Introductory Part

The intent of Republic Act No. 11479 known as the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020” is

clear. It is a repealing law of Republic Act No. 9372 known as the “Human Security Act of

2007”. It prevents, prohibits, and penalizes terrorism in the Philippines. (Source: RA 11479 –

Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020)

Argument: Perspective as per application of the law

In the affirmative side, as a member of the Philippine National Police, this law serves as a

big help and an advantage to repel or prevent the accused from escaping and from hiding. 

Combating terrorism and criminal activities requires spending a lot of the country’s vast

resources. The government is spending funds, deploying forces, and risking other resources in

finding and searching for the accused. In order to sustainably and strategically manage the fight

against terrorism in searching for the accused, the act of the Congress in enacting the law is

beneficial to the State.  

This warrantless arrest, which the said law allows, permits the 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. (Geducos, Argyll Cyrus B. (June 24, 2020). "Palace: Duterte backs 14-day detention

of terror suspects". Retrieved July 4, 2020.)

An analyst argues that this provision is essential for counterterrorism. This "allows 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 wreaking havoc. Most importantly, longer preventive detention can

lawfully hold suspect when usual criminal charges cannot be filed for some technical

considerations." (Source: Banlaoi, Rommel. "The Philippines New Anti-Terrorism Law:

Fighting Terrorism With Justice". Eurasia Review. Eurasia Review. Retrieved July 5, 2020.)

The advantage of the accused is the removal of safeguard against wrongful detention. 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 be actually not 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. "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. (Source: Lischin, Luke (October 9, 2019).

"The Trouble with the New Anti-Subversion Act Push for the Philippines". The Diplomat.

Retrieved July 4, 2020.)

With the HAS in existence, the Global Terrorism Index of 2019 places the Philippines as

the 9th most negatively affected by terrorism, along with Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Syria,

Pakistan, Somalia, India, Yemen and Democratic Republic of the Congo.

With the HSA of 2007, it has identified that the Abu Sayaff Group is the only declared

terrorist group in the Philippines. It has convicted Nur Supian in November 2018 for the reason

of recruiting participants in the 2017 Marawi Siege. 

Due to the absence of the law, when terrorists are captured, they are charged with cases

for violations under the Revised Penal Code and not by a specific law that will charge their

crimes for terrorism.

An example of which is the Jolo suicide bombings, where the suspects in 2018 faced

multiple counts of murder and frustrated murder charges for the deaths and injuries caused by

the said bombings. Clearly, it was a terrorist act. But, with the absence of the law for terrorism,

it is charged differently.

As long as the exercise of the rights do not intend to kill or injure a person and endanger

his life or jeopardize public safety, then it is still construed as within the exercise of civil and

political rights. So, how this be so cruel if it will not degrade the rights of the public.

Acts punishable under the Anti-Terrorism Bill include threat to commit terrorism,

planning, training, preparing and facilitating to commit an act of terrorism, conspiracy to

commit terrorism, proposal to commit terrorism, inciting to commit terrorism like recruitment

and membership in a terrorist organization and providing material support to terrorist,

especially when one has a knowledge that the individual, association, or group of persons is
committing or planning to commit acts of terrorism. (Anti-Terrorism Act earns sweeping

support among Bohol peace, order councils)

Lagman said that the executive's arrest and detention powers under the anti-terror law

took away civil liberties that have been guaranteed to Filipinos since the 1899 Malolos

Constitution.

"In stark contrast with the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), the Malolos Constitution, the first

Constitution of the Philippines and the first Republican Charter in all of Asia, mandated that

'All persons detained shall be discharged or delivered to the judicial authority within 24 hours

following the act of detention.' (Article 8). That was 122 years ago. Now, the ATA has

ominously retrogressed to Draconian times," said Lagman.

(Source: https://www.rappler.com/nation/supreme-court-oral-arguments-anti-terrorism-law-can-
duterte-congress-left-own-discretionGUJJ)