials for corruption, plunder, and negligence can be labeled a terrorist and made to suffer heavy penalties prescribed by the law. And not to forget, the government could use this law to harass those who criticize its continuing bloody war on illegal drugs, and say that they are also terrorists who pose a danger to the State.
I anticipate the new law being challenged in court for being unconstitutional as it tends to undermine due process of law and basic rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution: freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances, among others.
But with the Supreme Court packed with Duterte appointees, there's a very slim possibility that it would decide in favor of a petition to declare it unconstitutional.
The anti-terrorism law may be used instead to legitimize state-sponsored terror by going after critics of the administration rather than scuttling terrorist groups that have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and want to conduct more bombings and beheadings of captives.
Running after the Abu Sayyaf and similar terrorist groups is the right thing to do under this law, but using it to incarcerate opponents of bad governance and corruption is definitely not.
I agree with those who say that activism is not terrorism. Calling out the government for corruption and bad governance is not terrorism either.
The timing of the passage of this proposed law is also suspicious as it was done amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the bill was discussed and passed without any public consultation, lawmakers in all likelihood anticipated possible public outrage and protest actions. But as mass gatherings are banned under current lockdown restrictions, then they were able to railroad the bill straight to the President's desk. A neat but sneaky move on their part, but a possible grave miscalculation as protest actions have started to unfold even with the lockdown.
And finally, the track record of the Duterte administration in the bloody war on illegal drugs does not inspire confidence at all on the part of the citizenry that the anti-terrorism law will be used against them. Can we be safe and sound in our homes, let alone be able to sleep soundly at night, without worrying about a heavy-handed knock on the door by the police with this law in place?
When the anti-terrorism law is placed in the hands of the wrong people, it represents a clear, present and grave threat to Philippine democracy. And in light of the cold-blooded murder of George Floyd in the United States that has sparked massive protests from coast-to-coast, I can't help but wonder whether the imposition of a broad-ranging anti-terrorism law in the Philippines is just like that: a heavy, unmoving knee on the neck of the Filipino people that could leave us all desperately gasping for our collective breath soon enough.
Ernesto M. Hilario
Ernesto M. Hilario studied Political Science at the University of the Philippines and has worked for various government agencies, NGOs and mainstream media since 1978. He writes a regular column for the Manila Standard broadsheet and also works as a freelance writer-editor.
More articles from Ernesto M. Hilario