anti terrorism bill essay brainly

Philippine e-Legal Forum

Philippine laws and legal system (pnl-law blog).

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020: Salient Points of Republic Act No. 11479

[Update: On 3 July 2020, the President signed Republic Act No. 11479, otherwise known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. Earlier this year, the Senate passed Senate Bill No. 1083, a proposed law to prevent, prohibit and penalize terrorism, and repeal Republic Act No. 9372 , otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of 2007.” The provisions of SB 1083 were adopted in House Bill No. 6875, certified as urgent by the President on 1 June 2020. On 3 June 2020, the House of Representatives approved HB 6875 on third and final reading. The enrolled bill was transmitted to and received by Malacanang on 9 June 2020. The salient points of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 are discussed below.]

WHO IS A TERRORIST INDIVIDUAL

A “terrorist individual” is a natural person who commits any of the following proscribed acts: 

• (i) Terrorism ;
• (ii) Threat to commit terrorism ;
• (iii) Planning, training, preparing and facilitating the commission of terrorism ;
• (iv) Conspiracy to commit terrorism ;
• (v) Proposal to commit terrorism ;
• (vi) Inciting to commit terrorism ;
• (vii) Recruitment to and membership in a terrorist organization ;
• (viii) Foreign terrorist ; and 
• (ix) Providing material support to terrorist .

At this juncture, it is important to emphasize that the Anti-Terrorism Council has the authority to label or designate any person or group as a terrorist or terrorist group, respectively, and cause the warrantless arrest of any person suspected of committing the aforementioned proscribed acts.

WHAT IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION

A “terrorist organization” or “terrorist group” is: (1) any entity organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism; or (2) any group of persons, organization or association who commits any of the acts enumerated above; or (3) United Nations Security Council-designated terrorist organization. The proposed law provides the procedure for proscription of terrorist organizations.

JURISDICTION AND SCOPE OF APPLICATION

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020  has extraterritorial application. The proposed law applies to the following:

• (1) Any person who commits the proscribed acts within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of the Philippines.
• (2) A Filipino citizen or national who commits any of the proscribed acts outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines; 
• (3) Individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the proscribed acts inside the territorial limits of the Philippines; 
• (4) Individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the proscribed acts on board Philippine ship or Philippine airship: 
• (5) Individual persons who commit any of the proscribed acts within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity; 
• (6) Individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit the proscribed acts against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; and
• (7) To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit the proscribed acts directly against the Philippine government. 

In case of an individual who is neither a citizen nor a national of the Philippines who commits any of the proscribed acts outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, the Philippines shall exercise jurisdiction only when such individual enters or is inside the territory of the Philippines.

WHAT IS NOT CONSIDERED TERRORISM

Terrorism does not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, 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. 

(i) TERRORISM

To constitute the crime of terrorism, the purpose of the act, by its nature and context, must be to: (i) intimidate the general public or a segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear; (ii) provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any of its international organization; (iii) seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country; or (iv) create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety.

Terrorism is committed by any person who, within or outside the Philippines, for any of the purposes enumerated above, regardless of the stage of execution:

• (1) Engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life.
• (2) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place or private property.
• (3) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure. “Critical infrastructure” refers to an asset or system, whether physical or virtual, so essential to the maintenance of vital societal functions or to the delivery of essential public services that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on national defense and security, national economy, public health or safety, the administration of justice, and other functions analogous thereto. It may include, but is not limited to, an asset or system affecting telecommunications, water and energy supply, emergency services, food security, fuel supply, banking and finance, transportation, radio and television, information systems and technology, chemical and nuclear sectors.
• (4) Develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons, explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons.
• (5) Release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods or explosions.

A person who commits the act of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole.

(ii) THREAT TO COMMIT TERRORISM

Any person who shall threaten to commit any of the above-enumerated acts of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years. 

(iii) PLANNING, TRAINING, PREPARING, AND FACILITATING THE COMMISSION OF TERRORISM

It shall be unlawful for any person to participate in the planning, training, preparation and facilitation in the commission of terrorism, possessing objects connected with the preparation for the commission of terrorism, or collecting or making documents connected with the preparation of terrorism. “Training” refers to the giving of instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill in relation to terrorism as defined hereunder, as opposed to general knowledge.

The accused, if found guilty, shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole. 

(iv) CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TERRORISM

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of terrorism and decide to commit the same. Any conspiracy to commit terrorism shall be penalized by life imprisonment without the benefit of parole.

(v) PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TERRORISM

Proposal to commit terrorism is committed when a person who has decided to commit any of the proscribed acts proposes its execution to some other person or persons. Any person who proposes to commit terrorism shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years.

(vi) INCITING TO COMMIT TERRORISM

A person commits inciting to commit terrorism when, without taking any direct part in the commission of terrorism, he/she incites others to the execution of any of the above-enumerated acts of terrorism by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end. The imposable penalty is imprisonment of 12 years. 

(vii) RECRUITMENT TO AND MEMBERSHIP IN A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION

Any person who shall recruit another to participate in, join, commit or support: (i) any terrorism; or (ii) a terrorist individual; or (iii) any terrorist organization, association or group of persons, shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole.

The same penalty shall be imposed on any person who organizes or facilitates the travel of individuals to a state other than their state of residence or nationality for the purpose of recruitment which may be committed through any of the following means: 

• (a) Recruiting another person to serve in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign state, whether the armed force forms part of the armed forces of the government of that foreign state or otherwise; 
• (b) Publishing an advertisement or propaganda for the purpose of recruiting persons to serve in any capacity in or with such an armed force; 
• (c) Publishing an advertisement or propaganda containing any information relating to the place at which or the manner in which persons may make applications to serve or obtain information relating to service in any capacity in or with such armed force or relating to the manner in which persons may travel to a foreign state for the purpose of serving in any capacity in or with such armed force; or 
• (d) Performing any other act with the intention of facilitating or promoting the recruitment of persons to serve in any capacity in or with such armed force. 

Any person who shall voluntarily and knowingly join any terrorist organization, association or group of persons, knowing that such is a terrorist organization, association or group of persons, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years. 

(viii) FOREIGN TERRORIST

The following acts are unlawful and shall be punished with the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole:

• (a) For any person to travel or attempt to travel to a state other than his/her state of residence or nationality, for the purpose of perpetrating, planning, or preparing for, or participating in terrorism, or providing or receiving terrorist training; 
• (b) For any person to organize or facilitate the travel of individuals who travel to a state other than their states of residence or nationality knowing that such travel is for the purpose of perpetrating, planning, training, or preparing for, or participating in terrorism or providing or receiving terrorist training; or 
• (c) For any person residing abroad who comes to the Philippines to participate in perpetrating, planning, training, or preparing for, or participating in terrorism or provide support for or facilitate or receive terrorist training here or abroad. 

(ix) PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS

Any person who provides material support to any terrorist individual or terrorist organization, association or group of persons committing any of the proscribed acts , or knowing that such individual or organization, association, or group of persons is committing or planning to commit such acts, shall be liable as principal to any and all terrorist activities committed by said individuals or organizations, in addition to other criminal liabilities he/she or they may have incurred in relation thereto. 

“Material support” refers to any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (one or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation.

THE ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL (ATC)

The ATC, created under the proposed law, is composed of: (1) the Executive Secretary, as Chairperson: (2) the National Security Adviser, as Vice Chairperson; and (3) the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; (4) the Secretary of National Defense; (6) the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government; (6) the Secretary of Finance; (7) the Secretary of Justice; (8) the Secretary of Information and Communications Technology; and (9) the Executive Director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council or AMLC Secretariat. 

AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE TERRORIST INDIVIDUALS OR TERRORIST GROUPS

The ATC is given the power to label or designate any person or group as a terrorist or terrorist group, respectively. The ATC may designate an individual, groups of persons, organization, or association, whether domestic or foreign, upon a finding of probable cause that the individual, groups of persons, organization, or association commit, or attempt to commit, or conspire in the commission of the proscribed acts . 

The designation includes the authority to freeze, through the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), the assets of the designated individual, groups of persons, organization or association. The designation shall be without prejudice to the  proscription  of terrorist organizations, associations, or groups of persons.

PROSCRIPTION OF TERRORIST GROUPS

The Court of Appeals (CA) is given the jurisdiction to hear and decide applications for proscription to declare any group of persons, organization or association as a terrorist and outlawed group of persons, organization or association. The verified application is filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), with authorization from the ATC and recommendation from the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA). 

A  preliminary order of proscription  is issued, within 72 hours from the filing of the application, when the CA makes a finding of probable cause, that the issuance of an order of proscription is necessary to prevent the commission of terrorism. The CA shall immediately commence and conduct continuous hearings, which must be completed within 6 months from the time the application has been filed, to determine whether: 

• (a) The preliminary order of proscription should be made permanent; 
• (b) A permanent order of proscription should be issued in case no preliminary order was issued; or 
• (c) A preliminary order of proscription should be lifted. 

The applicant has the burden of proving that the respondent is a terrorist and an outlawed organization or association before the CA issues an order of proscription, whether preliminary or permanent. The permanent order of proscription, if granted, shall be posted in a newspaper of general circulation. It shall be valid for a period of 3 years after which, a review of such order shall be made and if circumstances warrant, the same shall be lifted. 

DETENTION WITHOUT JUDICIAL WARRANT OF ARREST

The ATC is empowered to authorize any law enforcement agent or military personnel to arrest any person  SUSPECTED of committing any of the proscribed acts . The person arrested may be detained, without any warrant, for a period of 14 calendar days, subject to a 10-day extension if it is established that: (a) further detention of the person/s is necessary to preserve evidence related to the terrorism or complete the investigation; (b) further detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the commission of another terrorism; and (c) the investigation is being conducted properly and without delay. 

[See also Valid Warrantless Arrests in the Philippines and Valid Warrantless Searches in the Philippines ]

The arresting officer has no duty to turn-over the accused to judicial authorities. However, the arresting officer must notify the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest of the following facts: (a) the time, date, and manner of arrest; (b) the location or locations of the detained suspect/s and (c) the physical and mental condition of the detained suspect/s. The arresting officer must furnish a copy of the written notice to the ATC and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). 

RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL

The prosecution may apply for a precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) before filing an information for any violation of the proscribed acts , or a hold departure order (HDO) upon filing of the information. If the evidence of guilt is strong, the court shall immediately issue an HDO and direct the DFA to initiate the procedure for the cancellation of the passport of the accused.

In cases where evidence of guilt is  not strong , and the person charged is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to:

• (a) Within the municipality or city where he/she resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety. Travel outside of said municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of his/her bail, which shall be forfeited; or
• (b) House arrest, at his/her usual place of residence. While under house arrest, he/she may not use telephones, cellphones, e-mails, computers, the internet, or other means of communications with people outside the residence until otherwise ordered by the court. 

