Reflection on Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

As discussed in the first essay, Republic Act No. 11479, or otherwise known as
the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, is the most controversial law in the Philippines. Despite
its approval last July 03, 2020, many human rights activists are still fighting for its
eradication because of its restricting nature on the people’s rights.

The Anti-Terrorism Act violates a number of laws provided in the 1987

Constitution’s Bill of Rights. One of these rights that is being curtailed is the freedom of
expression in Section 4, Article III, in which it provides, “No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” Section
10, paragraph (b) which states that “publishing an advertisement or propaganda for the
purpose of recruiting persons to serve in any capacity in or with such an armed force,”
and paragraph (c) which states that “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
forces,” are two of the provisions that violate the people’s right to freedom of
expression. As discussed in many cases under the freedom of expression clause, there is
burden upon the government to prove that one’s freedom of expression must be
curtailed out of necessity. The categories subject to prior restraint are pornography,
false or misleading advertisement, advocacy of imminent lawless action, and danger to
national security. The fourth category cannot be invoked, provided that there is no clear
and present danger at the time of the publication. Since the provisions stated in the
Anti-Terrorism Act do not belong the categories which are subject to prior restraint,
they are considered to be protected expression or high-value expression in which it is
absolutely protected from censorship, as discussed in the case of Chavez v. Gonzales.
What is being done by the Anti-Terrorism Act is a content-based restriction in which it
restricts certain publications which they deem to be connected to terrorist acts. Not
only are the people publishing such contents being censored, but they are also labeled
as terrorists by the same law.

Another provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act is Section 34 which restricts the

people’s right to travel. As stated in the said provision, the government can prohibit
persons who are accused as terrorist from travelling from one place to another or make
a restriction as to which places such persons can travel to. The Constitution provides
that the right to travel can only be impaired in the event that national security, public
safety, or public health requires it. It is stated in the disputed law that even those
persons who do not have a strong evidence against them can still be subject to
restriction. The scope of the law is too broad. It does not help that their definition of
“terrorists” and “terrorism” is too broad as well. Anyone can be labeled as terrorists;
thus, anyone can be restricted to travel until he is acquitted of the accusation against
him.

The Anti-Terrorism Act is unconstitutional because what it basically does is

curtail the rights enumerated in Article III of the 1987 Constitution. While it is true that
these rights have limitations, still it does not grant the government the power to impair
these rights at their will and without just cause.