OUTLINE FOR ANTI-TERROR BILL DOCUMENTARY

I. Background on Bill Implementation (1 minute, 22 seconds) (5 secs title)

Narrator 1:
“The Anti Terror Bill which has recently been signed by Philippine
President Duterte in July 3, 2020, has been the subject of debate for the
past months following its announcement. The polarizing topic has
garnered outrage among those in favor of it as well as critics who believe
that it will only bring harm. The bill appears to be intended to uphold the
safety and common welfare of Filipinos. The Philippines has officially
ranked the 9th most terror-afflicted country by the Global Terrorism
Index as of 2019, so some people think that it’s about time we had a bill
such as this one implemented. This bill, however, may have serious
implications on the freedom of speech and security of Filipino citizens.
For this documentary, we’ve decided to contact a political science
graduate from the University of the Philippines to illuminate the concerns
people have towards the bill.”
Graduate:
“Section 29 of the Anti Terror Bill states that any law enforcement agent
or military personnel can arrest and detain without a warrant anyone
suspected of any terrorism offense for 14-24 days. This section already
violates the Constitution which declares that people have rights against
unreasonable seizures(including arrest) of whatever nature and for any
purpose. The real issue, however comes in the ambiguous new offense
declared in the bill, the incitement of terrorism.

Incitement of terrorism, according to the new law, includes speeches,

proclamations, writings, or other representations of inciting terrorism
without directly taking part in the commission of terrorism. Citizens who
support the law argue that acts of freedom of speech such as protest,
dissent or advocacy will still be protected under it given that it poses no
serious risks to public safety. However, the Anti-Terrorism Council,
which identifies whether people are terrorists or not, is entirely composed
of 8 members of Duterte’s cabinet and one other government head. For
 this reason, it’s very possible that Duterte may use the bill to eliminate
political opponents as well as dissent from journalists and citizens.”

Narrator 2: (39 secs)

“Mr. Miguel de Porres has many other people from other parts of the world
on his side in his opposition against the terror bill. Various civil society groups,
university representatives, business groups and human rights organizations have
already spoken out against the bill stating that it could be used as a measure for
oppression if used in the wrong hands. In a press statement, the Human Rights
Watch, which has already been documenting Duterte’s violent war on drugs,
made their opposition against the bill clear by saying that the bill will “have a
horrific impact on basic civil liberties, due process, and the rule of law amid the
Philippines’ shrinking democratic space.”

II. Interview with Lawyer (Supporter) (44 secs.) (5 secs transition)

- Necessities of the Bill
Lawyer (Jose Cupertino):
“We really need an Anti Terror Bill because the terrorists won’t rest even
amidst a pandemic. They will strike us when we are at our most vulnerable
which is right now while COVID-19 is affecting our country, so we have no
choice but to act now through this bill.”
Interviewer 1:
“Many people have been arguing about the bill violating the Constitution as
well as the risks it has to be abused to forcefully silence dissent. Do you
have anything to say about these opinions?”
Lawyer:
“Much of the information regarding the bill on social media consists of over-
exaggerated claims made to spread fear and arouse anger. But, you see, the
bill will not put activism on the same level as terrorism. Simple acts of
posting on social media or holding banners can never reach to the extent of
violence and destruction we see terrorists do.”
 “As for people who claim that the bill may be abused, they’re not wrong. In
fact, any and all laws can theoretically be abused as we’ve seen throughout
history. So why would we refrain ourselves from passing laws for these
reasons? We might as well not have any laws at all if we wanted to eliminate
the chances of them being abused.”
III. Interview with Political Science Graduate (Critic) (57 secs) (5 secs
transition)
Interviewer 1:
“Many supporters of the bill have said that the fears and concerns that arose
with the anti-terror bill are over-exaggerated and the argument that the law
could be abused is invalid because any law can be abused. What do you have
to say about these opinions?
Graduate:
“I know as well as any other person in the Philippines that all laws can and
have been abused. But the risks the anti-terror bill could have on public
safety and freedom of speech cannot justify its supposed power to catch
terrorists easily. Also, there have already been examples of anti terror bills in
other countries that have been used by the government to silence dissent
from journalists and activists.”
Interviewer 1:
“So, you believe that we will see similar situations in our country?”
Graduate:
“The Philippines, with its history of corruption and politically motivated
arrests, will no doubt see similar situations within its islands. The country
is already considered the most dangerous country in Southeast Asia for
journalists according to the Southeast Asia Media Report published by
the International Federation of Journalists. So the law can also be used to
silence journalists who may report on the effects the anti-terror bill has
on people’s lives as their attempts may be classified as incitement of
terrorism by the Anti-Terrorism Council.“
Narrator 3:
 “As Mr. ___ stated previously, the Philippines’ anti-terror bill shares many
similarities with anti terror bills in other countries, particularly Egypt,
Turkey and Ethiopia”

