Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

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[1]

The definition states that "advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights" shall not be considered as terrorist acts only if 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."

The law also creates a presidentially-appointed body, the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), which would designate the persons who could be arrested as "terrorists."[7]

Because of other provisions of the law. these persons could be detained for up to 24 days (14 days with a possible 10-day extension),[8] and would not be automatically compensated for wrongful imprisonment as they originally were under the Human Security Act of 2007.[9]

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.[8] But an analyst argues that this provision is essential for counterterrorism to "allow more time for investigators to get valuable information from the terror suspect. A longer detention period can also provide ample time to facilitate interrogation. It can also incapacitate the suspected terrorist from wrecking havoc. Most importantly, longer preventive detention can lawfully hold suspect when usual criminal charges cannot be filed for some technical considerations."[10]

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 also removes a section under the Human Security Act of 2007 which is meant to safeguard against the wrongful accusation and detention of suspects. Previously, if a person imprisoned under the HSA were found to actually not be guilty, that person would be compensated for wrongful detention, with the cost "automatically charged against the appropriations of the police agency or the Anti-Terrorism Council that brought or sanctioned the filing of the charges against the accused."[9]

Under the new law, a wrongfully detained person would have to file a suit against the government in order to get any remuneration for having been wrongfully accused.[9]

Conflicts with ideologically motivated groups, both armed and unarmed have frequently been labeled "terrorists," "rebels," and "bandits" throughout the Philippines' history.[11][12]

During the colonial era, forces fighting for Filipino independence, such as those under Diego Silang, Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Aguinaldo, and Macario Sakay were intentionally labeled "insurrectos" and "bandits" in order to de-legitimize and downplay their cause.[12][13] In the 1930s, the Hukbalahap of the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP-1930) was one of the most active guerrilla forces fighting for Filipino freedom during World War II, but it found itself in conflict with the newly independent Philippine government after the war, until it was effectively defeated in the 1950s.[14]

A new communist organization, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), was formed in 1969, and although it was still small, the Philippine government used its formation to take advantage of the cold war red scare in the United States to increase the influx of defense support funds from the US.[15][16][17]^(p"43") A 1968 Philippine senate investigation into the Jabidah massacre, in which Muslim recruits were supposedly massacred in Corregidor to prevent them from blowing the cover on a botched Military operation resulted in the rise of multiple secessionist movements in the Muslim-majority areas in western Mindanao Island, including the Muslim Independence Movement, the Bangsamoro Liberation Organization.[18] President Ferdinand Marcos cited the new communist and moro separatist movements among his reasons for declaring martial law in 1972, but also used his powers to "emasculate all the leaders" of the political opposition, allowing him to hold authoritarian power over the Philippines for more than two decades.[19]

While martial law decimated the leadership of the political opposition, it radicalized otherwise "moderate" young people of the time, leading to the rapid growth of the Communist Party of the Philippines' New People's Army.[20] In western Mindanao, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) became the dominant voice of Muslim separatism after the burning of Jolo in 1974.[21] In northern Luzon, the murder of Macli-ing Dulag for his opposition to the Marcos administration's Chico River Dam project became a rallying cry which inspired the formation of militant groups such as the Cordillera People's Liberation Army (CPLA).[22]

On the other hand, the martial law saw the creation of human rights advocacy groups across the whole political spectrum, with civil society groups such as the Movement of Concerned Citizens for Civil Liberties and the Free Legal Assistance Group were joined even by church groups such as the National Council of Churches in the Philippines, Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines, and Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, and by business groups such as the Makati Business Club, in actively fighting the proliferation of human rights abuses during the period.[23]

After Marcos was removed from power through the mostly-peaceful People Power revolution of 1986, the Reform the Armed Forces Movement launched numerous coups to overthrow the government,[24] while conflicts continued with the MNLF, MILF, CCP, and smaller groups like the CPLA. Ideological differences in the CCP resulted in various groups who rejected its adherence to Maoist orthodoxy splitting into more than a dozen smaller groups, including the Revolutionary Workers' Party of the Philippines.[25]

In recent years, international organizations including the United Nations,[26] Amnesty International,[27] and Human Rights Watch[28] have called attention to the continued practice of red-tagging as a political tactic to stifle dissent in the Philippines. The practice, under which individuals or groups are labeled "communist" or "terrorist" regardless of their actual beliefs or affiliations,[29] has been noted for frequently targeting human rights organizations,[30] church or religious groups,[31][32] health worker unions,[33] the academe,[34][35] and the mainstream media.[36]

Brothers Abdurajik Abubakar Janjalani and Khadaffy Janjalani split from the MNLF in 1991 and established their own group, the Abu Sayyaf, which eventually became infamous for bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, extortion,[37] rape, child sexual assault, forced marriage,[38] drive-by shootings, extortion and drug trafficking.[39] On July 23, 2014, Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon swore an oath of loyalty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).[40] In September 2014, the group began kidnapping people for ransom, in the name of ISIL.[41][42]

