EXPLAINER: The dangers of the Anti-terrorism Law

Why the Anti-Terrorism Law Raised Concerns

The explainer examines why the Philippines’ Anti-Terrorism Law was feared, despite the government’s argument that it was needed to combat terrorism. President Rodrigo Duterte signed the law despite strong public opposition.

Expanded definition of terrorism

The law expands the Human Security Act’s single definition of terrorism into six categories. These include acts intended to intimidate the public, spread fear, influence the government through intimidation, disrupt the country’s fundamental structures, create a public emergency, or seriously undermine public safety.

The explainer warns that the broad wording could potentially be used against protests or other forms of dissent.

Additional offenses and penalties

Terrorism can carry a sentence of life imprisonment. The law also criminalizes activities such as conspiring, recruiting, planning, training, facilitating, threatening, and inciting terrorism. Certain related acts, including knowingly joining a terrorist group, carry a 12-year prison term.

Surveillance and warrantless detention

With an order from the Court of Appeals, authorities may monitor a suspect’s calls and messages for 60 days, with a possible 30-day extension. The previous law allowed up to 30 days of surveillance.

The law also extends warrantless detention from three days to between 14 and 24 days. Arrests may be authorized by the executive Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC). The explainer contrasts this with constitutional limits and the previous law’s requirement that warrantless arrest follow prior surveillance. It also notes that the new law removes compensation of ₱500,000 per day for wrongful detention.

Terrorist designations and asset freezes

A court may provisionally declare an individual or group to be a terrorist within 72 hours, without a hearing. A full trial must follow within six months.

Separately, the ATC may designate a person or organization based on probable cause and ask the Anti-Money Laundering Council to freeze assets suspected of being linked to terrorism. The government may seize those assets if the link is proven.

Concerns about the safeguard for dissent

The law states that exercising civil and political rights, such as protesting, is not terrorism if it is not intended to cause death, serious physical harm, or a serious risk to public safety. The explainer argues that this qualification leaves room for authorities to treat dissent as terrorism by alleging harmful intent.

It also warns that the term “inciting” may be interpreted subjectively, potentially allowing an officer’s claim of having been incited to be used against a speaker.

Detention and due-process risks

People charged with certain offenses may be placed under house arrest and have their communications cut off. The explainer warns that terrorism-related charges may be non-bailable, potentially keeping an accused person in jail throughout the trial.

An acquittal would not automatically penalize officials responsible for an unjustified arrest; the accused would have to pursue separate countercharges.

Legal and Public Concerns

Major law groups, leading law schools, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines raised constitutional concerns, particularly about the ATC’s powers over arrest and detention. They argue that these powers belong to the courts.

The explainer acknowledges the need to stop terrorism but questions whether the law grants excessive authority and whether police and military officials can be trusted to use it responsibly.

Presenters and Contributors

No presenter is identified in the supplied subtitles. Senator Panfilo Lacson is referenced as defending safeguards in the law. Legal experts and organizations are discussed but are not named individually.