“Anti- terrorism Law”

An Analysis Paper using Policy Analysis Tools

In partial fulfillment of a requirement on

MPA 464

Submitted by:

MA. ABEGAIL F. BUÑAO

Submitted to:

FATMA M. IDRIS, DR DEV

December 18, 2020

 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On July 18, 2020, new law (Republic Act. 11479) came in force in the

Philippines concerning the problems with terrorism. This law is intended to stop and

regulate the acts of terrorism, as well as, penalize persons acting behind these

terrorism acts. But there are ongoing issues associated with the passage of this law,

including its’ dangers and threats to the personal rights and liberties of the Filipino

people. Groups and organizations, such as Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, National

Union of Journalists of the Philippines, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Association

of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines, Gabriela and other groups, express

strong criticisms with this law. According to these groups, the Anti-terrorism law is

harmful to the citizens as it circumvents the main spirit of the constitution which is to

protect the life and liberty of its people. Furthermore, the groups highlighted possible

abuses of the implementation of the law in the part of the law enforcement agencies,

as well as the misuse and usurpation of the broad terms in the provisions of this law.

The anti-terrorism law effectively replaced the human security act of 2007. It aims to

impose a stricter regulation of terrorism which the human security act of 2007 failed

to establish. Efforts to deter terrorism maybe harsh according to the new law, such

as the proposed measure for surveillance, detention and investigation. The law may

also violate the spirit of due process as it allows arrest without warrants and needs

no court order. The said law proposed to much violations to the bill of rights, but

despite this, the government stood still in its aims and goals of combating terrorism

through this law.

In the political structure of the Philippines, effective laws and regulation for the

prevention of terrorism remains a challenge to both national and local levels. As

terrorism continues to exist, the dream of the government to provide public service

remains unsettled. Terrorism plays a ripple effect to the economy of the state, and

this is surely the reason why the government is strong with its decision of making the

anti-terror law, an urgent one. This paper will try to discuss events and data’s

concerning the passage of the anti-terrorism law, and eventually the author will try to

present pros and cons with regard to the implementation of the law. The author

would love to journey with the readers as we go along and analyze the reasons of

the policymakers for the effectivity of the law.

Thus, the reforms in the anti-terror law are rooted on the ideal that it may

replace the old ways into a better one. There is no problem with the rules and

regulations of this law because it adheres to the international standards of

democracy, its main purpose lies on the protection of life, liberty and property.

Although opponents allege that the current legislation curtails freedom of

expression, Gonzales assures the Freedom of Speech is a privilege that is legally

protected. As long as the exercising of the rights may not plan to harm or hurt a

citizen and risk his life or jeopardize public protection, so it is always considered

as within the practice of civil and political rights.

II. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

Terrorism remains a challenge to both national and international levels. Fear,

trauma, anxiety, anger and hate, dominated and still dominating most of our daily

lives. Terrorism provides complex, sensible and ambiguous concept. According to

the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights, terrorism is an

act of violence which harms civilians for the achievement of an ideological aim or in

pursuit of something. Another definition of terrorism set by General Assembly’s

Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, states that, terrorism

includes any criminal act intended to provoke the general public or the government

and that such acts are justified by them through philosophical ideologies, racial,

ethnic, political, religious purposes. Whatever definition researchers or groups may

have defined terrorism, it was just summed up as any act which causes destruction

to human rights (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,

n.d.).

In the political structure of the Philippines, effective laws and regulation for the

prevention of terrorism remains a challenge to both national and local levels.

Anti-terrorism (sometimes abbreviated as AT), simply speaking, usually

applies

too passive, defensive, preventive, or lawful initiatives against terrorism. Under anti-

terrorism legislation, attempts to prevent terrorism can take the shape of harsh

punishments, such as circulating images or photos of perpetrators in the

newspapers, providing incentives for details, or may include a normally developed

disincentive, such as pressuring terrorist families. As Niccolo Machiavelli wrote in

