anti terror law philippines essay

• Subscribe Now

[OPINION] Surviving and fighting the anti-terror law

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Just before day’s end on July 3, President Duterte signed into law what is now the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which repeals the 2007 Human Security Act .

Republic Act No. 11479 is an abomination of a law as it conflates terrorism with legitimate dissent and can be used to suppress criticism, protest, and opposition to the government.

It makes a general rule that dissent is terrorism and makes the exception that it is not terrorism when it is an exercise of constitutional rights. But the law then makes an exception to the exception – that it is terrorism if your exercise of constitutional rights leads to public disorder or violence, whether intended or not. That is very dangerously vague and justifies the advice of National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon, Jr to just keep quiet as well as his observation that the law’s critics are supporters of terrorism.

Indeed, while the act will be effective only 15 days after publication, many critics of the law have brought up the abuses of the police even prior to its signing, and which would potentially be exacerbated by the law’s passage.

The Piston 6 , Cebu 8 , Iligan 16 , and Pride 20 are just few among those who have been arrested the past few weeks without warrants and have been detained longer than is necessary. When asked, the police could not provide a violation to charge them with.

The anti-terrorism law is also unconstitutional because the Anti-Terrorism Council usurps judicial power by allowing it to order arrests up to 24 days without charges and for giving it proscription authority – to designate individuals and groups as terrorists. All of these can be done without due process.

Not a solution to terrorism

This law is based on the premise that the current law is inadequate. That is not true. The Human Security Act is already draconian. But it is ineffective not because of the law but because of implementation failures.

The law is a failure because of government failures in intelligence and prosecution and because of abuses by police, military, and security officials. A new law will not plug those failures. In fact, these failures will guarantee the failure of this new anti-terrorism law.

Terrorism is a real problem and we must defeat it. But this law will not do that. From targeting a universe of a few dozens or at most a few hundred terrorists, the law can be used against thousands, even tens of thousands of activists, critics, and dissidents.

For example, in Marawi, instead of going only after the Maute and Isis terrorists, all those angry at the government’s failures in rebuilding their beloved city can now be designated terrorists. Instead of going after the Abu Sayyaf in Sulo, military and police as well as prosecution efforts will be wasted against Lumad peoples fighting mining and other incursions against their ancestral domains.

Moving forward: what can we do now?

The first thing that people can do is to file cases or join already existing petitions challenging the constitutionality of the law. The Supreme Court, being the final arbiter of laws, has the power to ultimately decide if laws passed by the legislative are compliant with the constitution.

As of Monday, July 6, 4 petitions against the Anti-Terrorism Act has already been filed in the Supreme Court: Atty. Calleja and the De La Salle Brothers, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, FEU Law Dean Mel Sta. Maria, and the Makabayan lawmakers. Many other groups are also poised to file petitions, including the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) and former Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio. It is believed that more petitions questioning the law will be filed in the next few days and weeks.

As of the end of this week, two more petitions have been filed, making a total of six: Atty. Rudolf  Jurado, the president’s former government corporate counsel, and constitutional framers Christian Monsod and Felicitas Arroyo joined by Ateneo and Xavier Law professors and the Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC).

The second is to continue protesting and speaking up against the law. Fear is understandable at this time, but it is important not to be paralyzed by it. In fact, it is important more than ever to speak up now and to encourage others to do the same.

Let’s assert and test Section 4 of the Anti-Terrorism law that states that terrorism shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights.

It is to be noted that on Friday, July 10, the House committee on legislative franchises voted 70-11 (with 2 inhibitions and 1 abstention) to deny the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise . We condemn this action by Congress to shut down a media giant at a time when information is much needed; and we urge people therefore to keep speaking up and expressing their dissent towards such a decision.

The third, however, is to be smart. While this proviso exists in the law, it is followed by the phrase “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.”

Therefore, the law enforcement officials and military personnel need only to allege any of these 3 for someone to be suspected of terrorism. Moreover, as already stated above, terrorism as defined in the law is overbroad, and so despite the proviso, it is easy to conflate legitimate dissent and terrorism. Hence, individuals and groups are advised to be more cautious now as they question the law. Of highest priority is to be vigilant against infiltrators who would hijack protest actions and endanger everyone.

Fourth, on a more practical level, with the spate of arrests happening now even before the law has become fully effective, it is recommended that individuals brush up on their rights particularly in preparation for the eventuality that they become apprehended by the police, and let loved ones know of their whereabouts especially if they are going to attend protests and other similar demonstrations. They should also have a list of lawyers to call if they are in fact arrested.

Fifth, we must all lobby Congress to repeal the recently signed act and enacting a better anti-terrorism law that improves on the Human Security Act in terms of respect for human rights.

Sixth, some might even want to participate in drafting the implementing rules and regulations to make the law less harmful. It would be tricky because it could be perceived as accepting the law, but we would still support colleagues who would do it.

A united front for human rights

A united front among all pro-democracy and pro-human rights Filipinos are a must at this time. Those who will be most vulnerable with the signing of the law are the marginalized – the indigenous peoples, those living beneath the poverty line, farmers, fisherfolk, and those who work with them, such as social workers and social activists. The youth are particularly vulnerable.

Let us not allow division within our ranks and instead come together to ensure the protection especially of the marginalized who will experience the brunt of this draconian law.

Besides, none of us are safe from the law, not even the retired Supreme Court Justices and law deans. If not them, their children and grandchildren are at risk with this law.

With the passage of the bill into law, many people are understandably left at a loss about how to proceed.

However, the most important thing to do right now is to remain vigilant and to continue to fight for the rights assured to us by the Constitution. Now, more than ever, we need to speak up for democracy, for our country, and for future generations. – Rappler.com

Joy Reyes is a collaborator of Professor La Viña. She graduated from the University of the Philippines College of Law and holds undergraduate degrees in Psychology and Political Science from the Ateneo de Manila University.

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}.

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Philippines' high court upholds most of a terrorism law, but strikes down a key point

Julie McCarthy

Hundreds of demonstrators carry anti-terrorism bill placards as they march at a university campus in Manila on June 4, 2020, a day after lawmakers passed the sweeping legislation. The Philippines' Supreme Court upheld most of the law in a partial verdict announced this week. Ted Aljibe/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Hundreds of demonstrators carry anti-terrorism bill placards as they march at a university campus in Manila on June 4, 2020, a day after lawmakers passed the sweeping legislation. The Philippines' Supreme Court upheld most of the law in a partial verdict announced this week.

The Philippines' Supreme Court largely upheld an anti-terrorism law this week that spawned rancorous challenges, in a ruling that could have far-reaching impacts in the Southeast Asian country. But the court struck down one measure, representing a partial win for petitioners who feared its sweeping definition of terrorism.

Philippine rights advocates, lawyers, journalists and clerics have been jailed, harassed and worse the past five and a half years under the leadership of President Rodrigo Duterte. Human rights activists fear the legislation could spell further suppression.

Among its provisions, the law punishes anyone officials deem to have incited terrorism through "speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners and other representations."

The government maintains that it needs the anti-terrorism act to fight insurgencies.

But critics brought an unusually high number of legal challenges against the legislation, signed into law by Duterte last year. And on Thursday, the Supreme Court previewed its verdict in a brief advisory that left petitioners stunned: In essence the court let the Anti-Terror Act of 2020 stand, declaring most of its provisions "not unconstitutional."

Why Rights Groups Worry About The Philippines' New Anti-Terrorism Law

There was one notable exception. The court struck down a portion of a provision defining what constitutes terrorism, declaring it overly broad because it could have interpreted terrorism to include the exercise of civil rights like advocacy, protests and work stoppages.

Clan politics reign but a family is divided in the race to rule the Philippines

Many Filipinos, whose mass demonstrations ousted a dictator three decades ago, are wary of any such encroachment on their rights. And the court in essence said activism is not terrorism.

However, opponents of the sweeping law said the provisions the court has validated would prolong the detention of suspects, violate the right of presumed innocence and encourage unreasonable searches and seizures. They insist the law remains draconian.

Philippines Anti-Terror Law Sparks Outrage

Activists are especially alarmed by the creation under the law of a presidentially appointed anti-terrorism council that's been conferred with vast powers.