However, in the leadup to the passage and signing of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020, President Rodrigo Duterte said that his administration would focus on "communists." He called the Abu Sayyaf "terrorists of no value," saying "Actually the number one threat to the country, hindi Abu Sayyaf, hindi mga terorista of no value. Itong high-value targets itong mga komunista" ("Actually the number one threat to the country is not the Abu Sayyaf Group, not terrorists of no value. The high-value targets are the communists")."[43]

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 repeals the Human Security Act of 2007, making changes to some of the provisions as well as the definitions under terrorism.[44] Senator Panfilo Lacson, one of the principal authors of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, said that the Human Security Act of 2007 was a "dead letter law" because it has been "severely underutilized" as it only resulted in a single convicted felon and had only one prescribed organization, the Abu Sayyaf.[45]

The bill was prepared by the Committees on National Defense and Security; Peace, Unification and Reconciliation; and Finance with the following as authors:[46]

• Panfilo Lacson
• Lito Lapid
• Imee Marcos
• Bong Revilla
• Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa
• Tito Sotto

It was approved by the Senate on February 26, 2020[47] with the following 19 voting in the affirmative:[48]

• Sonny Angara
• Nancy Binay
• Pia Cayetano
• Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa
• Minority Leader Franklin Drilon
• Grace Poe
• Imee Marcos
• Lito Lapid
• Joel Villanueva
• Cynthia Villar
• Manny Pacquiao
• Win Gatchalian
• Bong Go
• Richard J. Gordon
• Panfilo Lacson
• Bong Revilla
• Senate President Tito Sotto
• Francis Tolentino
• Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri

The following senators dissented:[48]

• Risa Hontiveros
• Kiko Pangilinan

The bill was introduced by the following representatives and filed on May 30, 2020.[49] Out of the 71 original authors, 15 members had their names stricken out as the authors of the controversial bill.[50] The bill was approved on final reading on June 3, 2020 as an adoption of the earlier version approved by Senate.[47] An additional 5 withdrew their authorship afterwards.[51]

The House of Representatives voted 173–31 in favor of the bill, with 29 abstentions, but was corrected to 168–36 a day after to reflect corrections and retractions from members. The members voted in the plenary and via Zoom and recorded in their "All Members" Viber community[50]

The law was signed by President Rodrigo Duterte on July 3, 2020, in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and comes as part of the Philippines continued fight against terrorism in its borders.[52] Proponents of the law have cited the siege of Marawi in 2017 as well as criminal activities from the Islamic State-linked Abu Sayyaf group, New People's Army Communist Rebels, and other supposed emerging threats to peace and public safety.[53] According to Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, the law took effect on July 18, 2020, 15 days after it was published in the website of the Official Gazette.[54] An implementing rules and regulations (IRR) is yet to be drafted within 90 days.[55]

On July 15, 2020, 50 members of the United States Congress urged Ambassador Jose Manuel Romualdez to request the Government of the Philippines to consider repealing the "oppressive and unnecessary legislation".[67][68] The 50 representatives are:

• Raul Grijalva (D) representing Arizona's 3rd congressional district
• Mike Thompson (D) representing California's 5th congressional district
• Barbara Lee (D) representing California's 13th congressional district
• Jackie Speier (D) representing California's 14th congressional district
• Eric Swalwell (D) representing California's 15th congressional district
• Ro Khanna (D) representing California's 17th congressional district
• Anna Eshoo (D) representing California's 18th congressional district
• Judy Chu (D) representing California's 27th congressional district
• Adam Schiff (D) representing California's 28th congressional district
• Tony Cardenas (D) representing California's 29th congressional district
• Jimmy Gomez (D) representing California's 34th congressional district
• Gil Cisneros (D) representing California's 39th congressional district
• Katie Porter (D) representing California's 45th congressional district
• Alan Lowenthal (D) representing California's 47th congressional district
• Juan Vargas (D) representing California's 51st congressional district
• Susan Davis (D) representing California's 53rd congressional district
• Rosa DeLauro (D) representing Connecticut's 3rd congressional district
• Ted Deutch (D) representing Florida's 22nd congressional district
• Hank Johnson (D) representing Georgia's 4th congressional district
• Bobby Rush (D) representing Illinois' 1st congressional district
• Jesus "Chuy" Garcia (D) representing Illinois' 4th congressional district
• Danny K. Davis (D) representing Illinois' 7th congressional district
• Jan Schakowsky (D) representing Illinois' 9th congressional district
• Jamie Raskin (D) representing Maryland's 8th congressional district
• Jim McGovern (D) representing Massachusetts' 2nd congressional district
• Stephen F. Lynch (D) representing Massachusetts' 8th congressional district
• Andy Levin (D) representing Michigan's 9th congressional district
• Dean Phillips (D) representing Minnesota's 3rd congressional district
• Betty McCollum (D) representing Minnesota's 4th congressional district
• Ilhan Omar (D) representing Minnesota's 5th congressional district
• Chris Smith (R) representing New Jersey's 4th congressional district
• Deb Haaland (D) representing New Mexico's 1st congressional district
• Nydia Velazquez (D) representing New York's 7th congressional district
• Carolyn Maloney (D) representing New York's 12th congressional district
• Adriano Espaillat (D) representing New York's 13th congressional district
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) representing New York's 14th congressional district
• Jose E. Serrano (D) representing New York's 15th congressional district
• Eliot Engel (D) representing New York's 16th congressional district
• Paul Tonko (D)representing New York's 20th congressional district
• Marcy Kaptur (D) representing Ohio's 9th congressional district
• Suzanne Bonamici (D) representing Oregon's 1st congressional district
• Earl Blumenauer (D) representing Oregon's 3rd congressional district
• Brian Fitzpatrick (R) representing Pennsylvania's 1st congressional district
• Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) representing Texas' 30th congressional district
• Colin Allred (D) representing Texas' 32nd congressional district
• Peter Welch (D) representing Vermont's at-large congressional district
• Bobby Scott (politician) (D) representing Virginia's 3rd congressional district
• Pramila Jayapal (D) representing Washington's 7th congressional district
• Mark Pocan (D) representing Wisconsin's 2nd congressional district
• Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) representing District of Columbia