The restrictions shall be terminated: (a) on motion of the prosecutor or of the accused, subject to court approval; or (b) upon dismissal of the case; or (c) upon acquittal of the accused.

SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING OF COMMUNICATIONS

Law enforcement officers or military personnel may apply for a court order (Court of Appeals) to secretly wiretap, overhear and listen to, intercept, screen, read, surveil, record or collect, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic,  mechanical or other equipment or device or technology now known or may hereafter be known to science, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for the above purposes, any private communications, conversation, discussion/s, data, information, messages in whatever form, kind or nature, spoken or written words: 

• (a) of any person charged with or suspected of committing any of the proscribed acts.
• (b) between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization.
• (c) between members of a designated person, as defined in Republic Act No. 10168, to wit:
• (ii) any organization, association, or group of persons proscribed pursuant to Section 17 of the Human Security Act of 2007; or
• (iii) any person, organization, association, or group of persons whose funds or property, based on probable cause are subject to seizure and sequestration under Section 39 of the Human Security Act of 2007.

Surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized. [See also Illegal Interception of Computer Data, Warrant to Intercept (WICD): Rule on Cybercrime Warrants ]

The law enforcement agent or military personnel shall likewise be obligated to file an ex-parte application with the Court of Appeals for the issuance of an order to compel telecommunications service providers (TSP) and internet service providers (ISP) to produce all customer information and identification records as well as call and text data records, content and other cellular or internet metadata of any person suspected of any of the crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of the proposed law. 

The authorizing division of the Court of Appeals must make a determination that: 

• (a) there is probable cause to believe based on  personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the a proscribed act has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed; and 
• (b) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that evidence, which is essential to the conviction of any charged or suspected person for, or to the solution or prevention of, any such crimes, will be obtained. 

Any authorization granted by the Court of Appeals is effective for the length of time specified in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals which shall not exceed a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the written order by the applicant law enforcement agent or military personnel. It is subject to a 30-day extension.

The written order granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, as well as the application for such order, shall be deemed classified information . The penalty of imprisonment of 10 years shall be imposed upon any person, law enforcement agent or military personnel, judicial officer or civil servant who, not being authorized by the Court of Appeals, reveals in any manner or form any classified information.

NO TORTURE OR COERCION IN INVESTIGATION AND INTERROGATION

The use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment, at any time during the investigation or interrogation of a detained suspected terrorist is absolutely prohibited and shall be penalized under said law. Any evidence obtained from said detained person resulting from such treatment shall be. in its entirety, inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing. 

RIGHTS OF A PERSON UNDER CUSTODIAL DETENTION

The moment a person charged with or suspected of committing any of the proscribed acts is apprehended or arrested and detained, he shall forthwith be informed of his or her right to: 

• (a) be informed of the nature and cause of his arrest, to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel of his or her choice, the law enforcement agent or military personnel concerned shall immediately contact the free legal assistance unit of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). It shall be the duty of the free legal assistance unit of the IBP or the PAO thus contacted to immediately visit the person/s detained and provide him or her with legal assistance. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of his/her counsel of choice; 
• (b) be informed of the cause or causes of his/her detention in the presence of his legal counsel; 
• (c) be allowed to communicate freely with his/her legal counsel and to confer with them at any time without restriction; 
• (d) be allowed to communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the members of his/her family or with his/her nearest relatives and to be visited by them; and,
• (e) be allowed freely to avail of the service of a physician or physicians of choice. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF DETAINEES

Any law enforcement agent or military personnel who violates the rights of persons under his/her custody shall be liable for imprisonment of 10 years. Unless the law enforcement agent or military personnel who violated the rights of a detainee or detainees as stated above is duly identified, the same penalty shall be imposed on the head of the law enforcement unit or military unit having custody of the detainee at the time the violation was done. 

FALSE EVIDENCE; WITNESS PROTECTION

Under the proposed law, a 6-year imprisonment is imposed on any person who knowingly furnishes false testimony, forged document or spurious evidence in any investigation or hearing conducted in relation to any violations covered by the proposed law. 

This penalty may not be applicable because the proposed law also provides for immunity and protection of government witnesses.

BAN ON EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION

No person suspected or convicted of any of the proscribed acts shall be subjected to extraordinary rendition to any country. Extraordinary rendition refers to the transfer of a person, suspected of being a terrorist or supporter of a terrorist organization to a foreign nation for imprisonment and interrogation on behalf of the transferring nation. The extraordinary rendition may be done without framing any formal charges, trial, or approval of the court. 

• Recent Posts

• Extension of Filing Periods and Suspension of Hearings for March 29 to April 4, 2021: SC Administrative Circular No. 14-2021 (Full Text) - March 28, 2021
• ECQ Bubble for NCR, Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna and Rizal: Resolution No. 106-A (Full Text) - March 27, 2021
• Guidelines on the Administration of COVID-19 Vaccines in the Workplaces (Labor Advisory No. 3) - March 12, 2021
• Human Security Act of 2007 (Republic Act No. 9372): Full Text
• Effect of Certification by President that a Proposed Law is Urgent; Engrossed/Enrolled Bill
• Special Court could Oversee Anti-Terror Law

14 thoughts on “ The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020: Salient Points of Republic Act No. 11479 ”

It’s extremely dangerous. The way the police planted evidence on that solider they killed in broad daylight and the way Sinas is exonerated of what was clearly a wrong, imagine giving them almost absolute power to declare anyone a terrorist and make arrests. Judge and executioner rolled into one.

ATC po ang magdedecide kung sino ang suspected terrorist, hindi police pakibasa naman po.

The ATC are only to give the authorization to any LAW ENFORCEMENT agent or military personnel to arrest SUSPECTED, again suspected from the proscribed acts mentioned, but not to declare a person or group as TERRORIST.

Pinapangunahan niyo kasi ang gobyerno. How about those soldiers who were attacked and killed by NPA? How about the youth that are being recruited by terrorist groups?

No to anti terrorism bill

Yes to Anti-Terrorism Bill

Okay naman pala. Wag kasi tamang hinala

Juno- Neuterte

Mga terrorists yang mga nag sasabing No to anti terrorism law

Thanks, but its a no for me. The ATC can just be appointed by the president; too much power– plus the people that will enforce this pa. This bill should be revised. It can be abused.

Sir, gamhanan kaayo ang ATC noh!

read and understand! kailangan natin yan para lalo tumatag ang bansa!

Waiting for the IRR. Yes to Anti Terrorism Bill

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

AttyAtWork * VisitPinas * ChatTimeWithJulia RSS Entries and RSS Comments

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

Israel has encroached on 32% of gaza, al jazeera investigation shows israel has encroached on 32% of gaza, al ..., palestinian citizen of israel detained for posts about gaza palestinian citizen of israel detained ..., is israel acting like the icc is ‘only for africa and thugs like putin’ is israel acting like the icc is ‘only ..., ‘we will win’ south africa election: anc confident despite ‘missteps’ ‘we will win’ south africa election: anc ....

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

The Philippines' Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020: Five things to know

Legislation already on Duterte's desk would give the president dramatic powers

MANILA -- Days after being marked "urgent" by President Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines' House of Representatives last week approved the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, adopting the Senate's version, which was passed in February.

The bill has triggered online and street protests even as community quarantine restrictions are in place due to the coronavirus outbreak. A multisectoral backlash has also ensued, but supporters of the bill are pressing on.

Duterte signs controversial Philippine anti-terror bill into law

Duterte's anti-terror push amid economic woes draws backlash, philippines' court finds journalist maria ressa guilty of libel, philippines hit by surge in fake facebook accounts, george floyd protests inspire campaigns against racism across asia, philippines set to fix airstrip on south china sea island, duterte's threats against business are driving investment away, duterte government's shutdown of abs-cbn threatens philippine freedom, authoritarians are using coronavirus for power grabs in southeast asia, asia's fragile democracies struggle to tame illiberal forces, chinese eye bigger slice of manila as real estate prices tank, philippines notifies us it will keep military deal as tensions rise, philippines eyes tax on netflix to boost revenue amid pandemic, latest on politics, u.s. state laws take aim at pension investment in china, thaksin dumps voice tv in nod to thailand's new media landscape, thaksin shinawatra, former thai pm, charged with lese-majeste, 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

Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Primer: 20 questions on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

Has the Philippines created a garbage problem too big to dig its way out of?

President Rodrigo Duterte signed on July 3, 2020 Republic Act No. 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA). It repealed the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007 and expanded the powers of the executive department and law enforcement officers in addressing the country’s growing security challenges. 

ATA was widely denounced in different parts of the country, however. Thirty-seven petitions have been filed with the Supreme to declare several provisions unconstitutional. 

The petitioners raised concerns about the definition of the crime of terrorism, which they said was vague and dangerous. The law also extended the number of days a suspect may be detained without warrant and the number of days that law enforcement agents may conduct surveillance and wiretapping. 

The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) put together a primer on the ATA to summarize the pertinent provisions of the law.

The Supreme Court was originally scheduled to hold oral arguments on the constitutionality of ATA on Jan. 19. It was reset to Feb. 2 after the staff of Solicitor General Jose Calida tested positive for the novel coronavirus disease. 

You may download the primer on this link .

Text: Free Legal Assistance Group

Illustrations: Alexandra Paredes

Photographs: Jilson Tiu, Bernard Testa, Milo Paz, Kimberly dela Cruz and Karol Ilagan

Anti-Terror Act remains dangerous and fundamentally flawed

Media quote.

Responding to the judgement by the Supreme Court of the Philippines declaring two portions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 as unconstitutional, Butch Olano, Amnesty International Philippines Section Director said:

“The decision by the Supreme Court highlights key dangers of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 – its overbroad definition of terrorism and the overreaching powers it grants the Anti-Terrorism Council. However, only two portions of the law were declared unconstitutional, and it remains deeply flawed and open to abuse by government authorities.

“Even with the Supreme Court’s decision, the law still allows the police and military to detain suspects without a warrant or charge for up to 24 days, which violates international law and standards. It grants overbroad powers to security forces to conduct surveillance, and to the Anti-Terrorism Council to designate groups and individuals as ‘terrorists’ without due process and without clear procedures to remove such designation. Other dangerous provisions also remain.