"This includes the authority to examine bank accounts and freeze assets or organizations, to designate individuals and organizations as terrorists, apply for broad surveillance powers — this is all without notice and judicial process," explains Rachel Chhoa-Howard, who researches the Philippines for Amnesty International.

International Criminal Court Backs Probe Of Duterte's War On Drugs In The Philippines

Nine justices declared it was unconstitutional for the anti-terrorism council to be allowed to designate people and groups as terrorists based on the requests of other countries or international organizations, such as ASEAN or the EU. Petitioners called it a blatant violation of due process, because it deprived an accused the opportunity of any hearing in the Philippines before being designated a terrorist.

It was the only other provision the court invalidated. But the court upheld a clause that gives state security forces the power to arrest suspected terrorists and detain them for up to 24 days without charge.

While some rights activists welcome what they call "a partial win," the ruling overall appears to be a significant victory for President Duterte. Several petitioners say they are planning to apply to the court for a reconsideration of the case.

The full text of the judgment is expected next week.

• rodrigo duterte
• Philippines
• anti-terrorism law

• My View My View
• Following Following
• Saved Saved

Philippines' Supreme Court rules parts of terrorism law unconstitutional

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Neil Jerome Morales, Karen Lema and Enrico Dela Cruz Editing by Martin Petty

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Belgian investigators searched the home and offices of an assistant at the European Parliament on Wednesday, who prosecutors say may have played a role in spreading Russian propaganda ahead of an election for the EU assembly.

Ukraine has urged its allies to allow Kyiv to use Western-supplied arms to conduct strikes inside Russia and abandon an official position some of them have held throughout Russia's 27-month-old full-scale invasion.

The Philippines’ anti-terror bill is poised to cause more terror

The government needs to accept that there are no shortcuts to peace and retract the bill.

As the world is plagued by COVID-19, an impending anti-terrorism bill is creating more fear in the Philippines.

Recently passed by Congress , the bill is set to be signed into law by President Rodrigo Duterte. If this happens, the bill will not only suppress the fundamental rights and freedoms of Filipinos, it will also terrorise the same conflict-affected communities it seeks to protect, as it undoes decades of peacebuilding work.

Keep reading

Rights groups demand biden halt israel arms transfers after icj ruling rights groups demand biden halt israel ..., un security council passes motion denouncing attacks on aid workers un security council passes motion ..., uk’s sunak says no rwanda deportation flights before election uk’s sunak says no rwanda deportation ..., israel’s war on gaza: rights groups urge biden to oppose threats to icc israel’s war on gaza: rights groups urge ....

Despite protests against the bill and mounting calls to provide more time for deliberations, Congress has quietly fast-tracked its passage while the rest of the country braced for the impact of COVID-19. The bill will allow for a lengthened period of warrantless detention and expanded surveillance of those law enforcement deems suspicious. It will also remove stiff penalties for wrongful detention.  

Most importantly, the bill carries a vague definition of “terrorism” that offers little distinction between organisations that commit acts of terror and revolutionary armed movements, which is important for those doing mediation among warring parties. The bill will provide law enforcers with broad powers to determine what constitutes a “terrorist”, shifting the burden of proof to suspected individuals and organisations. This is not only a threat to dissent and democracy, but also to peace.

Threat to peace in Mindanao

For more than half a century, the Philippine government has been trying to quell secessionist and communist armed movements in the country.

Bangsamoro, an autonomous region in the south of the Philippines, is currently in transition after decades of fighting between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. While much remains to be done, significant strides have been taken , with a transitional regional government installed last year and the decommissioning of combatants and arms under way. These gains have been made possible primarily by the peace talks and reconciliation processes.

The ill-advised and shortsighted fear of the ISIL (ISIS) armed group taking root in Mindanao, and the increased framing of the communist armed movements as “terrorist”, distract the government from seeing the gains of dialogue and peacebuilding.

The threat of terrorism is real, but it is not the main threat to peace.

In fact, militaristic approaches to counterterrorism have caused the most suffering and displacements, prompted  breakdowns in ongoing peace processes , and given birth to more aggressive splinter groups like the Abu Sayyaf, Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, and Maute Group.

Insensitivity to the local context and the peace process in prioritising fighting terrorists in Mamasapano in 2015 and Marawi in 2017 delayed the passage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law and undermined reconciliation across communities in the country. These should not be forgotten, and should not be repeated.

Opening old wounds

Due to a long history of discrimination, the Moro and Muslim minorities in the Philippines are often most affected not only by terrorist attacks but by harassment and warrantless arrests packaged as “counterterrorism”.

This profiling of Muslims as violent “terrorists” continues to this day. In January, it was discovered that the Manila Police District was collating information about Muslim youth and students in the National Capital Region for its “ preventing violent extremism” initiatives .

Two months before, in November 2019, the police barged into the office of a long-established Mindanao-based peacebuilding organisation , without a warrant, checked the living quarters, and inspected the bags of young Moros from Marawi who were attending a psychosocial support training.

Being a woman while being both Moro and Muslim adds another layer of vulnerability, especially with the heightened visibility that comes with wearing a headscarf. Women widowed by war and children orphaned by conflict are also disproportionately affected by counterterrorism that narrowly sees them as vulnerable to being recruited into terrorism, instead of partners who can inform policies for change.

This bill will undermine efforts at reconciliation, as it will make it easier to target Muslims and open old wounds anew.

Ending or escalating the communist insurgency?

The military generals clearly see the impending anti-terrorism bill as a way to “end” the world’s oldest existing communist insurgency. But the bill is more likely to reignite war and bring further insecurity.

Following the termination of the peace negotiations between the government, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in 2017, the government has since branded the CPP-NPA as “terrorist” and filed a petition seeking to declare them terrorist organisations under the Human Security Act, the current counterterrorism law. Following delayed progress through the courts, the government has taken a new tack: change the law directly. Thus, the Anti Terror Bill.

The argument about whether the CPP-NPA is a terrorist organisation or a revolutionary movement is fraught with a lot of biases, and a long, violent history between the communist armed movement and the military. What is clear is that the impending declaration of the CPP-NPA as terrorist organisations will impede any future peace talks, and escalate violence and displacement in communities.

As lessons have not been learned, the military should be reminded that the CPP-NPA was at its strongest under the martial law regime of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos. It is not activism that pushes communities towards violence. Rather, it is crackdowns on nonviolent civic action that will push communities to lose trust in government and take alternative routes for affecting change.

‘Activism is not terrorism’

The government assures the public that crackdowns on activists will not happen under the guise of counterterrorism, but in the same breath the Speaker of the House tells activists to “not allow terrorists to hide within [their] ranks.” This statement itself is telling of the government’s narrow and misinformed mindset about activism and terror – that those who are radicalised through activism will participate in armed rebellions and, therefore, to prevent “violent extremism” the state should stop “radicalisation” made possible through activism.  

Given this bias, and the weak intelligence capacity of law enforcers, the bill will crush progressive organisations and student activists who the state perceives are communist fronts; mediators who are perceived as communist sympathisers; and Indigenous people who are perceived as the main targets of recruitment by the NPA.  

These groups are already being “red-tagged” or wrongly targeted for alleged links with the CPP-NPA .  Even without the new law and under the martial law in place until last year, young Indigenous people who work on peacebuilding in Western Mindanao were reportedly wrongly included in the military’s “terrorist lists,” and asked to show themselves to law enforcers and prove they are not linked with the NPA. As the Senate president admitted, there is no need for martial law once this bill becomes law.

The looming anti-terror law will assume rather than fairly test the guilt of civilians, as law enforcers will have free reign to arrest and detain individuals based on mere suspicion. This is both unconstitutional and dangerous.

No shortcuts to peace

If implemented, the new anti-terrorism bill will not only impede our ability as peacebuilders and human rights defenders to bridge divides or raise the alarm when atrocities occur. It will also put our lives and limbs at risk. It will undo years of peacebuilding and further devastate the communities worst affected by terror. 

If it is sincere in its “ whole-of-nation approach” to peacebuilding , the government must retract the bill, re-open deliberations and listen to a wide range of voices across society, especially the voices of those who have borne the brunt of both terrorist violence and abusive counterterror laws.  It  must heed the lessons from community leaders and peacebuilders. We need a policy that addresses the underlying roots of terrorism, and that prevents further distrust, injustice and escalations in violence.  

Yet as I write this, trust in the government is also under threat. What is left of our democracy is under threat. Peace is under threat.

