Striking the Balance Between Adapting to Human Rights Standards and Enacting the

Anti-Terrorism Law: An Analysis on the Process, Outcomes and Lapses of Republic Act

No. 11479 as Perceived by Selected Alumni of Sto. Niño Montessori of Academic

Excellence.
 ● CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Terrorism is being increasingly seen as one of the most serious, disturbing and

damaging problems of life in our time. It incorporates bomb attacks, kidnappings, and

murders. Terrorism is a known issue in our nation, for it carries everyday horror to

individuals living in the territory, and it really affects not only those people, but also the

country as a whole, Therefore, the law – the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 which was

formally assigned as Republic Act No. 11479, a Philippine law whose intent is to

prevent, prohibit, and penalize terrorism in the Philippines was signed by President

Rodrigo Duterte on July 3 and replaced the Human Security Act of 2007 on July 18,

2020.

Security is a condition or feeling of safety, of being ensured. The security of the

individual is a basic human right and the protection of individuals is, accordingly, a

fundamental obligation of Government which means that they must ensure the human

rights of their nationals by taking positive measures to protect them against the threat

of terrorist acts and bringing the perpetrators of such acts to justice.

Human rights aspire to shield all individuals everywhere from serious political, legal,

and social maltreatments. Human rights are the fundamental rights and freedoms that
belong to every person in the world. These values are characterized and protected by

law.

(Kindly add some additional reasons why the law was implemented. For

example, the Sulu Bombing and the Marawi Crisis)

B. Theoretical Framework

One of the most related studies that are entitled as Rational Choice Theory, As

indicated by Pape (2003), this point or advantages of fear-based oppressor assaults is

to accomplish explicit political purposes: to constrain an objective government to

change strategy, to assemble extra selects and monetary help, while its expense

regularly comes in types of danger related with 'the utilization of dangerous gadget,

airplane hijackings, deaths, kidnappings and prisoner takings are among the other

accessible alternatives – just as their reactions to the safety efforts embraced to

obstruct them' (Shughart 2009:15) However, discerning decision hypothesis has been

evaluated for its failure to give suitable boundary to estimating how a see activity could

fill in as advantage or cost to the psychological militants. Wieviorka's (1993) perception

is especially notable as it assists with sorting out how the expectation of judicious

decision hypothesis is misdirecting given the powerlessness of its boundary to

sufficiently quantify factors with precisions. The conspicuous ramifications are that

adjustments in methodologies and strategies of the entertainers or changes in the

supposition of seeing advantages or cost of some demonstration can altogether

influence the probability that psychological militants act will be submitted.

C. Statement of the Problem

1. What are the fundamental reasons why President Rodrigo Duterte needed to direly

execute the Republic Act 11479 or Anti-Terrorism Law?

2. Why are different challenges and requests to revoke the Anti-Terrorism Law rising

after the execution of the Republic Act No. 11479?

3. How should the Philippine government work on the corrections of the Anti-

Terrorism Law to reduce the fear of the concerned constituents upon implementation of

the previously mentioned law?

All in all, an impressive paper! Just add more content on the background of

the study and it will be an effective attention-grabber for your readers.