The Prince, "fear is maintained by a fear of punishment that never fails." How are

these anti-terrorist values relevant to Pakistan? Have tight legislation decreased

terrorist activities and prevented anyone who could perform them? This paper aims

to explain these core issues while mapping Pakistan's evolutionary phase of anti-

terrorism legislation. The analysis is based on the framework detailed in the following

arguments/pointers: Anti-terror laws crosscut boundaries between administration,

constitution, criminal, immigration, military law, and war laws within and beyond. The

anti-terror regime of any entity, consisting of political, governmental, cultural, and

economic variables, may not be studied in isolation from its domestic climate.
Around the same period, it is not necessary to mitigate the effect of domestic and

foreign influences. The State retains the freedom for the welfare of its people, to

create and change legislation. The secret to the effectiveness of anti-terror

mechanisms inside the state is the rule of law. Anti-terrorism regulations constitute a

vital part of the government's robust counterterrorism strategy. In reducing the

distance between anti-terrorist targets (as envisaged in the laws) and their operation

or execution, popular support, political will, and state capability are essential. This

paper follows detailed anti-terrorism policy studies by tracing the commitments of

previous regimes to the establishment of Pakistan's anti-terror legislation. Here the

difference between the anti-terror law regime's perception/intention and the facts on

the ground would also be addressed side by side.

The Philippine President signed Republic Act No. 11479 or The Anti-

Terrorism Act of 2020 (the Act) on 3 July 2020, a statute aimed at stopping,

prohibiting, and penalizing terrorism. The Act revoked the 2007 Human Protection

Act, Philippines old anti-terrorism statute. While the implementation of laws and

regulations have yet to be implemented, the Act has already taken force in the

Philippines. It carries, though, that the Act has an extraterritorial application, which

implies that it can even extend to non-Filipino residents and/or anyone beyond the

Philippines territorial borders. The Act was still contentious when it was passed. In

less than a week after the President signed the Legislation, the Philippine Supreme

Court lodged multiple appeals attempting to nullify some aspects of the Act.

According to the petitioners, the concept of terrorism is ambiguous, undefined,

and sweeping, thus vulnerable to violence. Unlike the old anti-terrorism law, i.e. the

Human Security Act) that enumerates specific predicate crimes for terrorism (e.g.,

piracy, rebellion, coup d’etat, murder, hijacking, etc the acts constituting terrorism
under the Act are said to be very broad such that its enforcers “will have unbridled

discretion to select the targets of the new terror law including those from among

critics and the opposition.”

Another clause that is sought to be nullified is that which empowers the ATC,

a body consisting of representatives of the government's Executive Branch, to order

people's warrantless arrests on solely suspicion, even though no charges have been

brought. This, according to the petitioners, breaches a person's fundamental right to

fair process and to be protected from arbitrary searches and seizures. Moreover, the

power granted to ATC is said to violate the principle of the separation of powers of

the three branches of government (i.e., Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary) "as it

effectively allows [ATC] to circumvent the issuance of arrest warrants which are the

exclusive prerogative of the Judiciary."

If the Supreme Court will decide on these questions is yet to be seen.

Meanwhile, unless the Supreme Court declared the Act or sections thereof

unconstitutional, the terms of the Act remain true and accurate. As long as the

exercising of the rights may not plan to harm or hurt a citizen and risk his life or

jeopardize public protection, so it is always considered as within the practice of

civil and political rights.

 III. ASSEMBLE EVIDENCE

Figure No. 1

Drawing on data collected by the University of Maryland, an overview of

developments in terror attacks in the Philippines shows a significant increase,

especially in Mindanao between 2010 and 2016. The Global Terrorism Database of

the University of Maryland compiles details about each attack event; the database

logs various variables such as venue, the effectiveness of the attack, presence of

arms or bombs, and casualties. Figure 1 shows how the number of terror attacks in

the Philippines has risen over the past five election terms, particularly in Mindanao.
 Poor border protection, poor government, and historical injustices and

festering inequalities are some of the reason’s intelligence experts and academics

stress in terms of exacerbating conditions for extremism.

What exactly does this bill say and do?

2020's Anti-Terrorism Act amends 2007's Human Rights Act. It extends the

definition of terrorism to include acts intended to cause death or serious physical

injury to any person," "extensive damage and destruction" to government facilities,

private property or critical infrastructure and where such acts are intended to

intimidate the general public," "create an atmosphere or message of fear" or

"seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental po The act further criminalizes

"threat, planning, training, facilitating of" "proposal" and "inciting" terrorist acts by

statements, proclamations, essays, banners, and emblems. It also subjects criminals

to 24-day observation, warrantless search, and incarceration. It also removes the

suspect's reward in case of acquittal and strengthens the Anti-Terrorism Committee,

the law enforcer whose representatives are named by the president.

