Anti-Terror Law: A Terror-enabling Law

 

by Paolo Miguel Anico (Crypton)

Repealing the Anti-Terrorism Law is of the essence, thus The UPLB Genetics Society opposes against this law because of its unconstitutionality and how the House and the Senate rushingly established it in the middle of a global pandemic, gravely misplacing what the government should prioritize.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. President Duterte’s campaign against the “terrorists” of the country, which as he refers to as the “Left,” enabled the enactment of Republic Act No. 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, a law made to “prevent, prohibit, and penalize terrorism, repealing the Human Security Act of 2009.” Other than being in the middle of a global pandemic, the Duterte administration proceeded in executing the law during the government’s campaign of red-tagging, courtesy of Duterte’s National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict or the NTF-ELCAC, affecting different NDMOs such as Anakbayan and UP students who voice out their dismay with the current administration.

One reason the government should repeal the Anti-Terror Law is because of its unconstitutionality. Currently, there are over 35 petitions filed in the supreme court challenging the Anti-Terror Law. One point raised against the law was that it goes against the provisions already set by the Constitution, specifically the Bill of rights. For example, the Constitution has a requirement that a judge must issue a warrant upon finding a probable cause, whereas the ATL can detain a suspected “terrorist” for 24 days with no judicial charges. Another point is that ATL threatens our right to freedom of speech. Such an example would be the provisions under Section 9 which stated that even “without any direct part in the commission of terrorism, any who shall incite others in the execution through speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end shall suffer imprisonment.” The definition of terrorism in the law is also ambiguous that it makes it difficult to discern which acts are permissible. That apparent vagueness and other provisions in the act would then be very open to abuse by the authorities, considering the NTF-ELCAC and the PNP’s reputation in red-tagging organizations and individuals. 

The context of the ATL’s enactment and law-making also is untimely. Putting this law into writing in the middle of a global pandemic coupled with the government’s incompetent pandemic response would show their misplaced priorities when they must address the current health crisis. As of writing, there are 335,000 confirmed cases in the country. They also enacted the ATL during the government’s red-tagging spree by the NTF-ELCAC and the PNP. ATL exacerbates this phenomenon, especially for activists and Muslims. Most wrongfully assume and tag these populations as terrorists. Besides these events, it would add to the human rights violations already happening in the country, especially during the eve of Duterte’s Oplan Tokhang, the name used to refer to the campaign against illegal drugs. Even in the pandemic, his drug war still continues. 

Human rights violations are already rampant in the country, even before the pandemic. Because of the vague nature of the ATL, it would open doors for authorities to abuse it. Human rights groups reported different HRVs under Duterte’s drug war, where the authorities fit the victims of extrajudicial killings, commonly drug suspects, under the “nanlaban” narrative and in some recoded cases, resorted to evidence planting. One notable victim of the Drug War is the 17-year-old Kian Delos Santos. The groups also reported HRVs among the AFP in contact with indigenous people and Lumad communities in Mindanao, an example of such is closing down Lumad schools. Other occurrences of HRV’s include enforced disappearances, illegal detention, trumped-up charges. With the passing of the Anti-Terror Law where such HRVs continue, the law would open the possibility of worsening these violations.

On the other hand, the Anti-Terror Law, as stated in the constitution, should stop the communist insurgency and terrorism in the country, that is, the law would protect the people from events such as the Marawi Siege and terrorist attacks from ever happening again. However, this is not the case. To quote the argument of representative Mujiv Hataman of the lone district of Basilan, “If there should be any person who should vote for an Anti-Terrorism Bill, it should be me. But I voted no because as we are curtailing the rights of the people, we would also empower terrorists,” he said while citing the events of 2001 where president Gloria Arroyo declared State of Lawlessness in Basilan. Late 2015 to 2019, he studied the events of terrorism in the province, and he reported that only a few joined the Abu Sayyaf out of ideology and most joined because of injustices such as poverty, discrimination, and lack of opportunities. Thus, solving terrorism in the country is solving the injustices the Filipinos face today.

The Anti-Terror Law, made to prevent terrorism, would then be a motivator for terrorism, with each of the culprits coming from both sides of the conflict. All the lapses of ATL would become an opening for some authorities to abuse their power. The law’s passing would also endanger all people that are “suspected” to be terrorists, especially activists and the marginalized people with the continued red-tagging campaign by Duterte’s supporters. The call to junk the Anti-Terror Bill would continue as the people of the country call on the government for an environment safe from conflict and especially safe from the ongoing global pandemic which has put the country on its knees for over 8 months since the start of community quarantine.