It is our collective duty to end violence against civilian communities. For this same reason, we cannot take shortcuts to peace.

This rushed and unrestrained anti-terror bill will cause terror – and it will come from the state.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

• Account Details
• Newsletters
• Group Subscription

Philippines' anti-terror law poses a direct threat to democracy

It will be up to the country's next president to decide how to implement it

Criselda Yabes is a journalist based in the Philippines. She is author of "The Battle of Marawi," her 10th book, which was published last year.

When the Philippine Supreme Court voted to uphold most of President Rodrigo Duterte's controversial anti-terror law in December, the person who stood to benefit the most was Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the current front-runner to win the May 9 presidential election.

Duterte's party backs front-runner Marcos for Philippine president

Marcos keeps big lead in latest philippine presidential poll, philippine presidential candidates ring alarm over covid surge threat, philippines' back-to-office order unsettles call centers, philippine activists warn of voting anomalies ahead of election, philippines allows foreigners to own telcos, airlines and railways, latest on opinion, pakistani political parties have much to learn from turkey's akp, japan's proposed app store law would do no good, move forward ban would shatter thailand's last democratic veneer, sponsored content, about sponsored content this content was commissioned by nikkei's global business bureau..

Nikkei Asian Review, now known as Nikkei Asia, will be the voice of the Asian Century.

Celebrate our next chapter Free access for everyone - Sep. 30

Home > LAWREVS > WILJ > Vol. 19 > No. 1 (2010)

Washington International Law Journal

An examination of the philippines' anti-terror law— suaviter in modo, fortiter in re.

Brent H. Lyew

The Philippines is rife with competing struggles for rights of self-determination and international terrorist networks. For years, the Philippine government prosecuted suspected terrorists without an anti-terror law. The absence of an express criminal violation for acts of terrorism led to a blurred distinction between punishing terrorists and punishing secessionists. Responding to public outcry that the Philippine government was violating human rights by punishing secessionists unjustly, the United Nations conducted an investigation. This investigation led to the placement of the Philippine government on the United Nations’ human rights watch list. The Philippine legislature, shortly thereafter, passed the Human Security Act of 2007 (“HSA”). This law codified the acts punishable as crimes of terrorism. Since the HSA’s passage, five prominent advocacy groups petitioned the Philippine Supreme Court to strike down the anti-terror law as unconstitutional for being overly vague and unjustly intruding on individual rights. This comment analyzes the lawfulness of the HSA.

Recommended Citation

Brent H. Lyew, Comment, An Examination of the Philippines' Anti-Terror Law— Suaviter in Modo, Fortiter in Re , 19 P ac. R im L & P ol'y J. 187 (2010). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol19/iss1/8

Since May 16, 2019

Included in

Comparative and Foreign Law Commons , Criminal Law Commons

• Journal Home
• About This Journal
• Membership Selection
• Current Masthead
• Submissions
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

ISSN: 2377-0872

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Philippines | Anti-Terrorism Law further threatens the safety of human rights defenders

The Anti-Terrorism Law passed earlier this month complements the Duterte Administration’s arsenal of tools, giving it the ability to label, detain and eliminate government critics using a vague definition of ‘terrorism’. In the prevailing climate of impunity and attacks against human rights defenders, this law granting the government excessive and unchecked powers will only further jeopardise the safety of defenders.

Under Anti-Terrorism Law people can be apprehended without a warrant and detained for weeks prior to appearance before a judge. Not only is the law broad enough to permit the detention of people for social media posts critical of the government, it also makes it a criminal offense to ‘incite others’ to commit terrorism through ‘speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners,’ further restricting freedom of expression and the media. This builds on existing cases of arrests for social media posts made during the pandemic, blatant attacks on the right to freedom of expression , as well as red-tagging of civilians and activists.

Various petitions have been filed against the Law at the national level, and a group of UN Special Procedures expressed concern that the law will ‘further dilute human rights safeguards, by justifying the arrests of human rights defenders and government’s critics.’

‘While advocacy continues at the national level toward the passage of a specific law for the protection of human rights defenders , they are now even more vulnerable with the passage of this law’, said ISHR’s Programme Manager and Legal Counsel Tess McEvoy. ‘This law not only fails to comply with international human rights law, it will severely restrict due process and the rule of law in the Philippines’, McEvoy added.

This law passed in the context of ongoing violations against defenders in the country, with recent instances of judicial harassment of defenders and targeting defenders with smear campaigns . It is the most recent example of the country’s worsening human rights record, and while steps have been taken at the UN to address the situation, the recent report of the UN High Commissioner highlights widespread and systematic killings and arbitrary detention in the context of the war on drugs, silencing of independent media and critics, and stark and persistent impunity.

‘We echo the call of national civil society and UN Special Procedures for an independent investigation mechanism into the human rights situation in the Philippines,’ added McEvoy.

Contact: Tess McEvoy, [email protected]

Photo: Pexels.com/Denniz Futalan

Tess McEvoy

Tess McEvoy leads ISHR's work on LGBTI rights defenders and ISHR's legal protection work, and co-leads ISHR’s legal team which engages in strategic litigation for the protection of human rights defenders. She also engages with UN mechanisms in New York including the General Assembly and the Commission on the Status of Women, and contributed to a Model Law for the protection of human rights defenders.

ISHR contact

[email protected]

Twitter @Tess_L_McEvoy

Filed under

• Freedom of expression, association & assembly
• Philippines
• UN Human Rights Council
• UN Special procedures

Related articles

ACHPR79: The Special Rapporteur should publish his first annual report on reprisals in Africa

Following the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders and focal point on reprisals’ presentation of his activity report, ISHR made a statement calling on him to publish his first annual report on reprisals and act proactively to prevent the adoption of restrictive civic space laws.

ACHPR 79: Established defenders’ protection mechanisms need more resources

On 14 May 2024, ISHR delivered a statement on the situation of human rights in Africa, with a particular focus on the impact on civic space of the implementation of recommendation 8 of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in African States as well as the need to ensure that existing measures and mechanisms to protect defenders are effective.

Sudan: calling for ceasefire and end of crackdown on humanitarian workers, activists

After a year at war, Sudan is witnessing unprecedented violence and targeted attacks on civil society and local responders, with dozens of activists and local volunteers arrested, threatened and prosecuted in several states during in recent weeks. We reiterate our call for ceasefire, restoration of communications and cease of attacks against health facilities.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Duterte Signs Antiterrorism Bill in Philippines Despite Widespread Criticism

Human rights groups say the new law will give the police and military forces more powers to stifle dissent.

By Jason Gutierrez

MANILA — President Rodrigo Duterte signed a contentious antiterrorism bill Friday aimed at combating Islamic militancy in the south, a measure that critics warned could lead to more widespread human rights abuses.

Muslims living in the southern Philippines have spoken out against the legislation to broaden powers of arrest and detention. On Friday, a regional government in the southern island of Mindanao that includes former separatist rebels urged Mr. Duterte’s government not to go through with the measure.

The new law allows for terrorism suspects to be detained without a warrant, prolongs the amount of time that they can be detained without being charged in court, and removes a requirement that the police present suspects before a judge to assess whether they have been subjected to physical or mental torture.

Rights groups and activists say the new law is designed to give Mr. Duterte’s police and military forces more powers to stifle dissent against his populist rule amid his war on drugs, which has killed thousands of people.

Mr. Duterte’s spokesman, Harry Roque, said the new law was necessary to crack down on terrorism. “Terrorism, as we often said, strikes anytime and anywhere,” Mr. Roque said. “It is a crime against the people and humanity. Thus, the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach.”

He stressed that terrorist acts in the Philippines had long “caused unimaginable grief and horror,” and added that the president and his legal team had carefully reviewed the legislation before he signed it into law.

The law was signed days after the police and military forces killed four people believed to be Filipino militants linked to the Islamic State during a raid in Manila.

The militants were suspected of working as financial conduits for the local branch of the Islamic State, according to the military. Officials said they were working with Mundi Sawadjaan, one of the accused plotters behind the January 2019 bombing of a Catholic cathedral on the southern island of Jolo that killed 23 people.

The attack was carried out by an Indonesian couple wearing suicide vests. They were believed to have been directed by Hatib Hajan Sawadjaan, the leader of the Islamic State in the Philippines and Mundi Sawadjaan’s relative.