On June 30, 2020, at the 44th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has criticized the then proposed bill saying it could have a "chilling effect" on human rights work in the country and called for restraint on signing the bill from President Duterte.[69]

Nicholas Bequelin, Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific Regional Director, has said upon hearing news of the law being signed:

"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."[70]

The Southeast Asia office of Greenpeace urged the repeal of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 due to its "sweeping definition of terrorism" which it said could be abused to stifle dissent.[71]

The Washington Post called the bill's enactment as "another nail in the coffin of the Philippines' waning democracy."[72] The Diplomat has stated that the law "takes aim at dissent."[73] While Al Jazeera notes that the law is "poised to cause more terror."[74] Various international artists have expressed dissent against the legislation.[75][76] Greta Thunberg, the teenage Swedish environmental activist who became famous for a school "climate strike", has joined the petition against anti-terrorism law.[77]

On July 2, 2020, the Bangsamoro Parliament passed a resolution urging President Rodrigo Duterte to veto the anti-terrorism bill, arguing that it would lead to abuses and would unfairly target Muslim Filipinos who have historically faced religious discrimination.[78] After the passage of the bill into law, Chief Minister Murad Ebrahim released a statement saying that Bangsamoro regional government fully respects President Duterte's decision to sign the bill into law and that it would seek representation in the Anti-Terrorism Council.[79] In response, presidential spokesperson Harry Roque pointed out that the law does not provide for a council seat for the Bangsamoro regional government although the same law mandates the council to coordinate with the autonomous region's government.[80]

More than 1,000 students and human rights activists gathered inside the UP Diliman campus on June 12, 2020, coinciding on 122nd Independence Day from Spanish colonial rule. They called for the government to "junk" the proposed bill stating fears that it would curtail basic human rights and freedom of speech and dissent. The rally was held despite a government ban on mass gatherings under the general community quarantine in Metro Manila and other parts of the country because of the pandemic. Protesters could be seen wearing masks and practicing social distancing.[81][82] Similar demonstrations were held by activists in various cities such as Baguio, Legazpi, and Cebu City. Demonstrations were also held at other universities such as the De La Salle University in Manila.[82]

The National Council of Churches in the Philippines, a fellowship of ten Philippine Protestant denominations, denounced the bill as "a travesty against God's will as it gives the government, or even just a few persons in the Anti-terrorism Council, the absolute power that determines what course people's lives will take by putting forward a very vague definition of terrorism."[83] The Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches had likewise expressed reservations about the bill, saying "We firmly believe this Act imperils the rights of Filipinos and sense of dignity which, having its origin in God, our laws are called to uphold and protect." The PCEC specifically cited "vague definitions of terrorism, and the extended period of warrantless detention, which opens the way to serious abuses of a person's rights and dignity" as reasons for concern.[84]

The National Federation of Peasant Women (Amihan) have said that the rising cases of red-tagging in the country confirm the prevalent criticisms against the controversial legislation.[85] The Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines (AMRSP), which brings together the heads of men and women religious orders in the country, have expressed their dissent against the law, which they say may "assault human dignity and human rights."[86] Various Filipino artists have also expressed disappointment and dissent against the signing of the bill.[87][88] Members of the Filipino art community have also expressed their dissent.[89] But Dr. Rommel C. Banlaoi, Chairman of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism[90] defends the need to have a new Philippine anti-terrorism law as threats of terrorism in the Philippines have escalated even during the COVID-19 pandemic.[91] Nonetheless, Dr. Banlaoi encourages those opposed to the anti-terrorism law to continue what they are doing in order to remain vigilant and to ensure human rights protection during the implementation of the said law.