Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Batasan Hills, Quezon City

TWENTIETH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL. Nol272

Introduced by
ACT Teachers Party-List Rep. ANTONIO L. TINIO
and KABATAAN Party-List Rep. RENEE LOUISE M. CO

AN ACT
REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11479, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Philippine government was one of the 48 original signatories to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The government later signed and
ratified the multilateral treaties on human rights, namely The Intemational Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and The International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights. These official acts of the Republic of the Philippines are a commitment
that the government shall not only respect human rights but must also protect and
promote these rights.

This is unduly contradicted by the passage of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020. Amid
the COVID-19 pandemic, economic crisis and widespread poverty, former President
Rodrigo Duterte certified as urgent the Anti-Terrorism Bill instead of legislative
measures for free mass testing, production subsidy to farmers and fisherfolk, and
financial aid to Filipino households, workers and micro, small and medium enterprises.
Insensitive to the woes and suffering of the Filipino people, and the growing public
discontent and opposition to the administration’s economic policies and failed
militaristic pandemic response, the Duterte administration sought to satisfy his military
by railroading the Anti-Terrorim Act, which among others, removed the “cumbersome”
safeguards of the set under the draconian Human Security Act of 2007.

On 29 May 2020, the House Committees on Public Order and Safety, and on
National Defense and Security disregarded all the House Bills and the progress made

1

g
Ly

y



during the numerous intensive committee meetings, and just adopted the Senate version
of the Anti-Terrorism Bill, All the bills seeking to amend the Human Security Act of
2007 were substituted by House Bill 6875, a copy of Senate Bill 83 or the Senate version
of the Anti-Terrorism Bill. House Bill 6875 was only submitted on 30 May 2020
(Saturday) yet the House swifty passed the Bill on second reading on 2 July 2020, a day
after President Duterte certified the Bill as urgent. The following day, on 3 June 2020,
the House of Representatives passed the Anti-Terrorism Bill on third and final reading
with a vote of 167-36 and 33 abstentions.

‘As a matter of fact, the Minority Bloc in the House of Representatives filed
House Resolution 944 in opposition to the swift passage of the Anti-Terrorism Bill in
the committee level and pointed out that the House members should be given enough
time to study and deliberate the measure. The Makabayan Bloc representatives also
expressed opposition to the railroading of the Anti-Terror Bill that will certainly be used
to sow fear to the public, silence legitimate dissidents and the opposition, and jeopardize
the lives, rights and welfare of the Filipino people.

Despite the widespread protest and opposition from various individuals, groups
and organizations and the call to Junk Terror Law, President Duterte signed the Anti-
Terrorism Bill into law last 3 July 2020.

The Republic Act No. 11479, otherwise known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of
2020, is worse and harsher than declaring martial law under the 1987 Constitution.
Under martial law, according to the Constitution, an individual can only be arrested or
detained for three days without a judicial charge, otherwise he/she shall be released.
However, under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a law enforcement agent or military personnel
can detain an individual for 14 to 24 days, without any warrant of arrest, under mere
suspicion that he/she committed “terrorist” acts.

The Act tends to punish the “intent” and not only the “criminal act.” With intent as the
basis for punishment, mere suspicion can be used by state authorities to criminalize
even dissent. Under Section 4, terrorism is committed by any person who, within or
outside the Philippines, regardless of the stage of execution:

a) Engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person,
or endangers a person’s life:

b) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a
government or public facility, public place or private property;

c) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or
destruction to critical infrastructure;

The Act purportedly excludes the exercises of civil and political rights but only
when they are “not intended” to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to
endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety. Given the vagueness
of the phrase “not intended,” there is still a possibility that legitimate exercises of civil
and political rights can be punished.


The ATA is also susceptible to abuse and misuse of power. Given the broad
definition of “terrorism,” the power of the ATC to designate a person or a group as a
“terrorist” can result in terrorist-tagging, surveillance and arbitrary detention. In fact,
in 2018, the Justice Department, with the help of AFP and PNP intelligence sectors,
filed a petition to tag 656 individuals as terrorists. They later trimmed the list down to
8 due to lack of evidence. Included in the initial 2018 list were Zara Alvarez. and Randy
Echanis who were extrajudicially killed last year. Under Section 25,

“The ATC may designate an individual, groups of persons, organization, or
association, whether domestic or foreign, upon a finding of probable cause that
the individual, groups of persons, organization, or association commit, or
attempt to commit, or conspire in the commission of the acts defined and
penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act.”

Furthermore, even though the evidence of guilt is not strong and the suspect is
entitled to post bail, he/she can only travel within the municipality or city he/she resides,
otherwise the bail will be forfeited. The court can also put the suspect under house
arrest devoid of all means of c nication to people outside his/her residence.
Through this provision of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the State forces easily abuse the law
to deprive people’s rights without even the need to provide strong evidence against the
accused.

