It expands the definition of terrorism to include acts intended to cause ”death or serious bodily harm to a person”, ”significant harm and destruction” to a government establishment, private property or critical infrastructure, and where the purpose of such actions is to ”intimidate the public”, ”create an atmosphere or message of fear” or ”political structures, basic economic and social aspects of the country. Those convicted face life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Philippine Commission on Human Rights said the broad definition of ”terrorism” in the bill ”paves the way for possible abuses.” Supporters of the bill say the legislation aims to end terrorism in the country, which is still battling decades of communist and Islamic uprisings. In 2017, militants allied with the Islamic State besieged the southern city of Marawi; Last year, the southern region was rocked by suicide bombings. Seven protesters from the University of the Philippines and one bystander condemning the controversial anti-terrorism law were arrested in Cebu city for alleged violations of the General Community Quarantine Guidelines (GCQ). [97] [98] [99] Prisoners known as ”Cebu 8” spent 36 hours in detention. [99] The PNP`s Central Visayas denied allegations that they had used excessive force to disperse protests against the anti-terrorism law. [100] Ito ang unang public discourse ng Pangulo mula nang maisabatas ang anti-terrorism law. ”Incitement to commit terrorism – Any person who, without directly participating in the commission of terrorism, incites others to perform any of the acts referred to in Article 4 by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations serving the same purpose shall be liable to imprisonment for twelve (12) years.” At the same time, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said the bill ”dilutes human rights guarantees, broadens the definition of terrorism and extends the period of detention without an arrest warrant from three to 14 days, which can be extended by a further 10 days. Vague definitions in the Anti-Terrorism Act may violate the principle of legality.

Senator Panfilo Lacson, a former police chief and supporter of the law, said the Human Security Act of 2007 ”has proven ineffective in terms of effectiveness as an anti-terrorism measure,” in part because it is lenient on offenders and restrictive on perpetrators. The National Federation of Women Farmers (Amihan) said the increase in red marking cases in the country confirmed the prevailing criticisms of the controversial legislation. [87] The Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP), which brings together the heads of the country`s religious orders of men and women, expressed opposition to the law, which they said could ”violate human dignity and human rights.” [88] Various Filipino artists have also expressed disappointment and disagreement with the signing of the law. [89] [90] Members of the Philippine art scene have also expressed dissent. [91] But Dr. Rommel C. Banlaoi, president of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism,[92] defends the need for a new Philippine counterterrorism law, as terrorist threats in the Philippines have intensified even during the COVID-19 pandemic. [93] Nevertheless, a longer period of detention may also allow sufficient time to facilitate questioning. It can also prevent the suspected terrorist from wreaking havoc. More importantly, prolonged pre-trial detention may be legally suspected if customary criminal charges cannot be laid for technical reasons. [8] The anti-terrorism law was passed by Congress on June 3. President Rodrigo Duterte has just signed the wait before it becomes law.

The police and army initially expressed support for the anti-terrorism law and ensured that it did not violate the provisions of the Constitution. In this episode, Rappler Justice journalist Lian Buan, defense journalist JC Gotinga, and researcher and writer Jodesz Gavilan discuss why the anti-terrorism law is dangerous, not only for progressive groups, but for all citizens of the Philippines. So far, a petition has been filed with the Supreme Court to block the implementation of the anti-terrorism law. The transgression could also be used, according to the CHR, ”to restrict essential freedoms, including the expression of dissent, while the authorities, with the vague and overly broad definition, could unjustifiably designate the exercise of rights as terrorist expressions.” ”We fear that Le Goble will use the anti-terrorism law to prosecute dissidents and opposition members against the government, in addition to violating the constitution with regard to the detention of the accused,” human rights lawyer Kristina Conti said in a statement. They also complain about the power given to the Counter-Terrorism Council to determine who and which group could be considered terrorists, which is also possible by the Council without an arrest warrant. Newsbreak: Beyond the Stories is a series of podcasts by Rappler on important and important topics in the Philippines. Rappler.com Greenpeace office in Southeast Asia has been pushing for the repeal of the 2020 anti-terrorism law because of its ”comprehensive definition of terrorism,” which it says could be misused to crack down on dissent. At an öffentliche Ansprache on Wednesday morning, Duterte himself said Philippine lawmakers had nothing to fear in the anti-Terrorism-Gesetz.

.