We reiterate our call for the government to amend the  Anti-Terrorism Act to ensure it is consistent with international human rights law and standards. Until this happens, the law will continue to pose a threat to human rights defenders, activists as well as members of marginalised groups and others wrongly accused of terrorism by granting the government excessive and unchecked powers and being susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

“We reiterate our call for the government to amend the  Anti-Terrorism Act to ensure it is consistent with international human rights law and standards. Until this happens, the law will continue to pose a threat to human rights defenders, activists as well as members of marginalised groups and others wrongly accused of terrorism by granting the government excessive and unchecked powers and being susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”

On 9 December, the Supreme Court of the Philippines announced that Justices voted to strike down two portions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

The qualifier under Section 4(e) – that terrorism as defined by the law does not include advocacy, protest, dissent and similar actions “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” – is declared unconstitutional “for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression”, according to the Supreme Court. With this decision, this part now reads: “Provided, that terrorism as defined in this section shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights.”

The Supreme Court also declared unconstitutional the power of the Anti-Terrorism Council to designate a person or a group as terrorists based on a request by another country and upon determination that it meets the criteria of relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

On 3 July 2020, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020”, which replaced the Human Security Act of 2007. Amnesty International had called on the Philippine government to  reject  the law on the basis that it contained dangerous provisions and risked further undermining human rights in the country.

ANTI – TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

• Daily Pinoy News
• Submit an Article

The Pinoy Site

Philippine Infos and More

• Buhay Student
• Forwarded Messages
• Motivational
• Pantasya Balita
• Pilipinas Info
• Problemang Pinas
• Visiting the PH

Republic Act No. 11479: The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 [Full Text]

Ang Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 ay inaprubahan bilang isang ganap na batas nuong July 3, 2020 sa layuning supilin ang terorismo sa Pilipinas.

Ang mga Panukalang Batas na pinagmulan nito ay ang House Bill No. 6875 at Senate Bill No. 1083.

Ilang mga petisyon laban sa Batas na ito ang mga isinampa na sa Korte Suprema ng iba’t-ibang grupo.

Narito ang kumpletong nilalaman ng Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

References:

• Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (Wikipedia)
• Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (Official Gazette)
• Philippines: Anti-terror act faces top court challenges

************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************

S. No. 1083 H. No. 6875

Republic of the Philippines Congress of the Philippines Metro Manila Eighteenth Congress First Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-second day of July, two thousand nineteen.

[Republic Act No. 11479]

AN ACT TO PREVENT, PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE TERRORISM, THEREBY REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007”

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall henceforth be known as “The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020”.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is declared a policy of the State to protect life, liberty, and property from terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against The Law of Nations.

In the implementation of the policy stated above, the State shall uphold the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in the Constitution.

The State recognizes that the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach, comprising political, economic, diplomatic, military, and legal means duly taking into account the root causes of terrorism without acknowledging these as justifications for terrorist and/or criminal activities. Such measures shall include conflict management and post-conflict peace building, addressing the roots of conflict by building state capacity and promoting equitable economic development.

Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as a curtailment, restriction or diminution of constitutionally recognized powers of the executive branch of the government. It is to be understood, however, that the exercise of the constitutionally recognized powers of the executive department of the government shall not prejudice respect for human rights which shall be absolute and protected at all times.

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. – as used in this Act:

(a) Critical Infrastructure shall refer to an asset or system, whether physical or virtual, so essential to the maintenance of vital societal functions or to the delivery of essential public services that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on national defense and security, national economy, public health or safety, the administration of justice, and other functions analogous thereto. It may include, but is not limited to, an asset or system affecting telecommunications, water and energy supply, emergency services, food security, fuel supply, banking and finance, transportation, radio and television. information systems and technology, chemical and nuclear sectors;

(b) Designated Person shall refer to:

Any individual, group of persons, organizations, or associations designated and/or identified by the United Nations Security Council, or another jurisdiction, or supranational jurisdiction as a terrorist, one who finances terrorism, or a terrorist organization or group; or

Any person, organization, association, or group of persons designated under paragraph 3 of Section 25 of this Act.

For purposes of this Act, the above definition shall be in addition to the definition of designated persons under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 10168, otherwise known as the “Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012”.

(c) Extraordinary Rendition shall refer to the transfer of a person, suspected of being a terrorist or supporter of a terrorist organization, association, or group of persons to a foreign nation for imprisonment and interrogation on behalf of the transferring nation. The extraordinary rendition may be done without framing any formal charges, trial, or approval of the court.

(d) International Organization shall refer to an organization established by a treaty or other instrument governed by international law and possessing its own international legal personality;

(e) Material Support shall refer to any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities. weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (one or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation;

(f) Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction shall refer to the transfer and export of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons, their means of delivery and related materials;

(g) Proposal to Commit Terrorism is committed when a person who has decided to commit any of the crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of this Act proposes its execution to some other person or persons;

(h) Recruit shall refer to any act to encourage other people to join a terrorist individual or organization, association or group of persons proscribed under Section 26 of this Act, or designated by the United Nations Security Council as a terrorist organization, or organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism;

(i) Surveillance Activities shall refer to the act of tracking down, following, or investigating individuals or organizations; or the tapping, listening, intercepting, and recording of messages. conversations, discussions, spoken or written words, including computer and network surveillance, and other communications of individuals engaged in terrorism as defined hereunder;

(j) Supranational Jurisdiction shall refer to an international organization or union in which the power and influence of member states transcend national boundaries or interests to share in decision-making and vote on issues concerning the collective body, i.e. the European Union;

(k) Training shall refer to the giving of instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill in relation to terrorism as defined hereunder, as opposed to general knowledge;

(l) Terrorist Individual shall refer to any natural person who commits any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11 and 12 of this Act;

(m) Terrorist Organization, Association or Group of Persons shall refer to any entity organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or those proscribed under Section 26 hereof or the United Nations Security Council-designated terrorist organization; and

(n) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) shall refer to chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons which are capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties. It excludes the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon.

SEC. 4. Terrorism. – Subject to Section 49 of this Act, terrorism is committed by any person who, within or outside the Philippines, regardless of the stage of execution:

(a) Engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life;

(b) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place or private property;

(c) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure;

(d) Develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons, explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons; and

(e) Release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods or explosions when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate the general public or a segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear, to provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, or seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety, shall be guilty of committing terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592, otherwise known as “An Act Amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code”: Provided, That, terrorism as defined in this section shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, 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.

SEC. 5. Threat to Commit Terrorism. – Any person who shall threaten to commit any of the acts mentioned in Section 4 hereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years.

SEC. 6. Planning, Training, Preparing, and Facilitating the Commission of Terrorism. – It shall be unlawful for any person to participate in the planning, training, preparation and facilitation in the commission of terrorism, possessing objects connected with the preparation for the commission of terrorism, or collecting or making documents connected with the preparation of terrorism. Any person found guilty of the provisions of this Act shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592.

SEC. 7. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. – Any conspiracy to commit terrorism as defined and penalized under Section 4 of this Act shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592.

There is conspiracy when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of terrorism as defined in Section 4 hereof and decide to commit the same.

SEC. 8. Proposal to Commit Terrorism. – Any person who proposes to commit terrorism as defined in Section 4 hereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years.

SEC. 9. Inciting to Commit Terrorism. – Any person who, without taking any direct part in the commission of terrorism, shall incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in Section 4 hereof by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years.

SEC. 10. Recruitment to and Membership in a Terrorist Organization. – Any person who shall recruit another to participate in, join, commit or support terrorism or a terrorist individual or any terrorist organization, association or group of persons proscribed under Section 26 of this Act, or designated by the United Nations Security Council as a terrorist organization, or organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592.

The same penalty shall be imposed on any person who organizes or facilitates the travel of individuals to a state other than their state of residence or nationality for the purpose of recruitment which may be committed through any of the following means:

(a) Recruiting another person to serve in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign state, whether the armed force forms part of the armed forces of the government of that foreign state or otherwise;

(b) Publishing an advertisement or propaganda for the purpose of recruiting persons to serve in any capacity in or with such an armed force;

(c) Publishing an advertisement or propaganda containing any information relating to the place at which or the manner in which persons may make applications to serve or obtain information relating to service in any capacity in or with such armed force or relating to the manner in which persons may travel to a foreign state for the purpose of serving in any capacity m or with such armed force; or

(d) Performing any other act with the intention of facilitating or promoting the recruitment of persons to serve in any capacity in or with such armed force.

Any person who shall voluntarily and knowingly join any organization, association or group of persons knowing that such organization, association or group of persons is proscribed under Section 26 of this Act, or designated by the United Nations Security Council as a terrorist organization, or organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years.

SEC. 11. Foreign Terrorist. – The following acts are unlawful and shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592:

(a) For any person to travel or attempt to travel to a state other than his/her state of residence or nationality, for the pw-pose of perpetrating, planning, or preparing for, or participating in terrorism, or providing or receiving terrorist training;

(b) For any person to organize or facilitate the travel of individuals who travel to a state other than their states of residence or nationality knowing that such travel is for the purpose of perpetrating, planning, training, or preparing for, or participating in terrorism or providing or receiving terrorist training; or

(c) For any person residing abroad who comes to the Philippines to participate in perpetrating, planning, training, or preparing for, or participating in terrorism or provide support for or facilitate or receive terrorist training here or abroad.

SEC. 12. Providing Material Support to Terrorists. – Any person who provides material support to any terrorist individual or terrorist organization, association or group of persons committing any of the acts punishable under Section 4 hereof, knowing that such individual or organization, association, or group of persons is committing or planning to commit such acts, shall be liable as principal to any and all terrorist activities committed by said individuals or organizations, in addition to other criminal liabilities he/she or they may have incurred in relation thereto.

SEC. 13. Humanitarian Exemption. – Humanitarian activities undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Philippine Red Cross (PRC), and other state-recognized impartial humanitarian partners or organizations in conformity with the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), do not fall within the scope of Section 12 of this Act.

SEC. 14. Accessory. – Any person who, having knowledge of the commission of any of the crimes defined and penalized under Section 4 of this Act, without having participated therein, takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner: (a) by profiting himself/herself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (b) by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects, or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; or (c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal or conspirator of the crime, shall be liable as an accessory and shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years.

No person, regardless of relationship or affinity, shall be exempt from liability under this section.

SEC. 15. Penalty for Public Official. – If the offender found guilty of any of the acts defined and penalized under any of the provisions of this Act is a public official or employee, he/she shall be charged with the administrative offense of grave misconduct and/or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines and the Filipino people, and be meted with the penalty of dismissal from the service, with the accessory penalties of cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual absolute disqualification from running for any elective office or holding any public office.

SEC. 16. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications. – The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200. otherwise known as the “Anti-Wire Tapping Law” to the contrary notwithstanding, a law enforcement agent or military personnel may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals secretly wiretap, overhear and listen to, intercept, screen, read, surveil, record or collect, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic, mechanical or other equipment or device or technology now known or may hereafter be known to science or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for the above purposes, any private communications, conversation, discussion/s, data, information, messages in whatever form, kind or nature, spoken or written words (a) between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, as provided in Section 26 of this Act; (b) between members of a designated person as defined in Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 10168; or (c) any person charged with or suspected of committing any of the crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of this Act: Provided, That, surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized.