On Friday, Edre Olalia, of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, said the group would challenge the “draconian law.”

“This without a doubt is the most unpopular and perilous piece of legislation that could ever be pushed by a government that is fixated with the potion of power,” said Mr. Olalia, whose group represents activist and indigent groups.

Human Rights Watch said the new law gave security forces the power to arrest activists, journalists and social media users by simply saying that they are suspected of terrorist activities.

“The law threatens to significantly worsen the human rights situation in the Philippines, which has nose-dived since the catastrophic war on drugs began four years ago,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director for the group.

He said the law gave the green light for the “systematic targeting” of Mr. Duterte’s critics, as well as Filipinos who speak out against the his government.

Human Rights Watch expressed particular concern with provisions that permit warrantless arrests and allow people to be kept for weeks in solitary detention, elements that Mr. Robertson said could facilitate torture.

Earlier this week, Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, released a report that attributed thousands of “systematic” killings that were done with “near-total impunity” to Mr. Duterte’s war on drugs.

“The campaign against illegal drugs is being carried out without due regard for the rule of law, due process, and the human rights of people who may be using or selling drugs,” she said.

Ms. Bachelet cited “an unwillingness by the state to hold to account perpetrators of extrajudicial killings,” and had urged Mr. Duterte not to sign the antiterrorism bill, which she said blurred distinctions between what is criticism of the government and what is terrorism.

The Anti-Terrorism Law: A law against terrorists, or a terrifying law?

Republic Act (RA) 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020 is different things to different people--and there lies the difficulty.

The statute's title clearly states "anti-terrorism," but the law itself terrifies a lot of people.

There are important nuances that must be discussed, but we must first go back to the beginning.

The Anti-Terrorism Bill was first pursued during the previous 17th Congress as a replacement to the Human Security Act of 2007, but it didn't prosper.

Then, in early June during the current 18th Congress and amid the pandemic, Malacañang certified the measure as urgent, with Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque saying later that month that "Terrorists have not stopped launching attacks even if we are grappling with COVID-19."

By July 3, President Duterte had signed the controversial measure into law.

The first of 27 petitions

But less than 24 hours later--the ink of Duterte's signature barely dry--a group headed by lawyer Howard Calleja and former Education Secretary Armin Luistro electronically filed a petition challenging various provisions of the much-criticized law.

As of this writing, the Supreme Court has received a total of 27 petitions filed by representatives of nearly all sectors of society.

Expanded definition of terrorism

The law's purpose is to prevent, prohibit, and penalize terrorism in the country in a way that the Human Security Act supposedly failed to do.

It will do this by providing authorities with an expanded definition of terrorism, on top of the creation of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), among other provisions.

ATA allows the detention of suspects without a judicial warrant of arrest for 14 days, which can be extended by 10 more days. The same can be placed under surveillance for 60 days, which can also be extended by up to 30 days, by the police or military.

Bayan Muna Party-List Rep. Carlos Zarate and Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman--who are behind two separate petitions before the High Court--have both cast aspersions on these provisions, calling them unconstitutional and outright dangerous.

"On the pretext of amending the Human Security Act of 2007 to make it more effective in the fight against terrorism, this new anti-terror law has expanded and overly broadened the definition of terrorism to make it easier for authorities to declare legitimate acts of expression, collective action, and dissent protected by the Constitution as terrorism," claimed Zarate on June 4, a day after the measure gained final approval in the House of Representatives.

Not against suppression of terrorism

In his counter-speech to President Duterte's State of the Nation Address (SoNA) last July 28, opposition congressman Lagman said: "Those of us opposing the Anti-Terror Act are not against the suppression of terrorism. What we are protesting against is using the fear of terrorism as a pretext to curtail civil liberties."

Lagman said this fear was "validated" when newly-installed Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gilbert Gapay said last week that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of ATA would be used to regulate social media.

"The Gapay statement extends the infringement of free speech to social media in general despite the absence of a specific provision in the ATA on regulating the Internet platform. The inclusion of the regulation of social media as proposed by Gapay in the IRR of the ATA does not have any legal basis because the IRR cannot modify or amend the law," Lagman said.

Petitioners raise numerous legal arguments

The SC petitioners raised numerous legal arguments, sought the repeal of the entire law or deletion of certain provisions and called for a temporary or permanent injunction of its implementation.

However, a common plea bonded the petition – that is the prayer asking SC magistrates to strike down the law, in part or in whole, for its unconstitutionality.

The bevy of petitioners included former Vice President Jejomar Binay; retired Supreme Court Justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales, Senators Leila De Lima and Francis Pangilinan, Reps. Edcel Lagman and Kit Belmonte; the Makabayan bloc composed of six partylist solons and former Sen. Rene A.V.Saguisag; former Comelec Chairman Christian Monsod and Ateneo Human Rights Center lawyer Felicitas Arroyo. Petitioners from the academe included Dean Mel Sta. Maria and law professors of the Far Eastern University; former Dean Pacifico Agabin of the University of the Philippines College of Law; Dean Anna Maria Abad of the Adamson University College of Law; JV Bautista from the John Wesley School of Law ; Rose Liza-Eisma-Osorio of the University of Cebu school of Law and Dean Maria Soledad Deriquito of the Lyceum School of Law. Indigenous peoples were also opposed to the perceived unconstitutionality of the law. They were represented by Beverly Longid, of the Kabribu, Windel Bolinget of the Cordillera People’s Alliance; Samira Gutoc, Ako Bakwit; Drieza Liningding of Moro Consensus Group, among others. Leaders of various faiths called on the High Court to throw out the law. Among them are Bishop Broderick Pabillo of the Archdiocese of Mania; Bishop Normal Marigza, United Church of Christ in the Philippines; Rev. Rex Reyes, Episcopal Church in the Philippines; Dr. Aldrin Penamora of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches and Bishop Gerardo Alminaza of the Roman Catholic Dioceses of San Carlos City.

Sections sought to be declared ‘unconstitutional’ 

Sought to be declared unconstitutional were Sections 4,5,6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (b), 25, 26, 27 and 29 of RA 11479. These provisions contain the definition of terrorism (Section 4) and acts to be penalized (Sections 5-12), which petitioners assailed for being “vague and violative of due process of the law.”

Carpio and Morales noted that while Section 4 provides that terrorism does not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, the qualifier have been rendered vague by the succeeding phrase “which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life or to create serious risk to public safety.”

Read the law — Cayetano

As for the other side of the fence, those who have argued in favor of ATA have a common message: read the law, and relax.

“Basahin natin before we criticize, because ang daling sabihin eh (na may) repression, wala ng democracy, draconian (Let's read it before we criticize because it's easy to say that there is repression, there is no more democracy, that it is draconian)," House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano said last June 5.

Referring to terrorists, the Speaker said: "The enemy also evolves, becoming more fierce, determined, and innovative in their efforts to destroy and kill people."

But in case there would be abuses to the law, Cayetano guaranteed that it would be amended. This will take time, of course.

Include section dedicated to accountability - Nograles

Another supporter of RA 11479, Puwersa ng Bayaning Atleta (PBA) Party-list Rep. Jericho Nograles, proposed on June 21 to include in the IRR a whole section dedicated to the accountability of public officers. In that section, Nograles batted for the automatic filing of criminal, administrative and civil cases against public officers who abuse their discretion in carrying out anti-terrorism operations.

“The safeguards in the law must be clear in the IRR to be very sure that the anti-terror law will only be used against terrorists,” the solon stresed.

Safeguards to prevent abuse - Torres-Gomez

Meanwhile, these viral remarks from pro ATA-solon, Leyte 4th District Rep. Lucy Torres-Gomez also lit up both social and traditional media: "It's not a valid reason to reject needed legislation like the anti-terrorism bill because theoretically speaking, all laws can be abused, even social welfare laws that are very benign and charitable they can be abused. That is why there are safeguards in place to prevent those abuses from happening."

"We have to read the bill with the right target in mind. This is a bill that aims to (bring) terrorists to justice, this isn't about making life difficult (for) activists," Torres-Gomez added.

Stronger law vs terrorism-financing- Biazon

Asked point-blank if he believes that the Philippines is now safer with the ATA, Muntinlupa lone district Rep. Ruffy Biazon said yes.

