PAUL JURES B. DULFO 12-ST.

PAUL

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 Anti-Terrorism Act is a human rights disaster in the making. The
balance of power and the discretion on its use has been enhanced by the
present anti-terrorism act. The proponents of the anti-terrorism act are
working on the presumption that the current institutions the whole range of
the security, executive, and judicial institutions would give high regard to
human rights and would exercise a robust degree of accountability.
However, the public reaction against the proposed law could be inferred as
a manifestation of diminished trust in key government institutions tasked
with anti-terrorism efforts.
The abuses committed by some police during the bloody war against illegal
drugs, the serious records of extrajudicial killings permeating some parts of
the country, the controversial red-tagging practiced by some government
agents, even of legitimate organizations, and the lingering concerns over
human rights violations across various administrations are some of the
serious factors that affect people’s trust toward the government. Inequality,
Injustice, and Impunity Could Increase the Risk of Terrorism; Hence Real
Solutions Go Well Beyond Police and Military Ones.