The unjust system favors no righteous freedom. The equilibrium of acting and re-evaluating upon the commonalities and grounds of law has been labeled into a questionable mark upon the existence of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. In a political setting, terror is induced by perceived as either political repression or violence. Terrorism, on the other hand, is the intentionality of an individual to cause violence primarily for political or religious purposes. Under the Human Security Act of 2007, terrorism is a crime that describes such acts as causing “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace.” The first group to be officially listed as a terrorist organization under the said law is the Abu Sayyaf— a Jihadist militant and pirate group that follows the Wahhabi doctrine of Sunni Islam. Under the Section 2 of the Human Security Act of 2007—which was then signed and approved by the Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, this act intends to declare a policy of the State to protect life, liberty, and property from acts of terrorism.
In the middle of a pandemic crisis, citizens were alarmed and threatened with the fast-paced implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020. Tagged as “Junk Terror Bill” and “Junk Terror Law” on several digital mediums and news outlets, once again, the Duterte Administration made another bark of noise all over the country as it embarks another milestone of securing an Executive authority to penalize and sanction anyone who will be marked as terrorists under the ATA constitutional agreement.
Several opposing lawmakers insist that the Anti-Terror Act is unconstitutional based on several provisions that this law has demolished. Critics highlighted how unnecessary ATA is knowing how, one, the Security Act of 2007 exists already. Two, it invalidates the freedom of expression as dissent is now labeled as an act of terrorism, and lastly, terms and definitions in certain clauses were questionable and unspecific which marks several probations as unclear and biased as well. However, the Principal Author of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020, Senator Panfilo Lacson, insists that the government solely intends to be proactive.
Opposing with the implementation of ATA, counterarguments revealed how the Act disregards the inviolable rights of the citizens of the Philippines wherein it contradicts the constitutional right of, “No person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.” The latter constitutional law is made inviolable to ensure the safeguard of the accused to exercise his freedom to testify and rebut against the allegation of the government under a due process. Whereas, contradicting this agreement is Section 25 of the ATA. Section 25 of ATA states that the Anti-Terror Council (ATC) was given the authority to designate an individual, groups of persons, organizations, or associations whether domestic or foreign, upon finding a probable cause, that the individual commit, or attempt to commit or conspire in the commission of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4 to 12 of the ATA. The ATC comprises of the Administration’s political allies—the eight Cabinet Secretaries and the Executive Director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council which was then appointed by President Rodrigo Roa Duterte.
On the other hand, as per stated in Section 53 of the Human Security Act of 2007, the members of ATC are the Executive Secretary, who shall be its Chairperson; the Secretary of Justice, who shall be its Vice-Chairperson; and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; the Secretary of National Defense; the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government; the Secretary of Finance; and the National Security Advisor, as its other members. In the line of this comparison among the members of the ATC, an act of terror rose upon the citizen as Section 29 of ATA reveals that the Act, “does not provide standards or limitations on the power of the ATC to issue arrests orders, just like the Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSOs) of the Martial Law era.” With this ideology and upon the further hint of confirmation coming from the Senate President Vicente Sotto III himself, “Hindi na kailangan ng Martial Law kapag napasa namin itong Anti-Terror Bill”—alarm news headlines of a possible repeat of history which were then condemned as the Government’s ignition of a policy of terror.
The ASSOs under the regime of former President Ferdinand Marcos’ Martial law indicates how the Secretary of National Defense has been authorized to order an arrest. However, its authority is limited unlike the Anti-Terror Act of 2020. Whereas, the Judge could no longer reprimand the issue of warrantless arrest given by the Anti-Terror Council as it will invalidate Rule 113 of ATA. Rule 113 denotes that, arrest without warrant is lawful when the crime is already being committed in the presence of the law enforcement officer and the title referred to a law enforcement officer is now given to the ATC itself as mandated by the President under this Act. This Act demolished the constitutional law of issuing a warrant of arrest as it now diminishes the existence of probable cause under the authority of a Judge. The Anti-Terror Council now has the upper hand in terms of arresting anyone who will be tapped as a threat to the security of the Government.
Debates are flourishing over several councils as to how and why it is unjust in certain levels of circumstances. One argument states that the standards are not limited and it does not require any probable cause for the ATC to tap any individual or group as a terrorist. In a most concrete explanation, anyone, regardless of any political and non-political affiliation, involvement, participation, or membership among the list of suspected terrorism party, could be suspected as a terrorist and could be tapped and detained by the ATC with a warrantless arrest. The suspected terrorist could be detained up to 14 days which can be extended to another 10 days comprising 24 days of warrantless detainment without being charged for a specific case. One may contradict or rebut that he or she is safe from being tagged as a terrorist however, in the eyes of the ATC, you could be tapped as one, in an instant. Is the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 established to safeguard the citizens of the Republic of the Philippines? Or is it the Government’s resolution to safeguard its political space against the critics of its countrymen?
