Position Paper on the Anti-Terror Bill (SB 1083/HB 6875) by Faculty Members of

the UP Department of Political Science

Published by UPD POLSC on 6 June 2020

We, the undersigned faculty members of the Department of Political Science of the
University of the Philippines Diliman, express our vehement objection to the contents
and the nature of the passage of the Anti-Terror Bill.

On 26 February 2020, the Senate passed on third and final reading Senate Bill No 1083
or the Anti-Terror Bill. On 1 June 2020, President Rodrigo Duterte certified the bill as
urgent. Two days later, despite opposition from various groups, the House of
Representatives approved its version, House Bill No 6875. The bill’s intent is to amend
and repeal Republic Act No 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA), which,
while the subject of criticisms from human rights groups for possible abuses on the part
of enforcers and misuse or usurpation of the term human security at the time it was
enacted, was also unwanted by those who had to enforce it because of the safeguards
it had against abuse. If anything, the Anti-Terror Bill removes the safeguards present in
the HSA and lessens the penalties for abuse of discretion by concerned authorities.

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that no law shall be enacted depriving
any person of his or her life, liberty, and property without due process of law. While we
recognize the problem terrorism poses and the need for law enforcers to respond
effectively, we are also concerned about how the proposed legislation may affect
individual and collective human rights. In particular, we want to direct attention to the
following issues.

Ambiguity and Abuse of Authority

Any law that imposes penalties on a convicted person or group must be clear about how
it defines an offense. Under the proposed law, what qualifies as an act of “terrorism” has
been expanded and can be subject to a variety of interpretations. Ambiguity in the
definitions of “terrorist” and the “acts of terrorism” may lead to the abuse of authority,
especially when substantive institutional oversight is reduced.
Furthermore, the bill expands the composition of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) to
include other heads of executive departments (Section 45, SB 1083 and HB 6875).
However, all of the members remain to be alter-egos or appointees of any sitting
president. The ATC has also been given the power to designate persons or
organizations as terrorists, in addition to those already designated by the United Nations
Security Council, for the purposes of surveillance and investigations by the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC). Other than probable cause, the ATC has no set criteria for
the designation. This may be subject to arbitrary interpretation and application,
especially without the participation of government bodies independent of the Executive,
such as the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) (Section 25, SB 1083 and HB 6875).

Safeguards have been reduced. In the Congress-approved bills, the penalties for
unauthorized and malicious examination and furnishing false evidence, forged
documents, or spurious evidence were reduced (Sections 37 and 43, SB 1083 and HB
6875).

With too much discretion at the disposal of the ATC and reduced penalties for abusive
interpretation of the law, there can be violations on the right to due process of an
individual. Does this mean that one is guilty until proven otherwise?

Rights of the Accused to be Informed

One of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of an accused is to be informed of the

nature and cause of the accusation against him or her.

Under the proposed law, the arresting officer or the head of the detaining facility is
tasked to inform the accused of his or her rights upon arrest (Section 30, SB 1083 and
HB 6875) and detention (Section 29, SB 1083 and HB 6875). However, it is being
proposed that some of the existing rights in the HSA be removed.

In the HSA, the person under surveillance or the accused has the right to be informed of
the acts done by the law enforcement agencies and to challenge the legality of such
interference before the court (Section 9, HSA). The accused also has the right to be
informed of the termination of the surveillance, interception, and recording should there
be no case filed against him or her for any violation of the law (Section 10, HSA). But
under the proposed measure, these parts were deleted.

There are also restrictions and limitations to be imposed in accessing records and logs,
which may be used by the accused to file cases against those who conducted malicious
investigations (Sections 32 and 37, SB 1083 and HB 6875).

The accused may be rendered clueless about what is happening. With limited
information, the accused may not be able to respond properly to any accusations
lodged against him or her. This may also constitute a violation of the right to due
process. The so-called “safeguards” usually do not protect the poor and the powerless.

Surveillance and Detention

In the proposed measure, the period of surveillance is extended from 30 to 60 days.

Surveillance includes tracking down, following, or investigating individuals or
organizations; or the wiretapping, listening, intercepting, screening, reading, and
recording of messages, conversations, discussions, spoken or written words, including
computer and network surveillance, and other communications of individuals charged
with or suspected to be engaged in terrorism (Section 16, SB 1083 and HB
6875). While judicial authorization is required before the conduct of surveillance, the
mechanisms and equipment used to conduct the above-specified acts remain within the
control and jurisdiction of military intelligence units and personnel.