The law enforcement agent or military personnel shall likewise be obligated to (1) file an ex-parte application with the Court of Appeals for the issuance of an order, to compel telecommunications service providers (TSP) and internet service providers (ISP) to produce all customer information and identification records as well as call and text data records, content and other cellular or internet metadata of any person suspected of any of the crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of this Act; and (2) furnish the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) a copy of said application. The NTC shall likewise be notified upon the issuance of the order for the purpose of ensuring immediate compliance.

SEC. 17. Judicial Authorization, Requisites. – The authorizing division of the Court of Appeals shall issue a written order to conduct the acts mentioned in Section 16 of this Act upon:

(a) Filing of an ex parte written application by law enforcement agent or military personnel, who has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC); and

(b) After examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, the issuing court determines:

(1) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the crimes defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed; and

(2) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that evidence, which is essential to the conviction of any charged or suspected person for, or to the solution or prevention of, any such crimes, will be obtained.

SEC. 18. Classification and Contents of the Order of the Court. – The written order granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals as well as the application for such order, shall be deemed and are hereby declared as classified information. Being classified information, access to the said documents and any information contained in the said documents shall be limited to the applicants, duly authorized personnel of the ATC, the hearing justices, the clerk of court and duly authorized personnel of the hearing or issuing court. The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals shall specify the following: (a) the identity, such as name and address, if known, of the person or persons whose communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words are to be tracked down, tapped, listened to, intercepted, and recorded; and, in the case of radio, electronic, or telephonic (whether wireless or otherwise) communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words, the electronic transmission systems or the telephone numbers to be tracked down, tapped, listened to, intercepted, and recorded and their locations or if the person or persons suspected of committing any of the crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of this Act are not fully known, such person or persons shall be the subject of continuous surveillance; (b) the identity of the law enforcement agent or military personnel, including the individual identity of the members of his team, judicially authorized to undertake surveillance activities; (c) the offense or offenses committed, or being committed, or sought to be prevented; and, (d) the length of time within which the authorization shall be used or carried out.

SEC. 19. Effective Period of Judicial Authorization. – Any authorization granted by the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Section 17 of this Act, shall only be effective for the length of time specified in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals which shall not exceed a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written order by the applicant law enforcement agent or military personnel.

The authorizing division of the Court of Appeals may extend or renew the said authorization to a non-extendible period, which shall not exceed thirty (30) days from the expiration of the original period: Provided, That the issuing court is satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the public interest: and Provided, further, That the ex parte application for extension or renewal, which must be filed by the original applicant, has been duly authorized in writing by the ATC.

In case of death of the original applicant or in case he/she is physically disabled to file the application for extension or renewal, the one next in rank to the original applicant among the members of the team named in the original written order shall file the application for extension or renewal: Provided, finally, That, the applicant law enforcement agent or military personnel shall have thirty (30) days after the termination of the period granted by the Court of Appeals as provided in the preceding paragraphs within which to file the appropriate case before the Public Prosecutor’s Office for any violation of this Act.

For purposes of this provision, the issuing court shall require the applicant law enforcement or military official to inform the court, after the lapse of the thirty (30)-day period of the fact that an appropriate case for violation of this Act has been filed with the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

SEC. 20. Custody of Intercepted and Recorded Communications. – All tapes, discs, other storage devices, recordings, notes, memoranda, summaries, excerpts and all copies thereof obtained under the judicial authorization granted by the Court of Appeals shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the period fixed in the written order or the extension or renewal granted thereafter, be deposited with the issuing court in a sealed envelope or sealed package, as the case may be, and shall be accompanied by a joint affidavit of the applicant law enforcement agent or military personnel and the members of his/her team.

In case of death of the applicant or in case he/she is physically disabled to execute the required affidavit, the one next in rank to the applicant among the members of the team named in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals shall execute with the members of the team that required affidavit.

It shall be unlawful for any person, law enforcement agent or military personnel or any custodian of the tapes, discs, other storage devices recordings, notes, memoranda, summaries, excerpts and all copies thereof to remove, delete, expunge, incinerate, shred or destroy in any manner the items enumerated above in whole or in part under any pretext whatsoever.

Any person who removes, deletes, expunges, incinerates, shreds or destroys the items enumerated above shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years.

SEC. 21. Contents of Joint Affidavit. – The joint affidavit of the law enforcement agent or military personnel shall state: (a) the number of tapes, discs, and recordings that have been made; (b) the dates and times covered by each of such tapes, discs, and recordings; and (c) the chain of custody or the list of persons who had possession or custody over the tapes, discs and recordings.

The joint affidavit shall also certify under oath that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part of any of such tapes, discs, other storage devices, recordings, notes, memoranda, summaries, or excerpts have been made, or, if made, that all such duplicates and copies are included in the sealed envelope or sealed package, as the case may be, deposited with the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals.

It shall be unlawful for any person, law enforcement agent or military personnel to omit or exclude from the joint affidavit any item or portion thereof mentioned in this section.

Any person, law enforcement agent or military officer who violates any of the acts proscribed in the preceding paragraph shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years.

SEC. 22. Disposition of Deposited Materials. – The sealed envelope or sealed package and the contents thereof, referred to in Section 20 of this Act, shall be deemed and are hereby declared classified information. The sealed envelope or sealed package shall not be opened, disclosed, or used as evidence unless authorized by a written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals which written order shall be granted only upon a written application of the Department of Justice (DOJ) duly authorized in writing by the ATC to file the application with proper written notice to the person whose conversation, communication, message, discussion or spoken or written words have been the subject of surveillance, monitoring, recording and interception to open, reveal, divulge, and use the contents of the sealed envelope or sealed package as evidence.

The written application, with notice to the party concerned, for the opening, replaying, disclosing, or using as evidence of the sealed package or the contents thereof, shall clearly state the purpose or reason for its opening, replaying, disclosing, or its being used as evidence.

Violation of this section shall be penalized by imprisonment of ten (10) years.

SEC. 23. Evidentiary Value of Deposited Materials. – Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words, or any part or parts thereof, or any information or fact contained therein, including their existence, content, substance, purport, effect, or meaning, which have been secured in violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act, shall be inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.

SEC. 24. Unauthorized or Malicious Interceptions and/ or Recordings. – Any law enforcement agent or military personnel who conducts surveillance activities without a valid judicial authorization pursuant to Section 17 of this Act shall be guilty of this offense and shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years. All information that have been maliciously procured should be made available to the aggrieved party.

SEC. 25. Designation of Terrorist Individual, Groups of Persons, Organizations or Associations. – Pursuant to our obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) No. 1373, the ATC shall automatically adopt the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List of designated individuals, group of persons, organizations, or associations designated and/or identified as a terrorist, one who finances terrorism, or a terrorist organization or group.

Request for designations by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR No.1373. ·

The ATC may designate an individual, groups of persons, organization, or association, whether domestic or foreign, upon a finding of probable cause that the individual, groups of persons, organization, or association commit, or attempt to commit, or conspire in the commission of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act.

The assets of the designated individual, groups of persons, organization or association above-mentioned shall be subject to the authority of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to freeze pursuant to Section II of Republic Act No. 10168.

The designation shall be without prejudice to the proscription of terrorist organizations, associations, or groups of persons under Section 26 of this Act.

SEC. 26. Proscription of Terrorist Organizations, Association, or Group of Persons. – Any group of persons, organization or association, which commits any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act, or organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism shall, upon application of the DOJ before the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals with due notice and opportunity to be heard given to the group of persons, organization or association, be declared as a terrorist and outlawed group of persons, organization or association, by the said Court.

The application shall be filed with an urgent prayer for the issuance of a preliminary order of proscription. No application for proscription shall be filed without the authority of the ATC upon the recommendation of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA).

SEC. 27. Preliminary Order of Proscription. – Where the Court has determined that probable cause exists on the basis of the verified application which is sufficient in form and substance, that the issuance of an order of proscription is necessary to prevent the commission of terrorism, he/she shall, within seventy-two (72) hours from the filing of the application, issue a preliminary order of proscription declaring that the respondent is a terrorist and an outlawed organization or association within the meaning of Section 26 of this Act.

The court shall immediately commence and conduct continuous hearings, which should be completed within six (6) months from the time the application has been filed, to determine whether:

(a) The preliminary order of proscription should be made permanent;

(b) A permanent order of proscription should be issued in case no preliminary order was issued; or

(c) A preliminary order of proscription should be lifted. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove that the respondent is a terrorist and an outlawed organization or association within the meaning of Section 26 of this Act before the court issues an order of proscription whether preliminary or permanent.

The permanent order of proscription herein granted shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation. It shall be valid for a period of three (3) years after which, a review of such order shall be made and if circumstances warrant, the same shall be lifted.

SEC. 28. Request to Proscribe from Foreign Jurisdictions and Supranational Jurisdictions. – Consistent with the national interest, all requests for proscription made by another jurisdiction or supranational jurisdiction shall be referred by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to the ATC to determine, with the assistance of the NICA, if proscription under Section 26 of this Act is warranted. If the request for proscription is granted, the ATC shall correspondingly commence proscription proceedings through the DOJ.

SEC. 29. Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. – The provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, any law enforcement agent or military personnel, who, having been duly authorized in writing by the ATC has taken custody of a person suspected of committing any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act, shall, without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said suspected person to the proper judicial authority within a period of fourteen (14) calendar days counted from the moment the said suspected person has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the law enforcement agent or military personnel. The period of detention may be extended to a maximum period of ten (10) calendar days if it is established that (1) further detention of the person/s is necessary to preserve evidence related to terrorism or complete the investigation; (2) further detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the commission of another terrorism; and (3) the investigation is being conducted properly and without delay.

Immediately after taking custody of a person suspected of committing terrorism or any member of a group of persons, organization or association proscribed under Section 26 hereof, the law enforcement agent or military personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest of the following facts: (a) the time, date, and manner of arrest; (b) the location or locations of the detained suspect/s and (c) the physical and mental condition of the detained suspect/s. The law enforcement agent or military personnel shall likewise furnish the ATC and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) of the written notice given to the judge.

The head of the detaining facility shall ensure that the detained suspect is informed of his/her rights as a detainee and shall ensure access to the detainee by his/her counsel or agencies and entities authorized by law to exercise visitorial powers over detention facilities.

The penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years shall be imposed upon the police or law enforcement agent or military personnel who fails to notify any judge as provided in the preceding paragraph.