"Naging stronger yung batas natin pagdating sa terrorism-financing. That's the fuel of terrorism eh--paano ba sila nakakapagrecruit? Kasi may pera sila (We now have a stronger law to address terrorism-financing. That's the fuel of terrorism--how are they able to recruit? It's because they have the money)."

Unique position on the law

Biazon's position on the law is somewhat unique--he pushed for it during the 17th Congress, and again in the 18th Congress; during the House plenary vote, he voted "no" to the bill and withdrew his authorship after learning that the Senate version was to be adopted; despite this, he insists that the country needs ATA.

He noted one key detail that has been "lost in the public discourse"--the Philippines' gray-listing by the France-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) should the country fail to upgrade its laws in response to terrorism. "That's one of the principal reasons for the law during our discussions in the 17th Congress. Kasi yung atin (Because our) financial system may (has) certain loopholes with regard to combating terrorism-financing. Ang consequence sa atin malalagay tayo sa gray list (We would be gray-listed) as a consequence," Biazon said.

Explaining this, he said, "We are seen as vulnerable to be used by terrorists in terrorism financing or money-laundering. So isa yun sa mabigat na (That was one of the important) reasons why we needed to update the Human Security Act."

"Unfortunately, ang focus ng mga discussions napunta doon sa issues raised ng mga oppositors--yung mga concern about freedom of expression, suppression ng speech, mga ganun eh. Na-limit yung discussion (the focus of the discussions went to the issues raised by the oppositors--the concern about freedom of expression, suppression ng speech, and the like. It limited the discussion)." (Benjamin Rosario, Ellson Quismorio)

ANTI TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

‘If you’ve got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’, but a detailed analysis of the human rights cost of the fast-expanding security state all over the world suggests otherwise.

The New Normal

Governments have rejected the view that they should provide security so people can enjoy their rights, and adopted the view that they must restrict rights to provide security. Many countries have made it easier to invoke and extend states of emergency and other emergency measures; what should be exceptional and temporary powers have increasingly become permanently embedded in ordinary criminal law.

Overly broad definitions of terrorism are a big part of the problem. Because there is no universally agreed definition, states and international bodies have created their own. But in that process, definitions of terrorism have become increasingly vague, so that they can be arbitrarily applied, meaning law-abiding citizens can be subjected to unwarranted surveillance , administrative orders which restrict their liberties, intrusive searches, arbitrary arrests, red-tagging or even worse, extrajudicial executions. 

In the context of ‘countering terrorism’, states must ensure the respect of international human rights and humanitarian law. Currently, the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in the Philippines is in violation of international standards on human rights and counter-terrorism.

The law risks granting further excessive powers to the Philippine executive, which has presided over serious human rights violations in the country under President Duterte. The Duterte administration continues to pursue its “ war on drugs ” despite the tens of thousands already killed by the police and by armed individuals. Attacks against human rights defenders and critics of the government – including activists, journalists, lawyers, church leaders, trade union leaders, and individuals and groups affiliated with the political left – have increased under a climate of impunity; they have repeatedly been ‘red-tagged’ and accused of being “terrorists” because of their perceived links to communist groups.

A disturbing picture is emerging in which unchecked powers are trampling freedoms we have all taken for granted.

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

Under the law, persons who propose, incite, conspire, and participate in the planning, training, and facilitation an offence under the act, as well as those who provide support to ‘terrorists’ as defined under the act, or recruit members of a ‘terrorist organisation’, could face life imprisonment without parole.

The law also punishes the following offences with 12 years’ imprisonment:

• Threatening to commit ‘terrorism’
• Inciting others or proposing to commit ‘terrorism’
• Voluntarily and knowingly joining any ‘terrorist group’
• Acting as an accessory in the commission of ‘terrorism’

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.

End attacks against indigenous peoples

Irr further weaponize anti-terror law.

UP Department of Political Science

Position Paper on the Anti-Terror Bill (SB 1083/HB 6875) by Faculty Members of the UP Department of Political Science

We, the undersigned faculty members of the Department of Political Science of the University of the Philippines Diliman, express our vehement objection to the contents and the nature of the passage of the Anti-Terror Bill.

On 26 February 2020, the Senate passed on third and final reading Senate Bill No 1083 or the Anti-Terror Bill. On 1 June 2020, President Rodrigo Duterte certified the bill as urgent. Two days later, despite opposition from various groups, the House of Representatives approved its version, House Bill No 6875. The bill’s intent is to amend and repeal Republic Act No 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA), which, while the subject of criticisms from human rights groups for possible abuses on the part of enforcers and misuse or usurpation of the term human security at the time it was enacted, was also unwanted by those who had to enforce it because of the safeguards it had against abuse. If anything, the Anti-Terror Bill removes the safeguards present in the HSA and lessens the penalties for abuse of discretion by concerned authorities.

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that no law shall be enacted depriving any person of his or her  life, liberty, and property without due process of law. While we recognize the problem terrorism poses and the need for law enforcers to respond effectively, we are also concerned about how the proposed legislation may affect individual and collective human rights. In particular, we want to direct attention to the following issues. 

Ambiguity and Abuse of Authority

Any law that imposes penalties on a convicted person or group must be clear about how it defines an offense. Under the proposed law, what qualifies as an act of “terrorism” has been expanded and can be subject to a variety of interpretations. Ambiguity in the definitions of “terrorist” and the “acts of terrorism” may lead to the abuse of authority, especially when substantive institutional oversight is reduced.

Furthermore, the bill expands the composition of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) to include other heads of executive departments (Section 45, SB 1083 and HB 6875). However, all of the members remain to be alter-egos or appointees of any sitting president. The ATC has also been given the power to designate persons or organizations as terrorists, in addition to those already designated by the United Nations Security Council, for the purposes of surveillance and investigations by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). Other than probable cause, the ATC has no set criteria for the designation. This may be subject to arbitrary interpretation and application, especially without the participation of government bodies independent of the Executive, such as the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) (Section 25, SB 1083 and HB 6875). 

Safeguards have been reduced. In the Congress-approved bills, the penalties for unauthorized and malicious examination and furnishing false evidence, forged documents, or spurious evidence were reduced (Sections 37 and 43, SB 1083 and HB 6875).

With too much discretion at the disposal of the ATC and reduced penalties for abusive interpretation of the law, there can be violations on the right to due process of an individual. Does this mean that one is guilty until proven otherwise?

Rights of the Accused to be Informed

One of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of an accused is to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her. 

Under the proposed law, the arresting officer or the head of the detaining facility is tasked to inform the accused of his or her rights upon arrest (Section 30, SB 1083 and HB 6875) and detention (Section 29, SB 1083 and HB 6875). However, it is being proposed that some of the existing rights in the HSA be removed.

In the HSA, the person under surveillance or the accused has the right to be informed of the acts done by the law enforcement agencies and to challenge the legality of such interference before the court (Section 9, HSA). The accused also has the right to be informed of the termination of the surveillance, interception, and recording should there be no case filed against him or her for any violation of the law (Section 10, HSA). But under the proposed measure, these parts were deleted.

There are also restrictions and limitations to be imposed in accessing records and logs, which may be used by the accused to file cases against those who conducted malicious investigations (Sections 32 and 37, SB 1083 and HB 6875).

The accused may be rendered clueless about what is happening. With limited information, the accused may not be able to respond properly to any accusations lodged against him or her. This may also constitute a violation of the right to due process. The so-called “safeguards” usually do not protect the poor and the powerless.

Surveillance and Detention

In the proposed measure, the period of surveillance is extended from 30 to 60 days. Surveillance includes tracking down, following, or investigating individuals or organizations; or the wiretapping, listening, intercepting, screening, reading, and recording of messages, conversations, discussions, spoken or written words, including computer and network surveillance, and other communications of individuals charged with or suspected to be engaged in terrorism (Section 16, SB 1083 and HB 6875).  While judicial authorization is required before the conduct of surveillance, the mechanisms and equipment used to conduct the above-specified acts remain within the control and jurisdiction of military intelligence units and personnel. 

The period of detention without judicial warrant of arrest of suspected terrorists is also increased from three days to fourteen days and may be extended by a maximum of ten days. Furthermore, the arresting officer may not need to present the suspect before any judge (Section 29). 

These provisions encroach upon the rights to communication and privacy of the people that this state has sworn to serve and protect.

