The Philippines' Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020: Five

things to know

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.

Here are five things to know about the legislation that has polarized the Southeast Asian nation
as it grapples with the pandemic's economic fallout.

What exactly does this bill say and do?

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 amends the Human Security Act of 2007. It expands the
definition of terrorism to include acts intended to cause "death or serious bodily injury to any
person," "extensive damage and destruction" to a government facility, private property or critical
infrastructure and when the purpose of those acts is to "intimidate [the] general public," "create
an atmosphere or message of fear," or "seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political,
economic and social structures of the country." Those found guilty face life sentences without
the chance of parole.

The act also criminalizes the "threat, planning, training, facilitating of" and "proposal" and
"inciting" to terrorist activities by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, banners and
emblems. It also subjects suspects to surveillance, warrantless arrest and detention for up to 24
days. In addition, it removes compensation for the suspect in the event of acquittal and boosts the
Anti-Terrorism Council, the implementer of the law, whose members are appointed by the
president.
Why is the government pushing it?

Backers of the bill say the legislation seeks to end terrorism in the country, which is still battling
decadeslong communist and Islamic insurgencies. In 2017, Islamic State-aligned militants laid
siege to the southern city of Marawi; last year the southern region was rocked by suicide
bombings.

Even the lockdown did not stop terror, according to presidential spokesperson Harry Roque, who
cited the communist rebels' attacks on soldiers securing the distribution of financial aid and
attacks by Islamic militants in late May that led to an evacuation in the country's south that
uprooted over 6,000 people.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson, a former police chief and proponent of the bill, said the Human Security
Act of 2007 "has proved to fail in terms of its efficacy as an anti-terrorism measure," partly
because it's lenient for offenders and restrictive for enforcers.

"Under the current Human Security Act, there are only four instances for terrorists to be
prosecuted under the law," Lacson said last year. "On the other hand, there are a total of 20
instances where law enforcers can be charged and penalized for violations of the Human Security
Act."

Why is it being opposed?

The Philippines' Commission on Human Rights said the broad definition of "terrorism" in the bill
"paves the road for possible abuse."

"By this broad definition, starting a fight in a bar could technically be classified as an act of
terrorism," said Human Rights Watch, which called the act "a human rights disaster in the
making."

The overreach, according to CHR, could also be used "to limit substantial freedoms, including
expression of dissent, while [with] the vague and overly broad definition, authorities could
wantonly tag [the] exercise of rights as terrorist expressions."
Fears are also on the rise due to the Duterte's administration's history of cracking down on
political opposition and the recent arrest of government critics during the lockdown. "It's not
about going after terrorists," human rights lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno said, "but critics of this
administration."

What do businesses and the international community have to say about the bill?

At least 16 Philippine business groups have jointly voiced strong opposition, calling the bill
"highly divisive because it poses clear and present danger to human rights enshrined in our
Constitution at a time [of pandemic] when our nation needs to come together as one."

Meanwhile, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said the bill "dilutes
human rights safeguards, broadens the definition of terrorism and expands the period of
detention without a warrant from three to 14 days, extendible by another 10 days. The vague
definitions in the Anti-Terrorism Act may violate the principle of legality."

What are the chances that it will become law?

Duterte's office received the bill on June 9, giving him 30 days to act on it.

Amid crumbling support for the act -- some lawmakers have withdrawn their backing -- and
mounting opposition from businesses, universities and the Catholic Church, the Department of
Justice said it will review the bill regarding its potential to violate constitutional rights.

With the bill now on his desk, Duterte can sign or veto it anytime to reflect the executive
branch's amendments. If no action is taken on it, the bill automatically becomes law in 30 days.

But given the growing opposition to the proposed law, a legal challenge in the Supreme Court is
a possibility.