The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Why are we amending the Human Security Act of 2007?

A: More than a decade ago since the passage of Republic Act 9372, otherwise known as
the Human Security Act of 2007, the law remains a dead letter law and severely
underutilized.

Q: What is the status of ‘terrorism’ in the Philippines?

A: The Global Terrorism Index of 2019 ranked the Philippines as the 9th country most
negatively affected by terrorism. We are actually in the top 10 with countries such as
Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, India, Yemen, Philippines and
Democratic Republic of the Congo. In fact, our country experienced the highest negative
impact from terrorism among states in the Asia Pacific region. While other states across
the globe are starting to see a downtrend in the number of deaths due to terrorism, we
are included in the top 10 countries with the largest increase in deaths from terrorism for
2016 – 2017.

Q: Who are considered ‘terrorists’ in the Philippines under the Human Security Act
of 2007?

A: Despite the existence of the Human Security Act in 2007, the Abu Sayaff Group is the
only declared terrorist or outlawed organization in the Philippines. Its proscription as such
occurred in 2015.

Q: How many were convicted due to the violation of the Human Security Act of
2007?

A: Despite the real and present threat presented by terrorist organizations, groups, and
individuals to the Filipino people, we have had only one (1) conviction for violation of the
law. The Taguig Regional Trial Court Branch 70 convicted for violation of the Human
Security Act of 2007 Nur Supian in November 201 for recruiting participants in the 2017
Marawi siege. His co-accused Marvin Ahmad, Salip Ismael Abdulla, and Issa Ukkang
were, meanwhile, acquitted.

It is a reality in our country that when terrorists are captured, they are oftentimes charged
with cases for violations of the Revised Penal Code, or illegal possession of firearms or
some other special laws rather than for terrorism. Even the suspects of the Jolo suicide
bombings in 2018 faced multiple murder and frustrated murder charges for the deaths
and injuries caused by said bombings when it was clearly a terrorist act.

Q: What was the impact of the Marawi Siege in 2017?

A: In the case of Marawi alone, the government reported the death of 900 Maute-ISIS
affiliated fighters, 168 government forces, and 47 civilians. The total damage and lost
opportunities cost is estimated by the Philippines’ Task Force Bangon Marawi at P18.23
billion. The said amount does not include the cost of war materiel and other combat
service support operations, which was estimated at more than P6 billion (US$114 million).
Post-war, the government’s conservative estimate for the cost of Marawi’s rehabilitation
is pegged at least P72.58 billion (US$1.38 billion).

Q: Is the Anti Terrorism Bill a call for Martial Law?

A: This is not martial law. While the measure includes tough provisions against terrorists
including foreign ones, even tougher safeguards are in place against abuse.

Q: What is the definition of Terrorism under this bill?

A: Terrorism is committed by any person who, within or outside the Philippines,

regardless of the stage of executions:

A. Engages in any acts intended to cause death or serious bodily to any person, or
endangers a person’s life;
B. Engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a
government or public facility, public place or private property;
C. Engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or
destruction to critical infrastructure;
D. Develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses
weapons, explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons;
and
E. Release of dangerous substance, or causing fire, floods or explosions

when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate the general public
or a segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear, to provoke or
influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, or seriously
destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the
country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety, shall be guilty
of committing terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit
of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592, otherwise known as “An Act
Amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known
as the Revised Penal Code”

Thus, in order to be considered as acts of terrorism, the intent and purpose taken together
must be established. It is erroneous to say that the mere performance of the acts
enumerated constitutes as acts of terrorism. Performance of the acts enumerated without
the underlying purpose as enumerated above may be considered as violations of the
Revised Penal Code or other Special Laws, and not as acts of terrorism.

Q: Does this definition cover valid exercise of Freedom of Speech?

A: No. Not only is this right constitutionally guaranteed under Article III Section 4
of the 1987 Constitution, Section 4 of the bill further provides in an explicit and
unequivocal manner the following:

“Provided, That, terrorism as defined in this Section shall not include

advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass
action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, which
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.”

Q: What are the other acts aside from Section 4 punishable under this Bill and the
reason for their inclusion?