No Court Order Needed

A portion of the proposed law is dedicated to the authority to investigate, inquire into and examine bank deposits of the accused. In the current law, a written order from the Court of Appeals (CA) is required to access bank deposits of the accused. This is a safeguard placed to ensure that no malicious investigations are conducted and no one’s right is violated.

In the proposed law, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) no longer needs a court order to conduct investigations (Section 35, SB 1083 and HB 6875). This can lead to an investigation-spree by the AMLC, under the instruction of the ATC, of political enemies, critics, and vocal opposition to any administration.

Role of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)

The proposed law retains the expectation on the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to give “the highest priority to the investigation and prosecution of violations of civil and political rights of persons in relation to the implementation” of the law. The CHR, however,  will no longer have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute persons who may have violated the civil and political rights of persons suspected of or detained for the crimes defined and penalized (Section 47, SB 1083 and HB 6875). 

In order to prevent abuses on the part of the executive, legislative oversight is necessary. However, the oversight powers, under the proposed law, have been watered down (Section 50, SB 1083 and HB 6875)

The report of the ATC to Congress was changed from semiannual to annual. The report does not have to include recommendations for reassessment, amendment, or repeal of the Act and other provisions regarding the authorization of surveillance of suspected and charged persons. Lastly, courts handling cases will not be required to report the status of the cases to the two Houses of Congress and the President.

The reduction of oversight power opens the possibility of abuses in the implementation of the law. Instead of serving as checks on the powers given to the executive, the other branches of government become accomplices to the systematic disenfranchisement of rights. 

Timing and Mode

We are also gravely concerned with the timing and mode of the passage of this bill. In the middle of a pandemic, Congress chose to prioritize an anti-terror law, thereby instilling fear instead of compassion. Moreover, critical decisions have been made in a span of days—definitely a short period for a measure needing much scrutiny. 

Some members of the House of Representatives, in particular, have not been given a chance by the House leadership to introduce amendments to the Senate version and the majority approved the Senate version in toto. Has there been a thorough review of the existing provisions and careful deliberation of the proposed amendments? What demands this kind of urgency especially under a public health emergency?

Stifling Dissent and Criticism

We also strongly condemn the violent dispersal of peaceful protestors against the bill during a demonstration held on 5 June 2020 at the University of the Philippines Cebu campus under the guise of enforcing the city’s general community quarantine. If a law purporting to protect public health can be implemented in this abusive manner, how much more prone to abuse will this proposed Anti-Terror Bill be with all of its problematic provisions?

While terrorism, as defined in the bill, excludes advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, there are dangers as regards the manner in which the powers to deal with terrorism are left in the hands of the executive branch. If abused, the law can be used to instill fear among the critics of any administration—a weapon like no other. 

Signed by the following faculty members of the Department of Political Science, University of the Philippines, Diliman

• Aries A. Arugay
• Maria Ela L. Atienza
• Aimee Dresa R. Bautista
• Dennis V. Blanco
• Francis Joseph A. Dee
• Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem
• Jean S. Encinas-Franco
• Miriam Coronel Ferrer
• Perlita M. Frago-Marasigan
• Enrico V. Gloria 
• Jan Robert R. Go
• Herman Joseph S. Kraft
• Raisa E. Lumampao
• Ruth R. Lusterio-Rico
• Marielle Y. Marcaida
• Maria Elize H. Mendoza
• Matthew Manuelito S. Miranda
• Jaime B. Naval
• Temario C. Rivera
• Ranjit Singh Rye
• Jalton G. Taguibao
• Maria Thaemar C. Tana
• Aletheia Kerygma B. Valenciano
• Jean Paul L. Zialcita

May 27, 2024

Introduction.

You’re now listening to “Advocate” by APHR, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights. APHR is a network of current and former parliamentarians from Southeast Asia who use their unique position to advance human rights and democracy in the region.

Hello, I’m Karina Tehusijarana, Media Manager of APHR. I’ll be your host for today and currently I’m with Representative Arlene Brosas from the Philippines, hi Cong. Arlene.

Hi Karina, hi to the followers or to the listeners of the podcast.

Thank you Cong. Arlene.

Arlene Brosas is an educator, child rights activist, and politician. She is also an APHR Board Member and a member of the Gabriela Women’s Party -list. She is also one of the co-authors of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Expression Equality Bill. Previously, as spokesperson of the Anti-Child Pornography Alliance, along with other activists and civil society organizations, she successfully lobbied for the passage of Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Law that aims to protect the rights and welfare of Children.

Today we will talk with Cong. Arlene about the current political situation in the Philippines, particularly the practice of “red-tagging”, in which political activists, journalists, and others are accused of being communists, and of course the role of the Philippines’s MP and as well as Southeast Asian’s MPs in this situation.

Thank you again, Cong. Arlene, for being with us today. Before we go into what the political situation is like in the Philippines, could you tell us a little bit about your background and how you first entered politics and how you joined APHR?

I entered politics in 2016. We won in the election through the women’s sector. I represent the women’s sector, which is the Gabriela Women’s Party. It is named after a famous revolutionary woman who actually fought against the colonizers during the time of 18 hundreds. So that was the background, the historical background.

Why did we enter politics? Actually, the party list was in existence since 2004, and we entered in the election in 2004 and won two seats. I came from the sector of children, actually, not in the women’s sector, but they invited me. So here I am now.

We actually espouse a nationalist kind of politics, and it’s branded as a new politics for our people. It is actually an opportunity for ordinary people to be elected through the party list system, because this is the only opportunity for the marginalized, for the underrepresented in our country, actually the poor people, to be in politics.

Usually we have political dynasties. We have the same names, we have the same people, we have the same rich and elite people in politics. But this kind of politics, the nationalist kind of politics, we are called the Makabayan bloc. So we are always in the opposition, and we are always in the minority. Not always, but most of the time, we are in the opposition.

Joined the APHR

Thank you, Cong. Arlene, how did you first learn about APHR, and why did you decide to become a member?

I was newly elected. It was in 2017 when I think it was Owen, I don’t remember his last name, in the Philippine’s parliament, who came and actually made an orientation on the works of the APHR, particularly. And he invited us and he said, the members are like Teddy Baguilat , Edcel Lagman . I was awed, and I said, yes, yes. I filled up a form, and I did. So that was the first time.

Then more came after, because I was one of the delegates, I think, of the RCEP forum in Jakarta. It was a side event on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. And I remember I first saw the members of the APHR during that time.

During that forum,  I was with Congresswoman France Castro of ACT Teachers party list. At that time, we were delegates. So that was my first encounter with the workings of the APHR. And eventually I was invited to the board, which I am relatively new to, by the executive director, Jennifer. So that was my encounter with APHR.

Thank you, Cong. Arlene. As you said, you just recently, I think, last year, joined the board of APHR, right? Can you tell us a bit about what APHR activities you’ve been involved with and particularly any of APHR’s work in the Philippines?

I learned more. No, I’m still learning until now, because being in the board, I think participating in the board is kind of a challenge for me because it’s my first time to be in a board of a human rights work, but definitely in a regional kind of set up. It is very different from the local, from our local point of view.

I am very thankful for knowing the different kinds of work of the APHR, particularly on Myanmar, on the COVID response, on the business and human rights side, on the climate change and human rights and the democracy and fundamental freedoms. I think I’ve been to some of those talks or seminars previously.

And one of the top list, I think, of what I did for APHR is to be in the delegation of the freedom of religion and belief. I was invited to Africa for the IPPFoRB , and I was invited in, I think there were two or three sessions on freedom of religion and belief that I was involved with, and, of course, the refugee and migrant rights. And those are the work of APHR that I’ve been involved with. Not all of them, of course, but some of them I’ve been with.

The Philippines’s Legislative System

Thank you, Cong. Arlene. Now, maybe we can talk a little bit about the current situation in the Philippines, but before, maybe you can explain a little bit for listeners who might not be familiar. Can you explain a little bit about the Philippines legislative system?

The Philippine legislative system is bicameral , kind of set up here in the Philippines. It is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. So there are two. There are 24 members of the Senate who are elected at large, while there are 316. Some of them died. So probably it’s a little. But normally it’s 316 members of the House of Representatives, of which 20% are party list representatives, of which I am a member of.

Gabriela Women’s Party is one of these elected party lists at the House of Representatives, and it remains as the sole women’s party list in Congress. So that’s how it works in the legislative system.