SEC. 30. Rights of a Person under Custodial Detention. – The moment a person charged with or suspected of committing any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act is apprehended or arrested and detained, he/she shall forthwith be informed, by the arresting law enforcement agent or military personnel to whose custody the person concerned is brought, of his/her right: (a) to be informed of the nature and cause of his/her arrest, to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his/her choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel of his/her choice, the law enforcement agent or military personnel concerned shall immediately contact the free legal assistance unit of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). It shall be the duty of the free legal assistance unit of the IBP or the PAO thus contacted to immediately visit the person/s detained and provide him/her with legal assistance. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of his/her counsel of choice; (b) informed of the cause or causes of his/her detention in the presence of his legal counsel; (c) allowed to communicate freely with his/her legal counsel and to confer with them at any time without restriction; (d) allowed to communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the members of his/her family or with his/her nearest relatives and to be visited by them; and, (e) allowed freely to avail of the service of a physician or physicians of choice.

SEC. 31. Violation of the Rights of a Detainee. – The penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years shall be imposed upon any law enforcement agent or military personnel who has violated the rights of persons under their custody, as provided for in Sections 29 and 30 of this Act.

Unless the law enforcement agent or military personnel who violated the rights of a detainee or detainees as stated above is duly identified, the same penalty shall be imposed on the head of the law enforcement unit or military unit having custody of the detainee at the time the violation was done.

SEC. 32. Official Custodial Logbook and Its Contents. – The law enforcement custodial unit in whose care and control the person suspected of committing any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act has been placed under custodial arrest and detention shall keep a securely and orderly maintained official logbook, which is hereby declared as a public document and opened to and made available for the inspection and scrutiny of the lawyer of the person under custody or any member of his/her family or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree or his/her physician at any time of the day or night subject to reasonable restrictions by the custodial facility. The logbook shall contain a clear and concise record of: (a) the name, description, and address of the detained person; (b) the date and exact time of his/her initial admission for custodial arrest and detention; (c) the name and address of the physician or physicians who examined him/her physically and medically; (d) the state of his/her health and physical condition at the time of his/her initial admission for custodial detention; (e) the date and time of each removal of the detained person from his/her cell for interrogation or for any purpose; (f) the date and time of his/her return to his/her cell; (g) the name and address of the physician or physicians who physically and medically examined him/her after each interrogation; (h) a summary of the physical and medical findings on the detained person after each of such interrogation; (i) the names and addresses of his/her family members and nearest relatives, if any and if available; (j) the names and addresses of persons, who visit the detained person; (k) the date and time of each of such visit; (l) the date and time of each request of the detained person to communicate and confer with his/her legal counsel or counsels; (m) the date and time of each visit, and date and time of each departure of his/her legal counsel or counsels; and (n) all other important events bearing on and all relevant details regarding the treatment of the detained person while under custodial arrest and detention.

The said law enforcement custodial unit shall, upon demand of the aforementioned lawyer or members of the family or relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the person under custody or his/her physician, issue a certified true copy of the entries of the logbook relative to the concerned detained person subject to reasonable restrictions by the custodial facility. This certified true copy may be attested by the person who has custody of the logbook or who allowed the party concerned to scrutinize it at the time the demand for the certified true copy is made.

The law enforcement custodial unit who fails to comply with the preceding paragraphs to keep an official logbook shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years.

SEC. 33. No Torture or Coercion in Investigation and Interrogation. – The use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment, as defined in Sections 4 and 5 of Republic Act No. 9745 otherwise known as the “Anti-Torture Act of 2009,” at any time during the investigation or interrogation of a detained suspected terrorist is absolutely prohibited and shall be penalized under said law. Any evidence obtained from said detained person resulting from such treatment shall be, in its entirety, inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.

SEC. 34. Restriction on the Right to Travel. – Prior to the filing of an information for any violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act, the investigating prosecutor shall apply for the issuance of a precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) against the respondent upon a preliminary determination of probable cause in the proper Regional Trial Court.

Upon the filing of the information regarding the commission of any acts defined and penalized under the provisions of this Act, the prosecutor shall apply with the court having jurisdiction for the issuance of a hold departure order (HDO) against the accused. The said application shall be accompanied by the complaint-affidavit and its attachments, personal details, passport number, and a photograph of the accused, if available.

In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he/she resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety, consistent with Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution. The court shall immediately furnish the DOJ and the Bureau of Immigration (BI) with the copy of said order. Travel outside of said municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of his/her bail, which shall be forfeited as provided under the Rules of Court.

He/she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his/her usual place of residence.

While under house arrest, he/she may not use telephones, cellphones, e-mails, computers, the internet, or other means of communications with people outside the residence until otherwise ordered by the court.

If the evidence of guilt is strong, the court shall immediately issue an HDO and direct the DFA to initiate the procedure for the cancellation of the passport of the accused.

The restrictions above-mentioned shall be terminated upon the acquittal of the accused or of the dismissal of the case filed against him/her or earlier upon the discretion of the court on motion of the prosecutor or of the accused.

SEC. 35. Anti-Money Laundering Council Authority to Investigate, inquire into and Examine Bank Deposits. – Upon the issuance by the court of a preliminary order of proscription or in case of designation under Section 25 of this Act, the AMLC, either upon its own initiative or at the request of the ATC, is hereby authorized to investigate: (a) any property or funds that are in any way related to financing of terrorism as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 10168, or violation of Sections 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 or 12 of this Act; and (b) property or funds of any person or persons in relation to whom there is probable cause to believe that such person or persons are committing or attempting or conspiring to commit, or participating in or facilitating the financing of the aforementioned sections of this Act.

The AMLC may also enlist the assistance of any branch, department, bureau, office, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and -controlled corporations in undertaking measures to counter the financing of terrorism, which may include the use of its personnel, facilities and resources.

For purposes of this section and notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as the “Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits”. as amended; Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the “Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines”, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791, otherwise known as “The General Banking Law of 2000” and other laws, the AMLC is hereby authorized to inquire into or examine deposits and investments with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution and their subsidiaries and affiliates without a court order.

SEC. 36. Authority to Freeze. – Upon the issuance by the court of a preliminary order of proscription or in case of designation under Section 25 of this Act, the AMLC, either upon its own initiative or request of the ATC, is hereby authorized to issue an ex parte order to freeze without delay: (a) any property or funds that are in any way related to financing of terrorism as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 10168, or any violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 of this Act; and (b) property or funds of any person or persons in relation to whom there is probable cause to believe that such person or persons are committing or attempting or conspiring to commit, or participating in or facilitating the financing of the aforementioned sections of this Act.

The freeze order shall be effective for a period not exceeding twenty (20) days. Upon a petition filed by the AMLC before the expiration of the period, the effectivity of the freeze order may be extended up to a period not exceeding six (6) months upon order of the Court of Appeals: Provided, That, the twenty-day period shall be tolled upon filing of a petition to extend the effectivity of the freeze order.

Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs, the AMLC, consistent with the Philippines’ international obligations, shall be authorized to issue a freeze order with respect to property or funds of a designated organization, association, group or any individual to comply with binding terrorism-related resolutions, including UNSCR No. 1373 pursuant to Article 41 of the charter of the UN. Said freeze order shall be effective until the basis for the issuance thereof shall have been lifted. During the effectivity of the freeze order, an aggrieved party may, within twenty (20) days from issuance, file with the Court of Appeals a petition to determine the basis of the freeze order according to the principle of effective judicial protection: Provided, That the person whose property or funds have been frozen may withdraw such sums as the AMLC determines to be reasonably needed for monthly family needs and sustenance including the services of counsel and the family medical needs of such person.

However, if the property or funds subject of the freeze order under the immediately preceding paragraph are found to be in any way related to financing of terrorism as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 10168, or any violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 of this Act committed within the jurisdiction of the Philippines, said property or funds shall be the subject of civil forfeiture proceedings as provided under Republic Act No. 10168.

SEC. 37. Malicious Examination of a Bank or a Financial Institution. – Any person who maliciously, or without authorization, examines deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, or records in a bank or financial institution in relation to Section 36 hereof, shall suffer the penalty of four (4) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 38. Safe Harbor. – No administrative, criminal or civil proceedings shall lie against any person acting in good faith when implementing the targeted financial sanctions as provided under pertinent United Nations Security Resolutions.

SEC. 39. Bank Officials and Employees Defying a Court Authorization. – An employee, official, or a member of the board of directors of a bank, or financial institution, who after being duly served with the written order of authorization from the Court of Appeals, refuses to allow the examination of the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records of a terrorist or an outlawed group of persons, organization or association, in accordance with Sections 25 and 26 hereof, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years.

SEC. 40. Immunity and Protection of Government Witnesses. – The immunity and protection of government witnesses shall be governed by the provisions of Republic Act No. 6981, otherwise known as “The Witness Protection, Security and Benefits Act”.

SEC. 41. Penalty for Unauthorized Revelation of Classified Materials. – The penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years shall be imposed upon any person, law enforcement agent or military personnel, judicial officer or civil servant who, not being authorized by the Court of Appeals to do so, reveals in any manner or form any classified information under this Act. The penalty imposed herein is without prejudice and in addition to any corresponding administrative liability the offender may have incurred for such acts.

SEC. 42. Infidelity in the Custody of Detained Persons. – Any public officer who has direct custody of a detained person under the provisions of this Act and, who, by his deliberate act, misconduct or inexcusable negligence, causes or allows the escape of such detained person shall be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 43. Penalty for Furnishing False Evidence, Forged Document, or Spurious Evidence. – The penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly furnishes false testimony, forged document or spurious evidence in any investigation or hearing conducted in relation to any violations under this Act.

SEC. 44. Continuous Trial. – In cases involving crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of this Act, the judge concerned shall set the case for continuous trial on a daily basis from Monday to Thursday or other short-term trial calendar to ensure compliance with the accused’s right to speedy trial.

SEC. 45. Anti-Terrorism Council. – An Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) is hereby created. The members of the ATC are: (1) the Executive Secretary, who shall be its Chairperson; (2) the National Security Adviser who shall be its Vice Chairperson; and (3) the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; (4) the Secretary of National Defense; (5) the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government; (6) the Secretary of Finance; (7) the Secretary of Justice; (8) the Secretary of Information and Communications Technology; and (9) the Executive Director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Secretariat as its other members.

The ATC shall implement this Act and assume the responsibility for the proper and effective implementation of the policies of the country against terrorism. The ATC shall keep records of its proceedings and decisions. All records of the ATC shall be subject to such security classifications as the ATC may, in its judgment and discretion, decide to adopt to safeguard the safety of the people, the security of the Republic, and the welfare of the nation.