A: The following are acts punishable under the Anti-Terrorism Bill:

● Threat to Commit Terrorism (Section 5) - Under the EU Framework Decision of

13 June 2002 on Combatting Terrorism, threatening to commit is a terrorist
offense.

● Planning, Training, Preparing and Facilitating the Commission of Terrorism

(Section 6)- This proposal is patterned after the Australian Criminal Code Act of
1995, as amended. UN Security Council Resolution 1624 mandates all Member
States to ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning,
preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought
to justice.
 ● Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism (Section 7)- As a general rule, conspiracy is
not punishable under the provisions of existing law. However, under the Revised
Penal Code, the act of penalizing certain conspiracies is not a new concept
particularly when said conspiracies deal with violation of Crimes Against National
Security and the Law of Nation i.e, Treason and Crimes Against Public Order like
Rebellion, Coup d’etat and Insurrection. The act being punished here is similar to
the Conspiracy being punished under the Revised Penal Code, particularly, Art.
115: Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason, Art. 136: Conspiracy and
Proposal to Commit Coup D’etat, Rebellion, Insurrection. Under Human Security
Act of 2007, Terrorism is a crime against humanity under the provision of RA
9372.. As such, the same with rebellion or treason, mere conspiracy to commit the
same should be penalized.

● Proposal to Commit Terrorism (Section 8)- The act being punished here is
similar to the Proposals being punished under the Revised Penal Code, particularly
Art. 115: Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason and Art. 136: Conspiracy
and Proposal to Commit Coup D’etat, Rebellion, Insurrection.

● Inciting to Commit Terrorism (Section 9), Recruitment to and Membership in

a Terrorist Organization (Section 10) and Providing Material Support to
Terrorist (Section 12)- The proposal is based from EU Directive (EU) 2017/541
of the European Parliament and of the Council, UN Model Legislation on Terrorism
provided by the UN Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC). UN Security Council
Resolution 1624 requires comprehensively addressing underlying factors,
including by preventing radicalization to terrorism, stemming recruitment, inhibiting
foreign terrorist fighter travel, disrupting financial support to foreign terrorist
fighters, countering violent extremism, which can be conducive to terrorism,
countering incitement to terrorist acts motivated by extremism or intolerance,
promoting political and religious tolerance, economic development and social
cohesion and inclusiveness, ending and resolving armed conflicts, and facilitating
reintegration and rehabilitation.

Q: Does providing material support to terrorists automatically make you liable

under this bill?

A: No. In order to be liable under this bill, the person providing material support to any
terrorist must have knowledge that such individual, or association, or group of persons is
committing or planning to commit acts of terrorism.

Q: What is the Anti Terrorism Council?

A: Contrary to claims by those opposing the bill, it is the courts that will determine if one
is a terrorist, not the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC). The ATC is a body created by the
Human Security Act to formulate plans, programs and counter-measures. Under Sec. 53
of the HSA, it does not have power to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial power or
authority.

Q: May the Anti Terrorism Council, on its own, order the law enforcement officials
or the military to conduct wiretapping on suspected terrorists?’

A: No. Upon the authority of ATC, law enforcement or military personnel must first file
an ex parte application with the COURT OF APPEALS who will determine whether the
application should be granted or not. Said judicial authorization shall be issued only after
the Court of Appeals has examined the applicant and the witnesses he may produce
under oath or affirmation and determined that (1) there is probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the crimes defined under this act
has been committed, or is being committed or is about to be committed AND (2) that there
is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
evidence, which is essential to the conviction of any charged or suspected person for, or
to the solution or prevention of terrorist acts will be obtained.

Thus, any wiretapping conducted by law enforcement authorities must be by virtue of a

valid judicial authorization issued by the Court of Appeals.

Q: What is the effect of wiretapping without judicial authorization?

A: The law enforcement or military personnel, which conducted such wiretapping, shall
be penalized with 10 years imprisonment. In addition, by express provision of the
proposed law, any information from the wiretapping conducted, without the judicial
authorization of the Court of Appeals, shall be inadmissible in evidence following the
principle of ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’.

Q: How long is the period of surveillance?

A: The period of judicial authorization shall be specified in the written order of the
authorizing division of the Court of Appeals. It cannot exceed a period of 60 days. The
same authorizing division of the Court of Appeals may extend or renew said period to a
non-extendible period of 30 days if the former is satisfied that such extension or renewal
is in the public interest.
Q: Who may be proscribed under this bill?