Why does the government force it?

The bill's supporters state law aims to end extremism in the world that is still

dealing with communist and Islamic insurgencies for decades. In 2017, Islamic

State-aligned jihadists laid siege to Marawi's southern city; last year, suicide

bombings shook the southern area. The history of the present administration's

crackdown on political opposition and the recent arrest of government critics are

fanning fears that the pending anti-terror law will be used to further squelch dissent.

Also the lockdown did not deter terror, according to presidential spokesman Harry
Roque, who cited late May attacks by communist rebels on soldiers protecting the

delivery of financial assistance and attacks by Islamic insurgents that contributed to

an evacuation in the south of the country that rooted over 6,000 civilians. Sen.

Panfilo Lacson, a retired police chief and bill's proponent, said the 2007 Human

Protection Act "has proved to fail in terms of its efficacy as an anti-terrorism

measure," partially because it is lenient to criminals and punitive to enforcers. "Under

the previous Human Security Act, four instances may be observed for terrorists to be

prosecuted," this is a statement by Senator Panfilo Lacson. This is very different

from the instances stated in the provisions of the current law.

Why is it opposed?

The Philippine Commission on Human Rights said in the law, "the ambiguous

definition of the word terrorism may be a cause for an abuse." "By this reason,

starting a fight in a bar could technically be classified as a terrorist act," Human

Rights Watch said, labeling the act "a human rights disaster in the making."

According to CHR, it could also be used to restrict substantive freedoms, including

terrorism.

What do companies and the foreign community have to tell regarding

the bill?

At least 16 Philippine private groups have unanimously expressed firm

resistance, labeling the bill "highly divisive because it poses a clear and present

danger to human rights enshrined in our Constitution.

What are the odds that it would become law?

 President Duterte's office got the bill on June 9, allowing him 30 days to move

on it. Amid crumbling support for the act — several senators have withdrawn their

backing — and mounting resistance from corporations, colleges and the Catholic

Community, the Department of Justice said it would study the bill regarding its

potential to breach civil rights. With the bill now on his seat, Duterte will sign or veto it

anytime to represent the executive branch's changes. If no decision is made on it the

bill immediately becomes law after 30 days. But considering the increasing

resistance to the new legislation, a judicial fight in the Supreme Court is a probability.

IV. CONSTRUCT ALTERNATIVE POLICY RESPONSES

It needs emphasizing that the Philippines has already adopted a law

specifically designed to curtail and deter acts of terrorism. Republic Act No. 9731,

also known as the Human Protection Act (HSA) of 2007, entered into effect in July

2007 to help the government and law enforcement authorities counter the danger of

terrorism. Nevertheless, security observers remember that the HSA of 2007 has

never been completely exploited, having been enforced only twice after its

implementation — the first occasion was to proscribe the Abu Sayyaf Community as

a terrorist organisation, while the second was against an individual who was active in

the Marawi siege (the case was ultimately resolved out of court) (the case was

eventually settled out of court). Some critics say that the HAS of 2007 includes

several protections that essentially bind the hands of counterterrorism officers

(including high fines for false arrests) (including high penalties for mistaken arrests).

These same provisions seem to have been eliminated in the present anti-terrorism

bill, in an attempt to allow police greater leash to apprehend terror suspects.

 In addition, the concept of terrorism has been seemingly extended, allowing

for a vague and overbroad definition of what constitutes as terrorism, leaving it open

to multiple meanings, and to government’s misuse of power. As former Associate

Justice Vicente V. Mendoza puts it A statute whose terms are so vague that persons

of common understanding must necessarily guess at its meaning or differ as to its

application offends due process. And a law that sweeps unnecessarily widely all and

safe actions is overbroad and likewise offends fair process.”

The balance of control and the choice on its use has been strengthened by

the current anti-terrorism act. Will it be used for a strong degree of discipline and

accountability? The country’s national security institutions already face lingering

reputation and confidence problems, underscoring the need to help reformists in

these organisations to speed up professionalization and capacity-building and

advanced training. The supporters of the anti-terrorism act are operating under the

premise that the new structures – the entire gamut of the military, executive and

judiciary institutions – would pay high regard to human rights and would demonstrate

a rigorous degree of transparency. However the popular backlash towards the new

legislation may be inferred as a representation of diminished confidence in key

government agencies charged with anti-terrorism measures.