There is also an undue delegation of power. The Act allows the Anti-Terrorism
Council (ATC) to designate a person or a group as a terrorist. Such a delegation of
power is invalid as the ATC is not part of the Judiciary and some of its members are
alter egos of the Executive. Under Section 45,

"The members of the ATC are: (1) the Executive Secretary, who shall be its
Chairperson; (2) the National Security Adviser who shall be its Vice
Chairperson; and (3) the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; (4) the Secretary of
National Defense; (5) the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government;
(6) the Secretary of Finance; (7) the Secretary of Justice; (8) the Secretary of
Information and Communications Technology; and (9) the Executive
Director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Secretariat as its other
members."

Lastly, RA 11479 also removed the safeguard provision existing under the
Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007. Under Section 50 of HSA, the acquitted any
person who is accused of terrorism shall be entitled to the payment of damages
amounting to P500,000 for every day he/she was detained or deprived of liberty or
arrested without a warrant as a result of such an accusation.

Even the Commission on Human Rights, in its 2020 Rights Situation of Human
Rights Defenders, said that the law is prone to misuse as it expands the definition of
terrorism to include acts that provoke or intimidate the government.


“The Commission worries that the over-broad definition of terrorism
gives the government unbridled power to determine who are ‘suspected
terrorists’ — which may include ordinary citizens and HRDs. The law also
allows the ex parte designation of organizations as terrorist groups and
penalizes recruitment to and membership in such organizations. The
Commission finds that the law does not have sufficient safeguards against
abuse and can be easily used to commit human rights violations.”

No wonder why the Anti-Terrorism Act, dubbed as the “Terror Law,” was met
by 37 petitions, making it the most challenged legislation in the Supreme Court’s recent
history.

Last 7 December 2021, the Supreme Court upheld that the Anti-Terrorism Act
is not unconstitutional. The Court declared only two provisions of the Act as
unconstitutional, specifically the:

a) Qualifier portion of Section 4, which states “which are not intended to
cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person's
life, or to create a serious risk to public safety,” for being “overbroad and
violative of freedom of expression;” and a

b) Portion of Section 25, which allows “request for designations by other
jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC
after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for
designation of UNSCR No. 1373” as a second method of designation.

On 26 April 2022, the Supreme Court denied with finality the motions for
reconsideration of its decision on petitions against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 due
to lack of substantial issues and arguments raised by the petitioners.

The first victims of the Terror Law are the two Aeta farmers from San Marcelino,
Zambales namely Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos. They were accused of firing at
military personne! resulting in the death df one ‘soldier during an encounter on 21
August 2020. Also, “while in detention, Gurung claimed they were tortured into
admitting being members of the New Peoples’ Army (NPA)-an allegation that the
military has denied.”*

After almost a year of detention, the Olongapo Regional Trial Court dismissed
the case on 15 July 2021 saying that it was a case of mistaken identity. According to
the decision of the Court, the “prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving the
identities of the accused as perpetrators of the crime.” The Court also took note of the
inconsistencies in the sworn statements of soldier-witnesses. It also added that the

* hups:/ /newsinfo inquirer net/ 1461278 olongapo-court-acquits-2-aetas-in-fist-anti-terror law-case


warrantless search conducted on the accused is invalid, rendering inadmissible the
grenade and other ammunition seized from them.?

The Terror Law instills fear not only to students and professors who are active
in expressing their opinions towards the government. It also poses a chilling effect to
the media and civil society groups who act as gatekeepers of the political system and
are vital to democratization as they are instruments to keep the government in check in
times of various forms of abuse of power, keeping the transparency and accountability
of public officials to their constituencies.

The climate of fear and impunity, along with the rabid red-tagging and terror-
tagging perpetuated by the National Taskforce to End Local Communist Armed
Conflict, should be stopped. The State’s pursuit to combat terrorism should not be in
exchange of the rights of the very people it should serve and protect. To fight terrorism,
the State should not be the terrorist sowing fear and disgust to its citizens.

p. ANTONIO L. TINIO Rep. REN! “t . M.CO

ACT Teachers Party-List KABATAAN Party-List

? hesps://wwwwconphilippines.com/news/2021/7/19/Anti-Terrorism-Law-Aeta-charges-Daterte-.html


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Batasan Hills, Quezon City

TWENTIETH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

1272

HOUSE BILL No.

Introduced by
ACT Teachers Party-List Rep. ANTONIO L. TINIO
and KABATAAN Party-List Rep. RENEE LOUISE M. CO

AN ACT
REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11479, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Republic of the
Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Republic Act No. 11479 (An Act to Prevent, Prohibit and Penalize
Terrorism, Thereby Repealing Republic Act No. 9372, Otherwise Known As The
“Human Security Act of 2007"), otherwise known as the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020,”
is hereby repealed.

SECTION 2. Repealing Clause. All laws, jurisprudence, executive issuances or letters
of instruction, or any part thereof that are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act
are hereby deemed repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SECTION 3. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its

publication in the Official Gazette or one (1) newspaper of general circulation.

Approved,