The period of detention without judicial warrant of arrest of suspected terrorists is also
increased from three days to fourteen days and may be extended by a maximum of ten
days. Furthermore, the arresting officer may not need to present the suspect before any
judge (Section 29).

These provisions encroach upon the rights to communication and privacy of the people
that this state has sworn to serve and protect.
No Court Order Needed

A portion of the proposed law is dedicated to the authority to investigate, inquire into
and examine bank deposits of the accused. In the current law, a written order from the
Court of Appeals (CA) is required to access bank deposits of the accused. This is a
safeguard placed to ensure that no malicious investigations are conducted and no one’s
right is violated.

In the proposed law, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) no longer needs a
court order to conduct investigations (Section 35, SB 1083 and HB 6875). This can lead
to an investigation-spree by the AMLC, under the instruction of the ATC, of political
enemies, critics, and vocal opposition to any administration.

Role of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)

The proposed law retains the expectation on the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
to give “the highest priority to the investigation and prosecution of violations of civil and
political rights of persons in relation to the implementation” of the law. The CHR,
however, will no longer have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute persons who may
have violated the civil and political rights of persons suspected of or detained for the
crimes defined and penalized (Section 47, SB 1083 and HB 6875).

Oversight

In order to prevent abuses on the part of the executive, legislative oversight is

necessary. However, the oversight powers, under the proposed law, have been watered
down (Section 50, SB 1083 and HB 6875)

The report of the ATC to Congress was changed from semiannual to annual. The report
does not have to include recommendations for reassessment, amendment, or repeal of
the Act and other provisions regarding the authorization of surveillance of suspected
and charged persons. Lastly, courts handling cases will not be required to report the
status of the cases to the two Houses of Congress and the President.
The reduction of oversight power opens the possibility of abuses in the implementation
of the law. Instead of serving as checks on the powers given to the executive, the other
branches of government become accomplices to the systematic disenfranchisement of
rights.

Timing and Mode

We are also gravely concerned with the timing and mode of the passage of this bill. In
the middle of a pandemic, Congress chose to prioritize an anti-terror law, thereby
instilling fear instead of compassion. Moreover, critical decisions have been made in a
span of days—definitely a short period for a measure needing much scrutiny.

Some members of the House of Representatives, in particular, have not been given a
chance by the House leadership to introduce amendments to the Senate version and
the majority approved the Senate version in toto. Has there been a thorough review of
the existing provisions and careful deliberation of the proposed amendments? What
demands this kind of urgency especially under a public health emergency?

Stifling Dissent and Criticism

We also strongly condemn the violent dispersal of peaceful protestors against the bill
during a demonstration held on 5 June 2020 at the University of the Philippines Cebu
campus under the guise of enforcing the city’s general community quarantine. If a law
purporting to protect public health can be implemented in this abusive manner, how
much more prone to abuse will this proposed Anti-Terror Bill be with all of its
problematic provisions?

While terrorism, as defined in the bill, excludes advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of
work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights,
there are dangers as regards the manner in which the powers to deal with terrorism are
left in the hands of the executive branch. If abused, the law can be used to instill fear
among the critics of any administration—a weapon like no other.
Signed by the following faculty members of the Department of Political Science,
University of the Philippines, Diliman

• Aries A. Arugay
• Maria Ela L. Atienza
• Aimee Dresa R. Bautista
• Dennis V. Blanco
• Francis Joseph A. Dee
• Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem
• Jean S. Encinas-Franco
• Miriam Coronel Ferrer
• Perlita M. Frago-Marasigan
• Enrico V. Gloria
• Jan Robert R. Go
• Herman Joseph S. Kraft
• Raisa E. Lumampao
• Ruth R. Lusterio-Rico
• Marielle Y. Marcaida
• Maria Elize H. Mendoza
• Matthew Manuelito S. Miranda
• Jaime B. Naval
• Temario C. Rivera
• Ranjit Singh Rye
• Jalton G. Taguibao
• Maria Thaemar C. Tana
• Aletheia Kerygma B. Valenciano
• Jean Paul L. Zialcita

https://polisci.upd.edu.ph/position-paper-on-the-anti-terror-bill/