A: Any group of persons, organization or association, which COMMITS any of the acts
defined and penalized under this bill or is organized for the purpose of ENGAGING IN
TERRORISM.

Q: May the ATC, on its own, proscribe a terrorist individual or organization?

A: No. Proscription may be done upon application of the DOJ before the COURT OF
APPEALS with DUE NOTICE and OPPORTUNITY to be heard given to the group of
persons, organization or association, be declared as a terrorist and outlawed group of
persons, organization or association, by the said Court.

Q: Is warrantless arrest a new concept?

A: No. Warrantless arrest has been allowed and is governed by the Rules of Court.

“Rule 113. Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.”

Q: Is the detention period of 14 days unconstitutional considering the provisions

on suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?

A: No. As expressly stated by the Constitution of the Philippines, specifically in Article 7,

Section 18, Paragraph 5, the suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with
the invasion. As such, we apply the theory of strict construction. It states that we should
follow the word of the law to its strictest sense when the technical terms have been used
and there shall be no room for interpretation. With the use of the designations of the
crimes of Rebellion and Invasion, it is submitted that Article 7, Section 18 of the
Constitution applies solely to these crimes and shall not have application in acts of
terrorism.

In addition, the increase in the detention period to 14 days still keeps Philippine legislation
within the moderate/lenient bracket as compared to our neighboring countries. For
example, Bangladesh allows for 15 days while Indonesia for 21 days which can be
extended up to 120 additional days, Pakistan for 30 days, Malaysia for 59 days
extendable up to two years, and Singapore for 730 days to indefinite period of detention
of suspects deemed to be threats to national security.

Q: May a person be arrested on mere suspicion?

A: No. The measure does not allow authorities to cite the law to arrest people on mere
suspicion. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court on warrantless arrest will apply. The Congress
does not have the power to determine the manner of arrest. The bill did not (and never
intended) amend the Rules of Court as it may not do so due to the separation of powers
enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. Naturally, Rule 113 must be complied with in effecting
warrantless arrest.

Q: What are the safeguards in place for those arrested without a warrant under this
bill?

A:
1. The arresting officer shall immediately after taking custody of a person suspected
of committing terrorism or any member of a group of persons, organization or
association proscribed under Section 26 hereof, the law enforcement agent or
military personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place
of apprehension or arrest of the following facts: (a) the time, date, and manner of
arrest; (b) the location or locations of the detained suspect/s and (c) the physical
and mental condition of the detained suspect/s.

2. The law enforcement agent or military personnel shall likewise furnish the ATC and
the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) of the written notice given to the judge.

3. The head of the detaining facility shall ensure that the detained suspect is informed
of his/her rights as a detainee and shall ensure access to the detainee by his/her
counsel or agencies and entities authorized by law to exercise visitorial powers
over detention facilities.
 4. The penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years shall be imposed upon the police or
law enforcement agent or military personnel who fails to notify any judge.

Q: What are the rights of a Person under Custodial Detention?

A: The person detained shall be informed, by the arresting law enforcement agent or
military personnel to whose custody the person concerned is brought, of his or her right:
(a) to be informed of the nature and cause of his arrest, to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his choice. If the person cannot afford
the services of counsel of his or her choice, the law enforcement agent or military
personnel concerned shall immediately contact the free legal assistance unit of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). It shall be
the duty of the free legal assistance unit of the IBP or the PAO thus contacted to
immediately visit the person/s detained and provide him or her with legal assistance.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of his/her counsel of
choice; (b) informed of the cause or causes of his/her detention in the presence of his
legal counsel; (c) allowed to communicate freely with his/her legal counsel and to confer
with them at any time without restriction; (d) allowed to communicate freely and privately
without restrictions with the members of his/her family or with his/her nearest relatives
and to be visited by them; and, (e) allowed freely to avail of the service of a physician or
physicians of choice.

Q: What happens when law enforcement or the military violates these rights?

A: Aside from administrative charges under Section 15, the penalty of 10 years
imprisonments shall be imposed upon them.

Q: Is torture allowed under this act?

A: No. The use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or
punishment, as defined in Sections 4 and 5 of Republic Act No. 9745 otherwise known
as the “Anti-Torture Act of 2009,” at any time during the investigation or interrogation of a
detained suspected terrorist is absolutely prohibited and shall be penalized under said
law. Any evidence obtained from said detained person resulting from such treatment shall
be, in its entirety, inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.