LEGALLY IMPERMISSIBLE AT HOME AND ABROAD:

DEBATING THE PERMANENCE OF THE PHILIPPINES' ANTI-

TERRORISM ACT

By: LAUREN ZHOU October 4, 2020

(Edited by Katy Brennan)

On July 3, 2020, Republic Act No. 11479, commonly known as the

Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, was passed into law in the Philippines. This
new legislation effectively repealed Republic Act No. 9372, also known as
the Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA), and aimed to prevent and prohibit
terrorism. [1] Due to the broad definition of terrorism and the acts included
therein, critics believe that the Anti-Terrorism Act was signed with the
ulterior motive of deterring government criticism, raising questions about
the act’s legality. [2] Considering its ambiguous definition of terrorism,
suppression of free speech, and allowance of prolonged detention, the act is
clearly illegal under domestic and international legal standards. Despite its
legal inconsistencies, however, the Anti-Terrorism Act may very well
withstand challenges in international or domestic courts. This is because
there is insufficient coercive capacity in the existing human rights regime to
deter non-compliance with its laws. The passage of the act, which clearly
defies existing legal norms, reflects the need to strengthen systems that
protect human rights in order to ensure accountability for violations of
human rights law.

The constitutionality of enforcing an ambiguous definition of

terrorism was first raised in the context of HSA in Republic of the G.R. vs.
Herminio Harry Roque (2013). Herminio Harry Roque, a Filipino Human
Rights Lawyer, petitioned the Philippines Supreme Court arguing that HSA
violated the Philippines’ void-for-vagueness doctrine. This doctrine holds
that a law is unconstitutional if a man of “common intelligence” cannot
understand its meaning or applications. [3] The Court ruled that HSA did not
meet the void-for-vagueness doctrine criteria because it enumerated various
acts that constitute terrorism. In its decision, the Court clarified that a law is
only void-for-vagueness when it fails to provide a clear idea of conduct,
leaving the enforcement of said law ambiguous. [4] While HSA did not meet
this criteria, the Anti-Terrorism Act is far more ambigious because it does
not define the extent of fear or coercion that constitutes terrorism, nor does it
offer any examples of terrorist acts. [5] Under the precedent established in
Roque, therefore, the Anti-Terrorism Act should not survive domestic legal
challenges.

Beyond its vague language, the Anti-Terrorism Bill can also be

faulted for its implications for free speech, which contradict the international
precedent set in Alexander Adonis v. The Philippines (2011). Alexander
Adonis, a radio broadcaster, was convicted of libel when he reported on a
local congressman’s extra-marital affair without confirming the story.
Because HSA classified libel as terrorism, Adonis was sentenced to an
indefinite penalty, but appealed his case to the United Nations Human
Rights Committee (UNHRC). [6] Adonis argued that the Philippines’ libel
laws violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) to which the Philippines is legally bound because it has ratified and
adopted the covenant. [7] Specifically, Adonis contended that prison
penalties should be replaced by civil damages and that the threat of
imprisonment breeds a climate of press censorship, violating the free speech
protections enshrined in Article Nineteen of ICCPR. UNHRC found that
imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty for libel and concluded that the
Philippines violated ICCPR. [8] Applying the precedent set in Adonis to the
Anti-Terrorism Act, it is clear the law could be challenged under
international standards. This case affirms the United Nations’ ability to
review judicial decisions and legislation due to the binding nature of ICCPR,
establishing jurisdiction to evaluate the Anti-Terrorism Act. Furthermore,
because libel is also classified as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act’s
definition of terrrorism, it is clear that mechanisms of the act are not
compliant with international law. [9] The act can thus be legally challenged
under international standards for violating ICCPR.

The authorization of warrantless arrest on mere suspicion established

in the Anti-Terrorism Act further infringes ICCPR, as defined in Albert
Wilson v. The Philippines (2003). In this case, UK national Wilson was
arrested and held on death row in the Philippines for alleged rape. When the
accusation was proven false, Wilson was released and demanded to pay the
Philippines for staying overtime as a foreigner. [10] Wilson appealed to
human rights organization Redress and the United Nations Human Rights
Committee, arguing that his experiences on death row amounted to torture
and unfair punishment. The committee concluded that Wilson’s arrest
violated Article Nine of ICCPR because he was not informed of the charges
against him at the time of his arrest. As such, the committee cleared Wilson
of his charges and offered effective remedy through monetary compensation.
The Philippines was warned to refrain from similar violations of human
rights law in the future. [11] The Anti-Terrorism Act’s standards for arrest
do not comply with either the ICCPR’s contents or the covenant’s
interpretation in the Wilson case. Unlike HSA, the Anti-Terrorism Act does
not mandate any judicial oversight during the arrest or detention of terrorism
suspects. [12] This exclusion flouts Article Nine of ICCPR, which states that
detained persons must be promptly brought before a judge. [13] Due to the
binding nature of ICCPR, the Anti-Terrorism Act could be brought before
the United Nations Human Rights Committee, as in the Adonis and Wilson
cases, under the premise of unlawful detainment.
 Despite the binding nature of international human rights law, the
Philippines continues to violate ICCPR without direct consequences, as seen
in People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa, and Rappler (2020). In June
2020, Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos Jr were arrested for cyber libel after
publishing a story on Rappler that suggested collusion between a
businessman and a top judge. [14] Ressa and Santos were sentenced to six
years in prison and charged with a 200,000 PHP fine (approximately $4000).
[15] Despite similar circumstances in Adonis, the case has not been appealed
to the UNHRC. Without an appeal, there is no guarantee that the Philippines
will be held accountable for defying international law because there are no
enforcement mechanisms for the ICCPR. Furthermore, there are no penalties
even when the United Nations Human Rights Committee intervenes in an
ICCPR violation, as seen in Adonis and Wilson. This case demonstrates that
the Philippines continues to violate Article Nineteen of ICCPR with
impunity.