The atrocities perpetrated by some police during the brutal fight against illicit

narcotics, the serious records of extrajudicial killings permeating some areas of the

world, the notorious red-tagging conducted by some government officials, also of

legitimate organisations, and the lingering questions about human rights violations
through different administrations are some of the serious factors that impact people’s

confidence toward the government. More recently, the killing of four intelligence

officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines at a Philippine National Police

checkpoint in Jolo, Sulu by PNP staff increases the specter of violence even more.

These concerns are very fundamental, and an already doubtful electorate has only

been rewarded with far more grounds for alarm about the government’s preparation

for this sum of authority and control.

V. LIST SPECIFIC CRITERIA USED IN MAKING EVALUATION

On 26 February 2020, the Senate approved on third and final reading Senate

Bill No 1083 or the Anti-Terror Bill. On 1 June 2020, President Rodrigo Duterte

approved the bill as urgent. Two days later, amid resistance from different parties,

the House of Representatives passed its edition, House Bill No 6875. The bill’s aim

is to modify and abolish Republic Act No 9372 or the Human Protection Act of 2007

(HSA), which, while the target of criticisms from human rights organizations for

alleged violations on the part of enforcers and misuse or usurpation of the word

human security at the time it was passed, was often unwelcome by those who had to

enforce it because of the protections it provided against violence. If anything, the

Anti-Terror Bill lacks the provisions present in the HSA and lessens the punishments

for misuse of discretion by concerned officials.

In the position paper presented by the faculty of the Political Science

Department of the University of the Philippines. They presented the following

evaluation of the law:

 a. Ambiguity and Abuse of Authority

Any legislation that imposes punishment on a convicted individual or party

must be specific about how it constitutes a crime. In the proposed statute, what

constitutes as an act of terrorism” has been extended and will be open to a number

of meanings. Ambiguity in the meanings of “terrorist” and the “acts of terrorism” can

contribute to the misuse of power, particularly where meaningful institutional scrutiny

is diminished.

Furthermore, the bill extends the size of the Anti-Terrorism Committee (ATC)

to include other heads of executive agencies (Section 45, SB 1083 and HB 6875)

(Section 45, SB 1083 and HB 6875). However, any of the representatives remain to

be alter-egos or appointees to every serving president. The ATC has since been

granted the authority to label individuals or organizations as criminals, in addition to

those already classified by the United Nations Security Council, for the purposes of

monitoring and prosecutions by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) (AMLC).

Other than plausible cause, the ATC has no fixed requirements for the classification.

This may be subject to arbitrary interpretation and implementation, particularly

without the involvement of government bodies independent of the Executive, such as

the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) (Section 25, SB 1083 and HB 6875)

(Section 25, SB 1083 and HB 6875).

Safeguards have been reduced. In the Congress-approved bills, the fines for

illegal and fraudulent inspection and furnishing fake evidence, fabricated papers, or

spurious evidence were limited (Sections 37 and 43, SB 1083 and HB 6875)

(Sections 37 and 43, SB 1083 and HB 6875). With so much power at the hands of

the ATC and diminished punishments for abusive interpretation of the rule, there will
be violations on the right to due process of a person. Can this mean that one is guilty

unless proved otherwise?

b. Rights of the Accused to be Informed

One of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of an accused is to be told of the

existence and cause of the allegation against him or her. Under the proposed rule,

the arresting officer or the director of the detaining center is tasked to remind the

accused of his or her rights upon capture (Section 30, SB 1083 and HB 6875) and

custody (Section 29, SB 1083 and HB 6875) (Section 29, SB 1083 and HB 6875).