Challenges as an MP

Thank you, Cong. Arlene, as you said, you joined Congress in 2016, right? Can you tell us a little bit about what you’ve been advocating for in that time and what challenges you face as an MP? 

I have actually spent more time on grassroots campaigns, and we’ve had consultations with basic sectors like the peasants, the workers, especially women workers and women, peasants and fishermen, fisher folk and urban poor dwellers, those who were demolished in their homes. 

And so we take up what are the main issues or what the main advocacy of the party right now is for women and children. So we’ve had legislative discussions on those points.

And in your eight years experience in advocating for these issues, what kind of challenges have you faced in Congress?

Well, the main challenge is one key challenge, should we say the impediment at the legislative is the blurring of lines between the executive and the legislative? The chief executive’s priority. Legislative measures always get in the fast lane. What does that mean? It is at the expense of other far more important issues or measures undermining the independence of the legislative branch. I think the legislative branch can further exercise its check and balance rule and be a more active fiscalizer for reforms.

What happens is, if the president wants this to be passed, for example, the mandatory ROTC for the youth , so it will be the number one priority as opposed to the genuine agrarian reform program, supposedly of the government. So it’s like that. If you compare it, important pro people measures often get stuck or stalled at the committees, and most notably, resolutions seeking to address and investigate human rights violations in the country hardly take off. So it’s very hard.

If you know the orientation of the ASEAN Parliamentarian for Human Rights and you’ve been advocating for years on this and nothing happens. No committee inquiries were conducted on the relentless attacks on party list organizations, activists, supporters, both under and from the previous administration. So it’s very hard. But you want to be on the top of the line, to be investigated, to be, I think, to be in the mill of the legislative process. It’s not happening. So that’s the main challenge.

Best Practices

Thank you, Cong. Arlene, given these challenges that you’ve mentioned, do you have any best practices or any ideas of what the most effective entry point for, let’s say, if civil society organizations or activists want to advocate through parliament, like, where can they start?

Well, basically, in our kind of work, we actually had, we do grassroots campaigning, and we consult with the grassroots organizations, not only our organizations, of course, many organizations on the ground. We consult them. We ask them what is what, what are we supposed to put in the legislative agenda right now?

So any initiative on legal reform must begin from the ground, from the marginalized communities. They espouse the concrete demands, which can be translated to policy reform. For example, if it’s about the Magna Carta for women, the amendments on the Magna Carta of women, we check this with other organizations of women in the country.

And if we have amendments on the rape law, we ask about not only the sector of women, but of course also the health sector and other policy and advocates of these issues.

I think the most effective entry point for law reform advocacy is to really consult it with the community, with the grassroots.

Red Tagging

You know, we recently published our APHR’s annual parliamentarians at risk report in Manila last month, and one of the findings in the report for the Philippines was that Philippine MP’s, a lot of Philippine MP’s were at risk and were being red tagged, which is the practice where certain politicians or journalists or opposition figures are accused of being communists. And in 2021, your own party, Gabriela, was accused of links to communist rebels by the national task force to end local communist armed conflict, or the NTF-ELCAC. Can you explain a little bit about what happened there and if you have any updates about this case?

Until now? Until now, we are targets of this NTF-ELCAC and other cases that they made up on us, and we are still a target of red tagging. And it is still an ongoing advocacy for us to fight for our principles, for our part in this democracy.

It started actually, not in 2021, but in 2019. The NTF-ELCAC actually filed a case which accused us of links with the communist rebels. Now, the petition is to cancel the registration before the Commission on Elections, the COMELEC, and the NTF ELCAC remains alive. The case remains alive and pending, and the NTF ELCAC is still there.

Supposedly, we are about to present our side to the case at this point, however, there has yet to be a scheduled hearing. So we maintain that the case is a trumped up and fabricated case filed in time for the 2019 elections. This is my third term, in my second term, it was a challenge for me. It was in 2019. It was filed at that time. So they really wanted us to be, what do you call that? Decimated or to not be in Congress anymore. So they were hoping that in 2019, after the elections, there would be no Gabriella Women’s party in Congress. So there will be less challenge for them, for the opposition. And so that’s their purpose.

Now, filed in time for the 2019 elections, it was to spread the wrong information that we are disqualified from the party list race. We expect that the NTF-ELCAC will hype the case again as we approach the 2025 midterm elections. So that’s the final challenge.

We assert that the case be junked as the supposed links to communist rebels have been disputed repeatedly in several instances. So this is not the first time that we were actually accused. And there were cases filed in COMELEC , but it was dismissed before. So they keep on rehashing. So they keep on rehashing that. So we maintain that we are a partialist organization representing marginalized women inside the parliament, advocating for pro women and pro people reforms.

Actually, our long tradition or the long track record of the women party list says it all. Because we passed so many legislations on women and children in particular, and we have been very active in participating in committees, in any debates, in any interpolations needed by the Congress. So you can just imagine if we are not there anymore in Congress, who will talk about these things.

So that’s the case. It is still alive. It is still pending. So we are still under attack. Not only the Gabriela Women’s Party list, of course, the other progressive organizations and party lists. And party lists even, for example, remember in the parliamentarians at risk launch when we actually, I hosted it.

So I know that Congresswoman France Castro still has this pending case on her, which is a criminal case, and also the case of Kabataan party list, which is also to cancel the registration of Kabataan party list. So we are being targeted right now before and even until now, up until the time that they dismissed the case. I think we can probably breathe a little, just a little. We can breathe a little if they dismiss that case, if the current administration or the current government dismisses that case.

Thank you for the overview. Cong. Arlene, can you, what kind of effects has this red tagging had on the Gabriela party list and on you yourself?

Well, of course, we’ve had a challenging time. Not only a challenging time. It was really hard in the, if it’s hard in the urban areas, it’s really very hard in the rural areas. And remember, we consult our grassroots organizations. We consult our, we call this, it’s like we form chapters like branches in the communities, in the rural areas.

It is very hard for us because people have this tendency to, “Oh, don’t join them because they are this and this and this,” so what happens is the people are afraid when supposedly we have this democracy and we have this respect for fundamental freedoms for all of us. And we abide by the civil and political rights of the people. It’s not happening on the ground.

If they have this kind of NTF ELCAC and this, I think they have the machinery to undermine us on the ground. So it was really difficult to bring in members during that time. But, you know, women have this tendency to actually dig into the matter thoroughly. So we were able to have chapters to maintain our chapters, except for those annihilated. I call it annihilation, because they are being killed. They are being incarcerated. If you are a member of the Gabriela Women’s Party, you are a target for trumped up charges.

A lot of women, we have about how many women political prisoners belonging to our party, also coming from the rural areas still until now, incarcerated women deprived of liberty. You can just imagine that.

We have been advocating for the rights of the women deprived of liberty, and they keep on filing cases on women leaders, women who are really active and participate in the community organizations, when they’ve been advocating for changes in our society, they are the ones being targeted up until now.

One example is because of the anti terrorism act that was passed recently. So, yeah, that was the effect. But we fight, we go on. And the turnout is actually, sometimes we get to have new members, but most of the time we have new members right now. And it’s good because we have this collective, I think, collective effort to really bring out the best in each and every one of the women members. So I think it’s really a no, no.

Nothing can bar us. There is no barrier for women in fighting for our own rights.

What can MPs do?

Thank you, Cong. Arlene, you mentioned the recent Anti Terrorism act, which APHR has also previously highlighted, because there’s also the tendency, besides red tagging, of terrorist tagging right where opposition figures are accused of being terrorists. What do you think that parliamentarians in the Philippines can do about the situation? And is there any mechanism or any chance that the anti terrorism law can be amended?

We are not looking actually for the amendment because we think this is a draconian law. But as parliamentarians, we are really pushing for the repeal of the antiterrorism act for being overly broad in scope and violative of the fundamental civil and political rights enshrined in our constitution. The law allows unjust arrest and detention, even without charges, and criminalizes mere association to supposed terrorists without judicial concurrence through the terrorist designation scheme by the Anti Terror Council.

So we think this anti terror council is showing terror to the people. If you’re a target. So you can be annoyed, you can be called a terrorist, and you will be terror tagged. So actually, there has been a renewed spate of antiterrorism law cases. They targeted progressives and even legitimate civil society groups.