The NICA shall be the Secretariat of the ATC. The ATC shall define the powers, duties, and functions of the NICA as Secretariat of the ATC. The Anti-Terrorism Council-Program Management Center (ATC-PMC) is hereby institutionalized as the main coordinating and program management arm of the ATC. The ATC shall define the powers, duties, and functions of the ATC-PMC. The Department of Science and Technology (DOST), the Department of Transportation (DOTr), the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Department of Education (DepEd), the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the Presidential Adviser for Peace, Reunification and Unity (PAPRU, formerly PAPP), the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the BI, the Office of Civil Defense (OCD), the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP), the Philippine Center on Transnational Crimes (PCTC), the Philippine National Police (PNP) intelligence and investigative elements, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) shall serve as support agencies of the ATC.

The ATC shall formulate and adopt comprehensive, adequate, efficient, and effective plans, programs, or measures to prevent, counter, suppress, or eradicate the commission of terrorism in the country and to protect the people from such acts. In pursuit of said mandate, the ATC shall create such focus programs to prevent and counter terrorism as necessary, to ensure the counterterrorism operational awareness of concerned agencies, to conduct legal action and to pursue legal and legislative initiatives to counter terrorism, prevent and stem terrorist financing, and to ensure compliance with international commitments to counterterrorism-related protocols and bilateral and/or multilateral agreements, and identify the lead agency for each program, such as:

(a) Preventing and countering violent extremism program – The program shall address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism which include, among others: ethnic, national, and religious discrimination; socio-economic disgruntlement; political exclusion; dehumanization of victims of terrorism; lack of good governance; and prolonged unresolved conflicts by winning the hearts and minds of the people to prevent them from engaging in violent extremism. It shall identify, integrate, and synchronize all government and non¬-government initiatives and resources to prevent radicalization and violent extremism, thus reinforce and expand an after¬-care program;

(b) Preventing and combating terrorism program – The program shall focus on denying terrorist groups access to the means to carry out attacks to their targets and formulate response to its desired impact through decisive engagements. The program shall focus on operational activities to disrupt and combat terrorism activities and attacks such as curtailing, recruitment, propaganda, finance and logistics, the protection of potential targets, the exchange of intelligence with foreign countries, and the arrest of suspected terrorists;

(c) International affairs and capacity building program – The program shall endeavor to build the State’s capacity to prevent and combat terrorism by strengthening the collaborative mechanisms between and among ATC members and support agencies and facilitate cooperation among relevant stakeholders, both local and international, in the battle against terrorism; and

(d) Legal affairs program – The program shall ensure respect for human rights and adherence to the rule of law as the fundamental bases of the fight against terrorism. It shall guarantee compliance with the same as well as with international commitments to counter-terrorism-related protocols and bilateral and/or multilateral agreements.

Nothing herein shall be interpreted to empower the ATC to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial power or authority.

SEC. 46. Functions of the Council. – In pursuit of its mandate in the previous Section, the ATC shall have the following functions with due regard for the rights of the people as mandated by the Constitution and pertinent laws:

(a) Formulate and adopt plans, programs, and preventive and counter-measures against terrorists and terrorism in the country;

(b) Coordinate all national efforts to suppress and eradicate terrorism in the country and mobilize the entire nation against terrorism prescribed in this Act;

(c) Direct the speedy investigation and prosecution of all persons detained or accused for any crime defined and penalized under this Act;

(d) Monitor the progress of the investigation and prosecution of all persons accused and/or detained for any crime defined and penalized under the provisions of this Act;

(e) Establish and maintain comprehensive database information systems on terrorism, terrorist activities, and counter-terrorism operations;

(f) Enlist the assistance of and file the appropriate action with the AMLC to freeze and forfeit the funds, bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and property of whatever kind and nature belonging (i) to a person suspected of or charged with alleged violation of any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act, (ii) between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or association as provided in Section 26 of this Act; (iii) to designated persons defined under Section 3(e) of R. A. No. 10168; (iv) to an individual member of such designated persons; or (v) any individual, organization, association or group of persons proscribed under Section 26 hereof;

(g) Grant monetary rewards and other incentives to informers who give vital information leading to the apprehension, arrest, detention, prosecution, and conviction of person or persons found guilty for violation of any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act: Provided, That, no monetary reward shall be granted to informants unless the accused’s demurrer to evidence has been denied or the prosecution has rested its case without such demurrer having been filed;

(h) Establish and maintain coordination with and the cooperation and assistance of other states, jurisdictions, international entities and organizations in preventing and combating international terrorism;

(i) Take action on relevant resolutions issued by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter; and consistent with the national interest, take action on foreign requests to designate terrorist individuals, associations, organizations or group of persons;

G) Take measures to prevent the acquisition and proliferation by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction;

(k) Lead in the formulation and implementation of a national strategic plan to prevent and combat terrorism;

(l) Request the Supreme Court to designate specific divisions of the Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Courts to handle all cases involving the crimes defined and penalized under this Act;

(m) Require other government agencies, offices and entities and officers and employees and non-government organizations, private entities and individuals to render assistance to the ATC in the performance of its mandate; and

(n) Investigate motu propio or upon complaint any report of abuse, malicious application or improper implementation by any person of the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 47. Commission on Human Rights (CHR). – The CHR shall give the highest priority to the investigation and prosecution of violations of civil and political rights of persons in relation to the implementation of this Act.

SEC. 48. Ban on Extraordinary Rendition. – No person suspected or convicted of any of the crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 of this Act shall be subjected to extraordinary rendition to any country.

SEC. 49. Extraterritorial Application. – Subject to the provision of any treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application, the provisions of this Act shall apply:

(a) To a Filipino citizen or national who commits any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines;

(b) To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the crimes mentioned in Paragraph (a) hereof inside the territorial limits of the Philippines;

(c) To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the said crimes mentioned in Paragraph (a) hereof on-board Philippine ship or Philippine airship;

(d) To individual persons who commit any of said crimes mentioned in Paragraph (a) hereof within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity:

(e) To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes mentioned in Paragraph (a) hereof against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; and

(f) To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine government.

In case of an individual who is neither a citizen or a national of the Philippines who commits any of the crimes mentioned in Paragraph (a) hereof outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, the Philippines shall exercise jurisdiction only when such individual enters or is inside the territory of the Philippines: Provided, That, in the absence of any request for extradition from the state where the crime was committed or the state where the individual is a citizen or national, or the denial thereof, the ATC shall refer the case to the BI for deportation or to the DOJ for prosecution in the same manner as if the act constituting the offense had been committed in the Philippines.

SEC. 50. Joint Oversight Committee. – Upon the effectivity of this Act, a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee is hereby constituted. The Committee shall be composed of twelve (12) members with the chairperson of the Committee on Public Order of the Senate and the House of Representatives as members and five (5) additional members from each House to be designated by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, respectively. The minority shall be entitled to a pro-rata representation but shall have at least two (2) representatives in the Committee.

In the exercise of its oversight functions, the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee shall have the authority to summon law enforcement or military officers and the members of the ATC to appear before it, and require them to answer questions and submit written reports of the acts they have done in the implementation of this Act and render an annual report to both Houses of Congress as to its status and implementation.

SEC. 51. Protection of Most Vulnerable Groups. – There shall be due regard for the welfare of any suspects who are elderly, pregnant, persons with disability, women and children while they are under investigation, interrogation or detention.

SEC. 52. Management of Persons Charged Under this Act. – The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) and the Bureau of Corrections (BuCoR) shall establish a system of assessment and classification for persons charged for committing terrorism and preparatory acts punishable under this Act. Said system shall cover the proper management, handling, and interventions for said persons detained.

Persons charged under this Act shall be detained in existing facilities of the BJMP and the BuCoR.

SEC. 53. Trial of Persons Charged Under this Act. – Any person charged for violations of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 of this Act shall be tried in special courts created for this purpose. In this regard, the Supreme Court shall designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts as anti¬-terror courts whose jurisdiction is exclusively limited to try violations of the above-mentioned provisions of this Act.

Persons charged under the provisions of this Act and witnesses shall be allowed to remotely appear and provide testimonies through the use of video-conferencing and such other technology now known or may hereafter be known to science as approved by the Supreme Court.

SEC. 54. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The ATC and the DOJ, with the active participation of police and military institutions, shall promulgate the rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act within ninety (90) days after its effectivity. They shall ensure the full dissemination of such rules and regulations to both Houses of Congress, and all officers and members of various law enforcement agencies.

SEC. 55. Separability Clause. – If for any reason any part or provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other parts or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall remain and continue to be in full force and effect.

SEC. 56. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of 2007”, is hereby repealed. All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules or regulations or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.

SEC. 57. Saving Clause. – All judicial decisions and orders issued, as well as pending actions relative to the implementation of Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of 2007”, prior to its repeal shall remain valid and effective.

SEC. 58. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO Speaker of the House of Representatives

VICENTE C. SOTTO III President of the Senate

This Act was passed by the Senate of the Philippines as Senate Bill No. 1083 on February 26, 2020, and adopted by the House of Representatives as an amendment to House Bill No. 6875 on June 5, 2020, respectively.

JOSE LUIS G. MONTALES Secretary General House of Representatives

MYRA MARIE D. VILLARICA Secretary of the Senate

Approved: July 03, 2020

RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE President of the Philippines

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from the pinoy site.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

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

Julie McCarthy

A protester wearing a face mask demonstrates against the Philippines' new anti-terrorism law on July 4, in Quezon city, Metro Manila. Earlier this month, President Rodrigo Duterte approved a law that critics say could lead to more human rights abuses. Ezra Acayan/Getty Images hide caption

A protester wearing a face mask demonstrates against the Philippines' new anti-terrorism law on July 4, in Quezon city, Metro Manila. Earlier this month, President Rodrigo Duterte approved a law that critics say could lead to more human rights abuses.

Updated at 5:12 p.m. ET

Petitions have piled up at the Philippines' Supreme Court to overturn a new anti-terrorism law championed by President Rodrigo Duterte, which could jail suspects without charge for weeks.

The government says it needs the legislation to combat insurgencies and that it safeguards freedoms. The Philippine Foreign Affairs Department even sent a letter to U.S. Congress members to allay concerns over the law, saying , "The Philippines remains committed to the protection of civil and political liberties as well as human rights."

But human rights groups warn that the hard-line Duterte administration could use the legislation to prosecute political opponents. The Philippine Catholic Church went so far as to compare the legislation to China's new national security law imposed on Hong Kong .

The law took effect Saturday at a time when the authorities are battling the coronavirus and arresting those caught breaching the lockdown. It follows widespread condemnation of the Duterte administration for harsh tactics against drug suspects and against government critics, as well as for undercutting civil liberties such as a free press, according to human rights advocates.

Here are some key takeaways from the debate around the Philippines' Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

The law greatly expands the definition of terrorism

It includes such broad offenses as "engaging in acts intended to endanger a person's life," intended to "damage public property" or "interfere with critical infrastructure," where the purpose is to intimidate the government.

The National Union of People's Lawyers has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the law on the grounds it is overly broad and essentially criminalizes intent.

