[17] Michael Lopez II 12-Xavier

[18] Pamela Manuel

[27] Malaya Quiambao

Waning Democracy: The Dangers of the Anti-Terror Law

Another man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. This is an anecdote which summarizes
the acts of terrorism plaguing the country over the past decades, associated with deep historical
inequality faced by the most vulnerable, lack of judicial impartiality, and weak democratic
institutions (Mendoza et al.). On July 3, President Rodrigo Duterte approved the Anti-Terrorism
Act, which officially makes it a national policy under Philippine jurisprudence. The legislative
instrument was passed through Congress in order to repeal the Human Security Act of 2007 and to
mitigate the growing threat of terrorism and other analogous practices which would be prejudicial
to the public’s welfare. Terrorism has always been a crucial issue that poses real threats to a
nation's stability, and this exists in many other countries aside from the Philippines (Mendoza et
al.).

According to Section 2 of the Anti-Terrorism Law, in order to combat terrorism, there has to be a
comprehensive approach that shall involve political, economic, diplomatic, military, and legal
means. However, the law has been heavily criticized for its ambiguous structure and vague
definition on the nature of terrorism (Republic of the Philippines). These provisions under the law
may further proliferate red-baiting or more commonly known as red-tagging, which already has a
long history of endangering innocent civilians in the country. Additionally, the fast-tracking of the
bill’s adoption was deemed to be inappropriate by many given the current state of the Philippines
during the health crisis (Joaquin and Biana). This is why we believe that the passage of the
Anti-Terrorism Law undermines the country’s democratic institutions due to certain
provisions not coinciding with the checks and balances of the government and to its
insensitive approval amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The bill’s ambiguity and ill-timed passage

The Anti-Terror Bill was enacted as a reactionary response to the five-month siege that happened
in Marawi City last 2017 (Casserly and Johnson). The blatant attacks and assaults led by the
extremist Abu Sayyaf and spin-off radical groups resulted in more than 1,100 deaths of soldiers,
militants, and civilians (Amnesty International). Given the alarming death toll, Congress has
decided to ratify the aforementioned bill, as mentioned in Section 2, protecting the people from
“inimical and dangerous” terrorism.

The Marawi crisis would have been prevented if the ATL had already passed that time according to
Sen. Panfilo Lacson, the principal author of the ATL, during the online forum of the League of
Provinces of the Philippines last June 25. On the contrary, Zia Alonto-Adion, member of the
Bangsamoro Parliament, argued that the Marawi siege happened because of the government’s
failure to recognize the early threats of the Maute and Abusayyaf Groups, and not because of the
ATL’s absence (Suson). In addition, Drieza A. Lininding, chairperson of the Moro Consensus
group, asserted that the Battle of Marawi does not, in any way, justify the passage of the legislative
instrument as it was based on “a wrong accounting of events,” and that plans to lay siege were
already evident months before the attacks even began (Suson). This goes to show that using the
Marawi Siege as a justification is just a mere frivolous excuse to pass an obscure law.

Despite the intentions of the Constitution to protect the public from harm, the provisions of the
bill are vague and “too broad” (Carpio). Meaning, it does not explicitly define the persons and/or
things that are associated to acts of terrorism. In Section 4, terrorism is defined as acts inflicting
“serious bodily injury, extensive damage or destruction, and extensive interference” (Carpio). The
subjectivity of the words used spurred fear and anxiety from citizens rather than imperviousness
(Cabico). Not only these acts may confuse the general public, but it can result in an unorganized
and confounding process of distinguishing terrorist individuals or groups from innocent civilians.

Consequently, its approval during a serious public health crisis is considered to be “ill-timed”
(LEAD and SJPH). To date, the country has more than 310,000 cases of COVID-19 nationwide,
according to the Department of Health. With the continuous rise of people getting afflicted by the
virus, it is firmly believed that the authorities should allot and dedicate more of their time, effort,
and resources to solve the inadequacy of healthcare facilities, the loss of several jobs of the people,
and the lack of food and other necessities to provide for the vulnerable, instead of hastily and
prematurely ratifying the ATL (LEAD and SJPH).

Red-tagging and other threats to human rights

Section 4 of the bill explicitly states that terrorism does not include “advocacy, protest, dissent,
stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political
rights.” However, as mentioned by Sen. Lacson, persons who are perceived as terrorists by the
Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), regardless of whether or not the suspect has prior engagement in
any form of terrorism, can still be arrested immediately by virtue of the “inchoate” or preliminary
offense (Carpio). The principal author of the bill argues that such a premise can be considered as a
more “proactive” approach. Thus, the main objective of it is to prioritize the security and welfare of
the people, in such a way that every aspect of it is lawfully taken into account.

However, Sen. Lacson’s argument appears to be on the contrary of this objective. What he claims
to be a proactive approach rather involves individuals being easily targeted without any “probable
cause,” wherein any person can be apprehended even without a warrant of arrest. Such
circumstances can bolster red-tagging, a propaganda tactic which is believed to have originated
from the United States’ McCarthy era in the 1950s, but only promulgated in the Philippines during
the regime of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (Baronski and Hammann). During her
presidency, Arroyo pledged to support the United States’ war on terrorism after the 9/11 incident.
In return, the Philippines received a financial reward worth $450 million from the US government,
intended as a support money to combat the Abu Sayyaf Groups. Deviating from its original
purpose, Arroyo used this money to topple sympathizers of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front
(MILF) and New People’s Army (NPA). Stemming from its history and fueled by the ATL,
red-tagging indeed poses a great threat to our democracy.