However, it is being recommended that some of the current privileges in the HSA be

excluded. In the HSA, the individual under surveillance or the accused has the right

to be told of the actions committed by the law enforcement authorities and to

question the validity of any intervention before the court (Section 9, HSA) (Section 9,

HSA). The complainant therefore has the right to be told of the termination of the

monitoring, capture, and documenting should there be a complaint lodged against

him or her for any breach of the rule (Section 10, HSA) (Section 10, HSA). But under

the proposed measure, these sections were omitted. There are also limits and

constraints to be placed on obtaining documents and logs, and can be used by the

accused to bring lawsuits against others who performed malicious inquiries (Sections

32 and 37, SB 1083 and HB 6875) (Sections 32 and 37, SB 1083 and HB 6875). The

accused can be made ignorant about what is happening. With insufficient

knowledge, the offender could not be able to react adequately to any allegations

levied against him or her. It could also be a breach of the right of fair process. The

so-called “safeguards” typically may not shield the weak and the helpless.
 c. Surveillance and Detention

The new measure expands the reporting duration from 30 to 60 days. Surveillance

includes tracking, tracking or investigating individuals or organizations; or

wiretapping, listening, intercepting, screening, reading and recording messages,

conversations, discussions, spoken or written words, including computer and

network surveillance, and other communications of persons charged or suspected of

terrorism (Section 16, SB 1083 and HB 6875). Although judicial authority is

necessary prior to monitoring, the processes and facilities used to execute the

above-mentioned acts remain under the supervision and authority of military

intelligence units and staff.

The incarceration time without a warrant to apprehend alleged criminals has now

expanded from three days to fourteen days which can be prolonged for up to ten

days. Furthermore, the arrester does not have to bring the defendant to any judge

(Section 29). These laws infringe people's right to contact and privacy that this state

has vowed to represent and preserve.

d. No Court Order Needed

A part of the new legislation is devoted to the power to prosecute, inquire into and

review bank deposits of the convicted. In the new statute, a formal order from the

Court of Appeals (CA) is needed to enter bank deposits of the convicted. It is a

precaution put to guarantee that no malicious investigations are performed and no

one’s right is abused.

In the proposed legislation, the Anti-Money Laundering Committee (AMLC) no longer

requires a judicial order to perform inquiries (Section 35, SB 1083 and HB 6875)

(Section 35, SB 1083 and HB 6875). This will contribute to an investigation-spree by

the AMLC, under the instruction of the ATC, of political rivals, detractors, and vocal

resistance to any government.

e. Role of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)

The new legislation maintains the expectation of the Commission on Human Rights

(CHR) to assign "the highest priority to investigating and prosecuting violations of

individuals' civil and political rights in relation to law enforcement." However the CHR

may no longer have competence to sue people who could have abused the civil and

political rights of individuals accused or imprisoned for offenses identified and

punished (Section 47, SB 1083 and HB 6875).

f. Oversight

Legislative accountability is required to discourage the executive's harassment.

Under the proposed legislation, the supervisory rights were diluted (Section 50, SB

1083 and HB 6875)

ATC's submission to Congress shifted from semi-annual to annual. The study

would not have to provide suggestions for re-evaluating, amending or removing the

Act and other clauses surrounding the authorization to track accused and charged

individuals. Finally, courts conducting litigation would not be needed to disclose the

state of cases to all Congress Houses and the President.

Reducing oversight authority opens the door of law enforcement violence.

Instead of acting as checks on the executive's authority, the other levels of

government became involved in the systemic disenfranchisement of citizenship.

 g. Timing and Mode

In the face of a pandemic, Congress opted to prioritize anti-terror rule, instilling

apprehension instead of concern. In comparison, important judgments were taken in

a period of days—definitely a limited time for a measure involving much attention.

In fact, certain members of the House of Representatives were not offered a chance

by House leadership to propose changes to the Senate version and the majority

supported the Senate version in toto. Have the current provisions been extensively

checked and the necessary changes carefully considered? What demands this sort

of urgency, particularly in a public health emergency?

h. Stifling Dissent and Criticism

If a legislation to preserve public health can be enforced in this abusive way, how

much worse can this new Anti-Terror Bill be for all its questionable provisions?

Although terrorism, as described in the bill, excludes activism, agitation, opposition,

work stoppage, industrial or mass action, and other related exercises in civil and

political rights, there are risks with how the executive branch leaves the powers to

cope with terrorism. If violated, every administration's opponents will use the statute

to instill fear—a power like no other.