- Egypt (5 secs transition)

Narrator 1 (46 secs):
1. In 2015, an antiterrorism law was passed that gave police the ability to arrest
suspects without warrants for up to eight days. The law criminalized the
incitement of terrorism by whatever methods.
2. In April 2016, peaceful protests broke out, and 382 people involved in the
protests were arrested by Egyptian security forces. The grounds for their
arrest were incitement of terrorism, publishing fake news and promoting
terrorism-related crimes.
3. Under Egypt’s antiterror law, about 36 prominent journalists and activists
were arrested and prosecuted for peaceful criticism.
4. (20 sec news report)

- Turkey (5 secs transition)

Narrator 2 (61 secs):
1. In 2013, a law was passed that criminalized propaganda which incited
terrorism and a 2015 law permitted unwarranted arrests of terrorist
suspects for at least 1 day. While Turkey had already been imprisoning
journalists and opposition members before these 2 laws were passed,
these laws gave the government more legal grounds to arrest and detain
people to crush any attempts of dissent.
2. In 2016, 136 journalists were imprisoned, 135 of them were charged with
terrorism. And 2019 was the first year since 2016 wherein Turkey wasn’t
the world’s worst jailer of journalists, but that was because it shut down
over 100 news outlets.
3. Government records from July 2019 say that 70,000 people were tried for
terrorism and over 150,000 were investigated for terrorism—119 of these
were journalists, and most were activists.
4. (20 sec news report)
 - Ethiopia (5 secs transition)
Narrator 3 (60 secs):
1. The Philippine Anti-terror Bill shares many similarities with one passed in
2009 in Ethiopia. Both laws criminalized actions (like writing, publishing,
publicizing, or disseminating statements) which would directly or indirectly
incite terrorism and gave police the authority to detain suspects without
warrants for up to 2 days.
2. Under the law, a famous journalist was arrested as a terrorist for publishing a
piece that criticized the government’s use of the law to arrest journalists. The
journalist was sentenced to 18 years in prison, and his newspaper was
forcefully shut down.
3. When a new prime minister from a different party was elected in 2018, the
government released over 20,000 prisoners arrested under the 2009
antiterror law, most of their detainments were politically motivated.
4. (20 secs news report)

IV. Conclusion
Narrator 1:
- The new anti-terrorism bill will undermine our ability as human rights
defenders to speak out and cooperate when atrocities occur in our country.
We’ve seen examples of how this bill can be abused from other countries
and we’ve seen the opinions of various professionals and experts. It will also
put our lives and limbs at risk. The risks of it undoing years of peacebuilding
and the trust of the people for the government are undeniable
Lawyer:
- “Fight for what’s right”
Graduate:
“Become the change your world needs”
References:
- https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/06/30/philippines-antiterror-bill-will-
stifle-dissent-pub-82215
- https://www.kunr.org/post/ethiopia-says-it-will-free-all-its-political-
prisoners#stream/0
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/27/egypt-fearing-protests-police-arrest-
hundreds
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/05/philippines-new-anti-terrorism-act-
endangers-rights
- https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/1859058/Manila/Local-News/Anti-
terrorism-bill-faces-mounting-opposition