Ultimately, the Philippines’ Anti-Terrorism Act violates both

international and domestic legal standards. Domestically, the act’s broad
definition of terrorism directly contradicts the void-for vagueness-doctrine;
internationally, the act violates standards of free speech and lawful
detention. Despite these clear violations, there is still a chance that the law
may never be challenged or amended due to the weak nature of the
international human rights regime. Maria Ressa’s case clearly demonstrates
that countries like the Philippines can choose not to abide by international
human rights law because they maintain state sovereignty. The implications
of the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act are tremendous, as freedom of
expression is the foundation for many other human rights laws, such as the
freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of press. Given the repercussions
of domestic non-compliance, it is imperative that we strengthen the human
rights law regime.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

[1] Republic Act No. 114791, Congress of the Philippines Official Gazette
(2020), online at https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2020/07/03/republic-
act-no-11479/ (visited August 23, 2020).

[2] Aspinwall, Nick, Philippine Court Asked to Annul Anti-Terror Law

Amid Concerns It Will Target Dissidents, The Diplomat (2020), online at
https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/philippine-court-asked-to-annul-anti-terror-
law-amid-concerns-it-will-target-dissidents/ (visited August 23, 2020).

[3] G.R. No. 167011, The Lawphil Project (2008), online at

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_167011_2008.html (visited
August 23, 2020).

[4] G.R. No. 204603, The Lawphil Project (2013), online at

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_204603_2013.html (visited
August 23, 2020).

[5] Lyew, Brent H, An Examination of the Philippines' Anti-Terror Law,

Washington International Law Journal, 1, 19 (2010): 187–216.

[6] Alexander Adonis v. The Philippines, Communication No. 1815/2008,

U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/103/D/1815/2008/Rev.1, University of Minnesota
Human Rights Library (2012), online at
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/1815-2008.html (visited August 3, 2020).

[7] UNTC, United Nations (2019), online at

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?
objid=080000028002b6ed&clang=_en (visited August 23, 2020).

[8] Alexander Adonis v. The Philippines, Communication No. 1815/2008,

U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/103/D/1815/2008/Rev.1, University of Minnesota
Human Rights Library (2012), online at
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/1815-2008.html (visited August 3, 2020).

[9] Palatino, Mong, Why the Philippines’ New Anti-Terror Law Would Be a
Blow to Rights, The Diplomat (2018), online at
https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/why-the-philippines-new-anti-terror-law-
would-be-a-blow-to-rights/ (visited August 23, 2020). ‌

[10] Albert Wilson v. Philippines, United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees (2003), online at
https://www.refworld.org/cases,HRC,404887ec3.html (visited August 23,
2020).
[11] id

[12] Republic Act No. 9372, Congress of the Philippines Official Gazette
(2007), online at https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2007/03/06/republic-
act-no-9372/ (visited August 23, 2020).

[13] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations

Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2019, online at
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx (visited
August 23, 2020).

[14] Buan, Lian. Maria Ressa, Rey Santos Jr Convicted of Cyber Libel,
Rappler (2020), online at https://rappler.com/nation/maria-ressa-reynaldo-
santos-jr-convicted-cyber-libel-case-june-15-2020 (visited August 23, 2020).

[15] Ressa, Maria. Philippines: Cyber-Libel Conviction of Maria Ressa and

Reynaldo Santos a Blow to Freedom of Expression and Media Online,
International Commission of Jurists (2020), online at
https://www.icj.org/philippines-cyber-libel-conviction-of-maria-ressa-and-
reynaldo-santos-a-blow-to-freedom-of-expression-and-media-online/
(visited August 23, 2020).

WEBSITE:

https://www.culawreview.org/journal/legally-impermissible-at-home-
and-abroad-debating-the-permanence-of-the-philippines-anti-
terrorism-act (visited June 29, 2023)