VI. APPLY CRITERIA

The new legislation describes terrorism as an act performed by someone

inside or outside the Philippines, regardless of the stage executions, and a

terrorist as one who participates in any actions designed to inflict harm, harm, or
endangers a person’s health, acts that cause significant harm to a government or

public building, public places or private assets, or acts that cause extensive

interference, disruption or destruction of critical infrastructure. It also describes a

terrorist as one who creates, produces, owns, acquires, transfers, provides or

utilizes arms and releases explosives or of medical, nuclear, radiological or

chemical weapons designed to intimidate the general population, generate or

transmit panic.

It often involves actions to provoke or manipulate through coercion, the

government or any foreign entity, or seriously destabilize or disrupt the basic

political, economic or social institutions of the world, or establish a general

emergency or seriously undermine public safety. Briefly put, actions to be called

terroristic must have motive and intention taken together and defined. Those

deemed to be guilty, not by any one but by a qualified judge, shall be guilty of

committing terrorism and shall incur the punishment of life imprisonment without

parole and the privileges of Republic Act No. 10592.

Although opponents allege that the current legislation curtails freedom of

expression, Gonzales assures the Freedom of Speech is a privilege that is legally

protected. As long as the exercising of the rights may not plan to harm or hurt a

citizen and risk his life or jeopardize public protection, so it is always considered

as within the practice of civil and political rights.

Actions punished under the Anti-Terrorism Bill include threat to commit

terrorism, organizing, preparation, arranging and encouraging to commit an act of

terrorism, plot to commit terrorism, proposal to commit terrorism, inciting to commit

terrorism including recruiting and participation in a terrorist organization and

offering material support to terrorist, particularly where one has an awareness that

the entity, organisation, or group of individuals is committed or planning to commit

acts of terrorism.

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

Terrorism remains a challenge to both national and international levels. Fear,

trauma, anxiety, anger and hate, dominated and still dominating most of our daily

lives.

Indeed, the reforms in the anti-terror law is rooted on the ideal that it may

replace the old ways into a better one. There is no problem with the rules and

regulations of this law because it adheres to the international standards of

transparency and accountability, but the problem lies on the personalities behind this

that was driven by their personal greed and selfishness. An ideal world is difficult to

attain because the pursuit for power and wealth will forever be there. Rooted in

history, as seen in the wars that our country passed, there will always be difficulties

in handling such negative characters. The ability to foresee, capture negativities and

achieve a perfect world, however, remains promised. This is not to discourage the

people to give their full trust to the government, instead, to allow them to be aware

and encourage them to fight to what is right.

There is a clear need to combat radicalisation and recruiting to terrorist

extremism in jails and successfully reintegrate terrorism prisoners. However, the lack

of awareness of the extent of the issue led several policymakers to adopt rushed

strategies focused on untested hypotheses and anecdotal proof. It should now be

achieved to enhance critical facilities, programs and workforce skills and draw on

universal common practices and promote a jail environment less prone to

radicalization and recruiting for violent extremism. To fully optimize risk prevention

interventions and reintegration services, however, substantial investments are

required to improve our awareness of the triggers and solutions to the issue at hand.

This involves consciously examining how underlying concepts and interventions

known to deter multiple forms of reoffending often relate to this. It is crucial to note

that it faces distinct threats, requirements and obstacles that involve tailor-made

approaches for policies and programs to have significant long-term effect.

References:

Paliicte, C. (2020).  IATF Philippine News Agency. 

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1108819

Cochran, C. L. (2014). Public policy: perspectives and choices. 5 th ed. Boulder:

Lynne Rienner Publishers

Durant, Robert F. and Durant, Jennifer R. S. (2013). Debating public administration:

management challenges, choices, and opportunities. Boca Raton: CRC

Press

Guy, P. B. (2016). American public policy. 10th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE

Kraft, M. E. (2015). Public policy, analysis, and alternatives. 5 th ed. Los Angeles:

Sage

Local Government Units (Luzon). (2020). Managing the COVID-19 Pandemic in the

Philippines: A Policy Sourcebook

Mendoza, R. and Romano, D. (2020). Social welfare for a global era: international

perspectives on policy and practice. Los Angeles: SAGE

Prabhat, S. (2011, June 21). Difference between law and policy. Retrieved from

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-

law-and-policy/

Ringquist, Evan J. (2013). Meta-analysis for public management and policy. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Shafir, E. (2013). The behavioral foundations of public policy. Princeton: Princeton

University Press