One new offense, inciting to commit terrorism, is particularly problematic, the rights advocates say. The text says inciting others through "speeches, writings, proclamations, emblems, banners, and other representations tending to the same end" could carry a punishment of 12 years in prison.

"It chills freedom of expression. It chills free speech. It chills freedom of the press. It chills freedom of association," says Neri Colmenares, a leading human rights lawyer who is petitioning the Supreme Court.

The law does state, however, that it is not intended to punish advocacy, protest, dissent, industrial action and strikes, so long as they don't create "a serious risk to public safety."

"But who defines what is and what isn't a serious risk?" asks Aaron Sobel with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Defending the provision, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon tells NPR that under the law, "activism is not terrorism."

But lawyer Colmenares argues that, for the Duterte administration, "terrorism is any form of dissent."

Most countries have anti-terrorism laws. The Philippines is no outlier

More than 140 governments have passed anti-terrorism laws since Sept. 11, 2001, with many expanding that legal arsenal over time.

The Philippines' legislation undeniably diminishes due process protections, but it does not widely diverge from what other countries in the region do.

Under the law, a terrorism suspect could be detained for 14 days without charge, a period that can be extended to 24 days. Human rights attorneys say that violates a constitutional provision that a person must be charged within three days of detention.

Esperon, the national security adviser, says it's not possible to build a terrorism case in 72 hours. "We need time to address criminals the likes of terrorists, especially when they're really good at covering their tracks," he says.

He says the government needs strong laws to prosecute militants aligned with the Islamic State and a decades-old communist insurgency.

He notes that the United States has held terrorism suspects far longer than 14 days. "And you keep some of them in Guantánamo, right? For how long?" he says.

The U.S. has held many detainees at the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for over a decade. Forty detainees remained at the facility as of 2019.

Around the world, advocates argue, terrorism suspects held for extended time without a charge could be subject to abuse or even torture.

Esperon says the Philippines' detention period is "one of the most limited" in the region, putting it on par with Australia and well below Singapore's two-year-long period of warrantless arrest for terrorism suspects.

The new law, however, includes a possible punishment of life imprisonment without parole, which rights advocates say leaves no chance for rehabilitation. The law also allows wiretaps and lengthy surveillance, which raises privacy concerns, according to rights activists.

Duterte's rights record hardens opposition to the law

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte discusses issues related to the new coronavirus during a meeting with an infectious disease task force at the presidential guest house in Panacan, Davao City, southern Philippines, on July 7. Arman Baylon/Malacanang Presidential Photographers Division via AP hide caption

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte discusses issues related to the new coronavirus during a meeting with an infectious disease task force at the presidential guest house in Panacan, Davao City, southern Philippines, on July 7.

The Duterte government's poor human rights record has amplified apprehensions over the new anti-terrorism law.

Duterte's drug war has killed at least 8,600 Filipinos since 2016, with "near-impunity," according to a United Nations report in June.

Recently, the government shut down broadcaster ABS-CBN and prosecuted veteran journalist Maria Ressa, CEO of the news website Rappler, for cyber libel, which ended with her conviction. Both outlets have aggressively reported on Duterte's leadership.

'It's Unbelievable': Shutdown Of Philippines' Major Broadcaster Worries Many

Philippine Journalist Maria Ressa Found Guilty Of Violating Cyber Libel Law

The government has also jailed thousands of suspected violators and protesters of a lockdown to contain the rapid spread of the coronavirus.

Attorney Colmenares says, anti-lockdown protesters and violators "are afraid" that putting more power in the hands of police and President Duterte would "triple or quadruple" the arrests.

The new law replaces the 2007 Human Security Act, which security specialist Sidney Jones says was "one of the worst anti-terror laws that was ever passed because it had so many safeguards that it was never used or almost never used."

In the old law, authorities were fined $10,000 for every day a suspect was illegally detained. The new law eliminates that.

But analysts and rights advocates say they're concerned about how Duterte will use the new one.

Countries such as Egypt and Turkey have illustrated how governments led by populists, like Duterte, are using anti-terrorism laws to infringe on civil liberties and consolidate power, according to the Carnegie Endowment's Sobel.

"To me the Philippines is extremely emblematic of that. [Duterte's] firebrand type of speech helped him get elected and for a very long time he's been very popular," Sobel says, "and he's used that to erode civilian checks and balances."

• Philippines
• counterterrorism
• The Philippines
• anti-terrorism law

• 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.

• 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+

Read: UP Law IHR’s Guides to the Anti-Terrorism Bill

The recently enacted Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB) has raised apprehensions from various sectors within the Philippines. In light of this, the University of the Philippines Institute of Human Rights (UP-IHR) director, Professor Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan and senior lawyers Glenda Litong, Raymond Baguilat and Michael Tiu, Jr. drafted a Briefer entitled At a Glance: The Anti-Terrorism Bill, and a Primer: Facing Terror, to make sense of the proposed ATB.

At a Glance also digests and gives a rundown of the problematic provisions under the Anti-Terrorism bill and explains its consequences from a human rights perspective. Meanwhile, the Primer provides readers with a brief introduction of the ATB and the rationale for its enactment. It discusses in more detail provisions under the   ATB and compares it with other relevant legislation and jurisprudence. A critique on the impact of the ATB to the Bill of Rights, its inherent limitations, and the threat that it poses against Indigenous Peoples and Muslim Filipinos is also conveyed.

It is hoped that the Institute’s contributions to the discussion on the ATB will spark further discourse and inform both lawyers and non-lawyers alike about the potential consequences of the enactment of this bill.

Click here to download the PDF copy of the At a Glance Briefer

Click here to download the PDF copy of the At a Glance Briefer (Slides)

Click here to download the PDF copy of the Primer

• Post category: News
• Post published: June 16, 2020
• Post last modified: June 27, 2020

Atty. Fina dela Cuesta-Tantuico

• Assistant to the Dean for Alumni Affairs
• Senior Lecturer, UP College of Law
• Professorial Lecturer, Lyceum of the Philippines College of Law
• Fellow, 1st UP Creative Writers’ Workshop (1980)
• Instructor I, UP Department of English and Comparative Literature (1982)
• Trustee and Corporate Secretary, UP Law Alumni Foundation Inc.; Justice George Malcolm Foundation Inc.
• Past President, UP Women Lawyers’ Circle
• Past President, Philippine Bar Association
• UP College of Arts and Sciences, A.B. English, cum laude (1982)
• UP Law Class 1988

Atty. Rizalde Laudencia

• Member, Sangguniang Panlungsod, San Fernando, La Union
• Studied at Confucius Institute, Ateneo de Manila University
• Does Chinese Painting ( Lingnan Style)
• Writes poems in English, Tagalog, and Ilocano
• UP A.B. Political Science (1978)
• UP Law Class 1982

Dr. Rolando Tolentino

• Professor, UP Film Institute
• Director, UP Institute of Creative Writing
• Former Dean, UP College of Mass Communication
• Member, Manunuri ng Pelikulang Pilipino and the Film Development Council of the Philippines
• Awardee: UP Press Centennial Publication Award; National Book Award, Obermann Summer Research Fellowship; Manila Critics Circle Award; Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature
• A.B. Economics, De La Salle University
• M.A. in Philippine Studies, De La Salle University
• Ph. D. in Film, Literature and Culture, University of Southern California

Atty. Nicolas Pichay

• Director, Legislative Research Service, Senate of the Philippines
• Poet, playwright, essayist
• Hubert Humphrey Fellow, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University 2018
• Awardee: Carlos Palanca Literary Prize (2007 Hall of Fame); NCCA Literary Awards; CCP Literary Awards; Asian Cultural Council; and Gawad Pambansang Alagad ni Balagtas of UMPIL (2016)
• UP A.B. Political Science (1984)

Atty. Alden Lauzon

• Assistant Professor 7, Department of Art Studies, UP College of Arts and Letters (CAL)
• Associate Dean for Administration, CAL (June 2015 – June 2021)
• Senior Partner, Pedregosalaw Offices
• UP M.A. Art Studies, Art History (1998)
• UP Law Class 2000

Dr. Jose Dalisay Jr.

• Professor Emeritus , English and Creative Writing, UP
• Fellow and Former Director, UP Institute of Creative Writing
• Author, writer
• Awardee: 16 Carlos Palanca Awards in 5 genres
• UP College of Arts and Sciences, A.B. English, cum laude (1984)

Jayvee Arbonida del Rosario (Student)

Fever dream (I want to stay)

What is to wake? As days blur by and memory fails, so too does the line between dream and reality fade. One is as ephemeral as the other. Perhaps, it is in this realm of warped time and lost futures, of muted joys and terrors, where things make more sense.

Marissa Lucido Iñigo (Admin Staff)

Pagsulong sa kabila ng pagsubok

Bagamat matagal at paulit-ulit na tayong naghihigpit at lumuluwag sa mga kwarantin na ipinapatupad sa ating bansa, iisa lang ang nababakas sa mga buhay ng mga Pilipino araw-araw, pagsulong at pagtataguyod sa pamilya sa kabila ng pagsubok na sinasagupa araw-araw.

Nababata ng mga manggagawa ang lahat para sa kanilang mga pamilya. Nadagdag isuot araw-araw ang proteksyon laban sa nakakahawang sakit, pero talaga nga bang napoproteksyunan tayo sa totoong sakit sa bansa?

“Ano nga ba ang tunay na pagsubok? Ang Pandemya o ang sistema?” – Tanong ng Pilipinong lumalaban.

Gianina O. Cabanilla (REPS)

Stay with me till the sun sets and we rise together

The fury, the fire, the glory of endings and beginnings, the bone melting pain of it all

Life goes on… and we will not stop pushing for a better tomorrow. Not now, not ever.

Note: This e-book is intended for online viewing only. It is not intended as an actual publication. Click on the thumbnail to view the winning entries.

(To view  all entries , click here )

Recommended internet cookies are used by this website to improve your browsing experience. These cookies include Google Analytics, Facebook, Instagram, WordPress and Zendesk products or widgets. Your consent is important to us.

The USA PATRIOT Act

Written by: Artemus Ward, Northern Illinois University

By the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the causes and effects of the domestic and international challenges the United States has faced in the 21st century

Suggested Sequencing

Use this narrative after covering 9/11 to discuss the post-9/11 United States and the implications for domestic and foreign policy. This narrative can be used with the U.S. Military Intervention in Afghanistan Decision Point; the Does the Threat of Terrorism Justify Increased Surveillance? Point-Counterpoint; the Was the Invasion of Iraq Justified? Point-Counterpoint; and the Security, Liberty, and the USA PATRIOT Act Lesson.