The ATL complaints have been filed against one of our own, the secretary general of the Kabayan coalition, the nationalist coalition in which I belong to. They filed a case against Nathaniel Santiago, a longtime activist and currently our secretary general, along with three other human rights advocates. Nathanael Santiago, Anasusa San Gabriel, Rosario Brenda Gonzalez, and Servillano Luna Junior. So it keeps on filing.

So up until the anti terror law is repealed, this will go on. So actually, no amendments will cure this. So it should be, the law should be repealed. And yeah, that’s our point. Recently, we actually accompanied the lawyers in filing the counter affidavit of these recent cases together with the secretary general of the Kabayan coalition, of the nationalist coalition. We did this in Central Luzon.

I was with Congresswoman Franz Castro at that time. She was able to speak. We actually held a rally in front of the justice hall at that time. We accompanied the counter affidavit, which is actually to dispute the ridiculous allegation that they were involved in an armed encounter. That was what, that was what was annoying.

What was in their case. Their cases were murder, international human rights violations, international human rights law violation. But the one that was physically retained was the anti terror law, the anti terror act. So they dismissed some of those, the criminal cases and the IHL, because there was no basis for it. But the anti terror losses, it was so big.

The anti terror law is so big. So it was being used, and I think it’s being weaponized by the current government to go after the critics, not only the critics of the government, those who would actually dissent. So this is really a problem for the civil and political rights of our people. 

And another recent case is the terrorist designation of an award winning non government organization. So this is the trend right now. For example, the latest center fordDevelopment incorporated for supposedly making funds available to the Communist Party of the Philippines. This. It’s like a pattern.

We are alarmed that more civil society groups would be threatened to serve far flung communities on mere allegations that they are supporting communist rebels, even when government social services are scarce in those areas. So the people, since they are the ones who are there doing their humanitarian work, are more at risk right now.

All these cases affirm our call to junk the anti terrorism law for being too broad, draconian and repressive. It seriously impairs the effective functions of the political party members and organizations, and it sends a chilling effect to the democratic exercise of free speech.

So that’s about it. Karina. So overall, with the cases to individuals, the organizations, so they actually disrupt the people’s rights to do humanitarian work per se.

How to Repeal the Anti Terrorism Law

Thank you for telling us about those cases Cong. Arlene, can I ask, how does, how would a repeal of the anti terrorism law work? How many votes would be needed in Congress to get that?

First of all, it has to go through the regular process, which is to have committee hearings, and it depends on the committee chair how many hearings are issued for that. And it has to go to the first reading in Congress. You have to file the repeal. And we filed it. Actually, it’s been done. 

The second process is the hearing. And after the committee hearing, if they agree to repeal the law, it will be in the plenary, which is open for debates. It is up for third reading to approve it by the 316 members of the Congress. So the majority, we have to take the majority. If it’s in the majority, then you win. If it’s not, then you lose. Then it goes to the Senate.

In the Senate, they have the three processes again, the first, second reading and third reading. Then it goes to the president, which he’s supposed to sign it. After that, it will be repealed. So that’s the process. So it’ll take a long time. So what we are banking on right now is the people who are experiencing this repressive law.

There should be a lot of clamor from the people, from the people on the ground to make changes on this certain measure. So we are hoping that since the cases are piling up and there are so many, so much happening on the ground, we are hoping that it will make some noise in putting it in the agenda of the current administration.

What can we do?

What do you think that the general public and civil society can do to help push for the repeal of repressive laws such as the Anti Terrorism act?

So there should be lots of campaigns, lots of community organizations participating in this campaign advocacy to actually act on the matter. Because on the ground, it is annoying. Since it’s a repressive law, it’s not that popular. It’s not about economics. It’s about the issue of rise. It’s more popular. This is kind of about politics. So it’s very hard for people to digest the issue up until, unless it happens to them.

So sometimes those who can understand this are the progressive, the activists, those who are in parliament, those who are concerned about this kind of issue.

Pull-quotes:

So what to do now is to actually disseminate information about this and do a lot of groundwork, grounding us in consultations and other things that we should do rallies and especially in the rural areas. We’re at that point to explain everything about this repressive law and draconian law.

Regional Solidarity

Thank you. This will be the last question for the podcast. As you know, it’s the last one. As you know, APHR was founded with the idea of creating regional solidarity among parliamentarians in Southeast Asia. What do you think the role of Southeast Asian MP’s are like? What can Southeast Asian MP’s do to help improve the human rights situation in the Philippines as well as in other countries in Southeast Asia?

Yes, I think the primary role of the APHR members, since it’s a regional network, we should advance human rights and democracy in Southeast Asia. So that’s the main point, I think that’s the main point. We should help each other create more opportunities for us to discuss, to have consultations on the current situations, conditions of different countries in Southeast Asia.

So the more that we talk about what’s happening, the violence, the discrimination, even the development in those areas, in those countries, in other countries, we should discuss about it and advocate for human rights in other countries, also in the Southeast Asia particular, by recognizing the human rights issues in the connection of the human rights issues in each and every country that we have in APHR, I think it will be more productive for us and will have a framework, and there will be no borders in protecting and promoting human rights through the APHR.

Thank you very much, Cong. Arlene, and thank you very much much for taking the time to be with us on this podcast.

Thank you, Karina. Thank you. In Filipino, it’s Maraming Salamat.

That was an episode of ADVOCATE by APHR, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights. Drop your ideas for any podcast topics or any interview subjects for this podcast through [email protected] that’s [email protected] and also let us know what your thoughts are on this episode. Before we sign off, I would like to thank you for your support and thanks for tuning in. I’m Karina Tehusijarana. See you soon.

Posts in this category

ADVOCATE: Thailand’s Current Political Situation with Kunthida Rungruengkiat

May 20, 2024

Kunthida Rungruengkiat talks about the current political situation in Thailand and the role of Thai’s MPs and Southeast Asian’s MPs in improving the human rights situation in the country.

ADVOCATE: Democratic Backsliding in Indonesia with Mercy Barends

May 13, 2024

Mercy Barends talks about the democratic situation in Indonesia, APHR’s ongoing advocacy, and the role of parliamentarians in this situation.

ADVOCATE: The Future of Democracy in Thailand with Kasit Piromya

Apr 22, 2024

Kasit Piromya talks about the future of democracy in Thailand, Thailand Legislative System, and regional solidarity.

• Generative AI
• Office Suites
• Collaboration Software
• Productivity Software
• Augmented Reality
• Emerging Technology
• Remote Work
• Artificial Intelligence
• Operating Systems
• IT Leadership
• IT Management
• IT Operations
• Cloud Computing
• Computers and Peripherals
• Data Center
• Enterprise Applications
• Vendors and Providers
• Enterprise Buyer’s Guides
• United States
• Netherlands
• United Kingdom
• New Zealand
• Newsletters
• Foundry Careers
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• Member Preferences
• About AdChoices
• E-commerce Affiliate Relationships
• Your California Privacy Rights

Our Network

• Network World

Must-read perspectives and analysis from Computerworld's experts on the technologies that drive business.

Android Intelligence

Not your average Android news — a diverse mix of advice, insight, and analysis with veteran Android journalist JR Raphael.

Apple Holic

Appleholic, (noun), æp·əl-hɑl·ɪk: An imaginative person who thinks about what Apple is doing, why and where it is going. Delivering popular Apple-related news, advice and entertainment since 1999.

Patch Tuesday Debugged

Greg Lambert evaluates the risks to existing applications and environments from each month's security update.

The Tech Life

In The Tech Life, long-time writer, editor, and journalist Scot Finnie keeps an eye on the intersection of IT and the tech trends shaping the enterprise.

Windows Intelligence

Tech journalist Chris Hoffman has learned a few things during his 30 years using Windows. Follow along as he shares tips, tricks, and in-the-know insights into the Windows ecosystem.

The Zen of IT

Technology expert Evan Schuman takes an authoritative look at the faults and foibles of enterprise IT.

Show me more

Apple promises 'best ever' wwdc, but will it deliver.

Job seekers and hiring managers depend on AI — at what cost to truth and fairness?

Windows Recall: All your privacy questions answered

Podcast: The AI hype squad hits some major bumps

Why are people still bad at video calls?

Will new AI tools create a better Siri or voice assistant?

The AI hype squad hits some major bumps

From our editors straight to your inbox