Enshrined in the Constitution, only a judge can issue a warrant of arrest. However, in Section 29 of
the ATL, it is specified that “any law enforcement agent or military personnel, who, having been
duly authorized in writing by the ATC […] shall deliver said suspected person to the proper judicial
authority within a period of 14 calendar days”. In the same section of the law, it is also stated that
the initial 14-day warrantless detention can be extended to an additional ten days. Sen. Lacson
argues that the law does not give special authorization to the ATC to issue warrants, but rather it
will mandate the creation of a special committee that will manage “custodial investigations”
(Gotinga). However, this was not specifically stated in the ATL law, and thus, further substantiates
its ambiguity and susceptibility to bias and prejudice.

Necessary steps forward

The intention of the law is, without a doubt, appealing to the nation’s interest, particularly on the
aspect of public safety. Terrorism must at least be prevented, if not completely eradicated, in order
to protect the people and preserve national security. However, the Anti-Terrorism Law poses more
threats to our democracy than assurance of one’s safety. Due to the lack of precautionary measures
and guidelines on utilizing the law for abuse, this raises alarming skepticism among critics. As a
matter of fact, the adoption of the bill has caused major uproars from civil societies and legal
practitioners on all walks of life. This paved the way to challenge its constitutionality before the
Supreme Court through the 32 petitions filed, praying to impose a temporary restraining order
from its enactment, due to its malicious intent (Carpio). Congress shall also have to make
amendments and provide more deliberations on the plenary floors of both chambers. Their fellow
constituents should put more pressure on their respective lawmakers to revise certain parts of the
law to prevent any form of societal exploitation.

As the country’s status quo shifts away from liberal reforms, the rise of modern populism
promotes the idea that society is separated into two distinct groups, paving way for a dichotomy of
an “us against them” type of conflict (Mudde). This creates a state of polarization within
communities, which is currently being exacerbated in countries like Brazil and the United States.
So with the nature of our current society, the youth shall remain vigilant in upholding the
democratic institutions accountable on the deconsolidation of inherent freedoms its citizens have.
It is indeed true that the country has weak institutions contributing to the backsliding of checks
and balances (Hutchcroft and Rocamora). Therefore, even with the disregard of more urgent
matters such as the pandemic, members of the civil society shall be on full alert to hold the public
sector responsible for their bureaucratic decisions. With all of these, we stand firm against its
passage as the Anti-Terrorism is a tyrannical tactic that endangers our rights, and thus, reforms of
it must be implemented.

Sources

Baronski, Maria, and Dominik Hammann. “Red Baiting: Civil Society Under General
Suspicion.” Observer: A Journal on Threatened Human Rights Defenders in the
Philippines, vol. 3, no. 2192–3353, 2011.

Cabico, Gaea Katreena. “Ateneo, La Salle School Heads Oppose 'Ill-Timed' Anti-Terror Bill.”
Philstar.com, Philstar.com, 5 June 2020,
www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/06/05/2018888/ateneo-la-salle-school-heads-oppos
e-ill-timed-anti-terror-bill.

Carpio, Antonio T. “[ANALYSIS] The Anti-Terror Act Is Worse than Martial Law.” Rappler,
2020,
https://rappler.com/voices/thought-leaders/analysis-anti-terror-act-worse-martial-law.
Casserly, Josephine, and Howard Johnson. “The Priest Who Survived the Siege of Marawi.”
BBC News, BBC, 5 Sept. 2019, www.bbc.com/news/stories-49584150.

Department of Health. “UPDATES ON NOVEL CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19).”

GOVPH, 1 Oct. 2020, www.doh.gov.ph/2019-nCoV.

Gotinga, JC. “Anti-Terrorism Bill Well-Intended but Unclear – CHR.” Rappler, 2020,
https://rappler.com/nation/national-news/chr-says-anti-terrorism-bill-well-intended-b
ut-unclear.

Hutchcroft, Paul D., and Joel Rocamora. “Strong Demands and Weak Institutions: The
Origins and Evolution of the Democratic Deficit in the Philippines.” Journal of East
Asian Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, 2003, pp. 259–92, doi:10.1017/s1598240800001363.

“International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” OHCHR, United Nations Human
Rights, 1976, www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.

Joaquin, Jeremiah Joven B., and Hazel T. Biana. “Philippine Crimes of Dissent: Free Speech in
the Time of COVID-19.” Crime, Media, Culture, 2020, doi:10.1177/1741659020946181.

LEAD and SJPH. “Joint Statement of LEAD and SJPH on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, 3
July 2020.” Ateneo De Manila University, 3 July 2020,
www.ateneo.edu/news/features/3-july-2020-joint-statement-reiteration-anti-terrorism-
act-2020.

Mendoza, Ronald U., et al. “Counter-Terrorism in the Philippines: Review of Key Issues.”
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020, doi:10.2139/ssrn.3642311.

“Philippines: ‘Battle of Marawi’ Leaves Trail of Death and Destruction.” Amnesty

International, 17 Nov. 2017,
www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/11/philippines-battle-of-marawi-leaves-trail-of-
death-and-destruction/.

“Red-Bait.” Lexico Dictionaries English, Lexico Dictionaries,

www.lexico.com/definition/red-bait.

Republic of the Philippines. An Act to Prevent, Prohibit, and Penalize Terrorism, Thereby
Repealing Republic Act No. 9372, Otherwise Known as the “Human Security Act.”
Philippine Congress, 2020,
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2020/06jun/20200703-RA-11479-RRD.
pdf.

Suson, Divina. “Marawi Siege a Failure to Read Signs , Not Due to Absence of Anti-Terror Law
— Maranao Leaders.” Inquirer, 28 June 2020, pp. 1–4,
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1298618/marawi-siege-a-failure-to-read-signs-not-due-to
-absence-of-anti-terror-law-maranao-leaders.