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States led President George W. Bush to declare a War on Terror and Congress to hastily pass the USA PATRIOT Act 45 days later. Supporters said the law would make America safer. Critics argued it gave the government too much power to pry into the private lives of citizens and violated constitutional liberties. Almost two decades after its initial passage, the law, including its most controversial provisions, is still in effect, having been renewed repeatedly by successive administrations and Congresses controlled by both parties. In the background remains the question whether American citizens should trade some of their freedom and privacy for more safety and security.

Al-Qaeda terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (pictured here) on September 11, 2001. A fourth plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after the passengers fought back.

The USA PATRIOT Act’s name is an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”. The act contained 10 titles, or sections, that covered hundreds of pages of text and amended at least 15 existing statutes. Many of its provisions were relatively noncontroversial, including increasing communication among different federal agencies in foreign intelligence gathering and granting greater regulatory powers to combat foreign money laundering and terrorism and shore up border security. However, a handful of changes to government surveillance powers in Titles II and V of the Act were widely debated. These gave the federal government greater authority to track, intercept, and gather communications and intelligence regarding suspected terrorists at home and abroad.

President George W. Bush signing a reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2005.

Under existing criminal law at the time Congress passed the act, the government had the ability to obtain “roving wiretaps” or surveillance on multiple phones for ordinary crimes. These court orders omitted the identification of specific devices or places where the surveillance was to occur when the target was likely to change locations or cell phones rapidly. The only way the government could conduct surveillance on multiple devices used by a foreign target of interest was to obtain separate court authorizations for each device. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act allowed for roving wiretaps, which covered multiple devices without the need for individual authorizations, thus permitting the government to surveil targets of terrorist investigations who rapidly changed locations or devices. Section 207 of the Act expanded the government’s authority to conduct surveillance of agents of foreign powers and non-U.S. citizens who are members of international groups. Critics charged that these provisions could lead to the targeting of innocent American citizens and the intentional or unintentional intercept of their communications. Supporters argued that roving wiretaps were a reasonable response to changing technology not tied to a certain location or device.

Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act covered “sneak and peek” search warrants, which allowed law enforcement officers to search a home or business and seize material without the knowledge or consent of the owner or occupant. The law did not specify when the FBI had to notify the target, and critics charged that delays in notification were unconstitutional under the protections against unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment. Section 215, nicknamed “the library provision,” allowed the FBI to ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court – a special court of federal judges selected by the U.S. chief justice who may issue warrants in foreign intelligence investigations – to compel the sharing of “any tangible thing” related to a terrorism investigation, including books, business documents, tax records, and library check-out lists.

Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government was required to identify the place or the particular instrument it wished to search. The Act lowered that standard so the government needed only to show the court that a “significant purpose” of the surveillance was to obtain foreign intelligence information. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as well as other groups, expressed fears that the government would use this new power to circumvent the stricter probable-cause standard for criminal investigations by citing a foreign intelligence interest. In response, the government stressed that the Act explicitly prohibited the government from targeting suspects who solely exercise their freedom of speech to criticize the government or its leaders. Thus, according to the Act’s defenders, the government, in fact, would need to establish probable cause by showing the target had performed suspicious actions or had participated in activities that would lead others to believe the target was acting as an agent of a foreign power.

After Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed on the basis of these newly eased government procedures, they were struck down in 2007 by Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The provisions were reinstated, however, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Aiken’s decision in 2009, and they were extended by Congress and President Obama in 2011.

However, in 2013, the media published documents obtained by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the U.S. government had allowed the bulk collection of data from U.S. citizens under Section 215. Snowden’s released documents demonstrated that a FISA Court order forced Verizon to turn over customer metadata. In 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Section 215 did not authorize the bulk collection of phone metadata. Later that year, Congress renewed Section 215 but amended the law to make plain that instead of the government collecting bulk records, the government could obtain information about individuals from phone companies with the permission of a federal court.

President Obama meeting with national security officials in the Oval Office in 2013, after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked information about government surveillance activities. (credit: “Light matters #2” by Pete Souza/The White House, CC BY 3.0)

One of the Act’s most controversial provisions bolstered existing law that enabled the FBI to use National Security Letters (NSLs), a type of administrative subpoena or order to appear in court, to demand various records and data without probable cause or judicial oversight. Although many federal agencies routinely used administrative subpoenas for information gathering, NSLs can be used only in terrorism and espionage investigations. Typically, the FBI made a request to a third party such as a bank, communication provider, or consumer credit agency for subscriber and transactional information like a suspect’s name, address, and employment and other records. NSLs did not allow inspection of the content of communications or financial transactions but instead focused on information needed to find out who was in contact with whom. This initial step allowed the FBI to determine whether additional investigation was necessary.

The Act authorized law enforcement to obtain this information through pen register (an electronic device that records phone numbers of outgoing calls from a phone line) and trap-and-trace device (which records phone numbers of calls incoming to a phone line) orders for e-mail as well as telephone conversations. This allowed internet provider (IP) addresses and phone numbers to be disclosed. The pen register and trap-and-trace provision was meant to update existing law that had allowed detectives to examine U.S. postal mail envelopes (but not their contents) for sender and receiver information. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, NSLs could only be issued if the information was “relevant to an authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation” and there were “specific and articulable acts that the person or entity to whom the information sought pertained was a foreign power.” The USA PATRIOT Act loosened the standard to allow NSLs to be issued if the information sought from the recipient was “relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities” (Section 505). In addition, NSLs could be issued by FBI field offices, as opposed to the previous practice whereby only high-level FBI officials such as the director or deputy assistant director could issue them. Finally, the Act placed a gag order on NSLs, meaning the targets whose information was sought were never notified that their information was being turned over to the FBI.

Despite the relative ease with which NSLs could be issued, it was important to note how NSLs differed from search warrants. A person or entity could refuse an NSL request if compliance would be burdensome. Accordingly, the FBI could not simply take the information it wanted. Search warrants, in contrast, required the government to go before a judge and establish probable cause before conducting a search for information. But refusing to comply with a search warrant was not an option, and the government could simply seize the information. Judges also set the scope of search warrants as broad or narrow depending on the information sought, whereas the scope of NSLs has been strictly defined by Congress.

In the years after the USA PATRIOT Act’s passage, internal Justice Department audits showed that 40,000 to 50,000 NSLs were issued each year, most of them against people in the United States. Before the Act’s passage, only 8,500 NSLs had been issued. Critics charged that this increased level of surveillance of American citizens was a direct result of the USA PATRIOT Act’s changes to the standards under which NSLs could be issued. Initial audits also showed that, in some cases, information about innocent people was mistakenly obtained and uploaded to FBI databases. Later audits found that the problems had been corrected. But the ACLU challenged NSLs in court, arguing that they violated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee and the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, the ACLU said it was impossible for a target to legally oppose a government action he or she did not know about, and that the gag order prohibited the third parties that hold the information from even consulting with their attorneys.

The ACLU prevailed in court. When the controversial sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, including the NSL provision, were set to expire at the end of 2005, Congress amended the law to allow third parties who receive NSLs to consult their attorneys. Despite this additional safeguard, additional court challenges led to a 2007 ruling striking down the amended NSL provision because, according the court, meaningful judicial review was still not possible under the gag rule.

In all, the controversies surrounding the USA PATRIOT Act prompted a dialogue among citizens and government about the proper balance between security and privacy. Despite the controversy and court challenges, the law has been repeatedly renewed by Congress and succeeding presidents, and the government has exercised greater investigatory powers in areas that were previously private. Although there has not been a major terrorist attack in America since 9/11, the USA PATRIOT Act continues to be a source of controversy and is routinely cited by critics as an example of excessive government power.

Review Questions

1. The USA PATRIOT Act’s provisions call for citizens to trade some freedoms for greater

2. Critics of the USA PATRIOT Act say it violates the provisions of which amendment(s)?

• First and Fourth Amendments
• Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
• Twenty-Fifth Amendment
• Tenth and Thirteenth Amendments

3. The passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 was primarily motivated by

• changes in communication technology
• the attacks on the United States on 9/11
• a decline in security on the United States’ southern border
• increasing terrorist activity within the European Union

4. As of 2019, the USA PATRIOT Act

• has expired and no longer exists
• continues to grant the government investigatory powers over previously private matters
• has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
• led to the eradication of the al-Qaeda network

5. Publication of the government documents obtained by Edward Snowden showed

• the Soviet Union provided financial backing for al-Qaeda
• there was widespread political corruption in the U.S. Congress
• there was election fraud collusion between Russian and U.S. government officials
• the federal government had collected bulk electronic data from U.S. citizens

Free Response Questions

• Explain how the USA PATRIOT Act’s provisions were designed to make the United States safer from terrorism.
• Analyze the ways in which the USA PATRIOT Act allowed the government to investigate areas that were previously considered private.

AP Practice Questions

“We all also had our own initial reactions, and my first and most powerful emotion was a solemn resolve to stop these terrorists. And that remains my principal reaction to these events. But I also quickly realized that two cautions were necessary . . . The first caution was that we must continue to respect our Constitution and protect our civil liberties in the wake of the attacks. As the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I recognize that this is a different world . . . Yet we must examine every item that is proposed in response to these events to be sure we are not rewarding these terrorists and weakening ourselves by giving up the cherished freedoms that they seek to destroy.”

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on the Anti-Terrorism Bill, October 25, 2001

1. This excerpt reflects which continuity in U.S. history?

• Increased nativism during challenging economic times
• Cultural tensions between urban and rural populations
• Tensions between national security and individual liberties
• National reluctance to commit to collective-security agreements

2. This excerpt about events in the United States was most directly shaped by which world events?

• Conflicts in the Middle East
• The rise of nonaligned nations after World War II
• Growing economic inequality
• The end of the Cold War

Primary Sources

Doyle, Charles. “National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse at the Legal Background.” Congressional Research Service RS22406. July 31, 2015. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RS22406.pdf

German, Michael, Michelle Richardson, Valerie Caproni, and Steven Siegel. “National Security Letters: Building Blocks for Investigations or Intrusive Tools?” ABA Journal . September 2012. http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/national_security_letters_building_blocks_for_investigations_or_intrusive_t/

Kerr, Orin S. “Internet Surveillance Law after the USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother that Isn’t.” Northwestern University Law Review 97 (2003): 607. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=317501

Suggested Resources

Electronic Privacy Information Center. “National Security Letters.” https://epic.org/privacy/nsl/

Furtak, Shannon. “Legislative History of the USA Patriot Act in HeinOnline.” April 19, 2016. https://home.heinonline.org/blog/2016/04/legislative-history-of-the-usa-patriot-act-in-heinonline/

Stream Team. “Timeline: A History of the Patriot Act.” Aljazeera.com. http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/the-stream-officialblog/2013/10/23/timeline-a-historyofthepatriotact.html

U.S. Department of Justice. “Highlights of the USA PATRIOT Act.” https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.