Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (Philippines)

Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (Philippines)
Name	Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020
Enacted by	Philippine Congress
Signed by	Rodrigo Duterte
Date signed	June 3, 2020
Status	In force

Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (Philippines) is a Philippine law that revised and expanded counterterrorism powers and replaced portions of the Human Security Act of 2007. It was enacted amid ongoing conflicts involving the New People's Army, Abu Sayyaf Group, and regional security challenges linked to the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Major debates involved figures such as Leila de Lima, Miriam Defensor Santiago, and institutions like the Supreme Court of the Philippines and the Commission on Human Rights (Philippines).

Background and Legislative History

The Act was drafted and debated in the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives during the 18th Congress, with principal sponsors including Senator Panfilo Lacson and Representative Rodante Marcoleta. Its passage followed prior legislation such as the Human Security Act of 2007 and global precedents like the USA PATRIOT Act and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in the United Kingdom. National incidents cited during deliberations included the Marawi siege and attacks attributed to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant affiliates, as well as the prolonged insurgency by the Communist Party of the Philippines. The bill prompted interventions from international actors including the United Nations Human Rights Council and non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Key Provisions and Definitions

The statute broadened definitions of terrorism to include acts intended to cause "widespread and extraordinary fear" and authorized designations of individuals and groups as terrorist organizations by the Anti-Terrorism Council. It created mechanisms for preventive detention of up to 24 days, extended surveillance measures, and allowed law enforcement agencies like the Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines to request electronic surveillance orders. The law empowered the Anti-Money Laundering Council and financial regulators to freeze assets connected to designated entities and established measures for deradicalization programs. Provisions touched on collaboration with international partners such as the United States Department of State and regional bodies like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Implementation and Enforcement

Enforcement responsibilities fell to agencies including the National Bureau of Investigation (Philippines), the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and local city police units, coordinated by the Anti-Terrorism Council chaired by the Secretary of National Defense (Philippines). The Act authorized specified operations involving the Philippine Air Force and regional Philippine Army commands in counterterrorism missions. Implementation intersected with programs run by the Department of Justice (Philippines) and the Office of the Solicitor General, and training initiatives involved international partners like the United States Pacific Command and multilateral exercises such as Rim of the Pacific Exercise participants. Operational guidance referenced existing doctrines used by units like the Special Action Force (Philippine National Police).

Legal Challenges and Supreme Court Rulings

Multiple petitions were filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines contesting constitutionality, brought by litigants including Amnesty International Philippines, media organizations like ABS-CBN Corporation, and legislators such as Senator Risa Hontiveros. Key issues raised included alleged violations of protections in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines concerning writ of habeas corpus and freedom of expression under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals of the Philippines. The Court issued interim orders and ultimately ruled on severability of certain provisions, upholding significant portions while striking down or interpreting others through doctrines established in rulings like those involving the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 and prior constitutional jurisprudence. Decisions referenced justices such as Alexander Gesmundo and legal principles applied in cases involving the Right to privacy in the Philippines.

Public Response and Impact on Civil Liberties

Civil society actors including Karapatan, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, and student groups from institutions like the University of the Philippines staged protests and filed petitions. Media concerns were raised by outlets such as Rappler and Philippine Daily Inquirer regarding implications for investigative reporting and press freedom under protections similar to those in cases involving Maria Ressa and Ramon Magsaysay Award laureates. Labor unions and political parties like the Makabayan bloc criticized potential chilling effects on dissent, while business groups and investors weighed national security stability against concerns voiced by the International Federation of Journalists and trade partners including European Union missions. Human rights advocates cited patterns of previous counterinsurgency campaigns such as Oplan Tokhang and extrajudicial killings as context for fears of abuse.

Amendments, Revisions, and Subsequent Developments

After enactment, calls for amendment came from lawmakers including Senator Francis Pangilinan and policy experts at think tanks like the Asia Foundation and International Crisis Group. The Commission on Audit (Philippines) and international review bodies monitored funding and implementation. Legislative proposals and executive issuances sought clarifications on designation procedures, oversight by bodies such as the Congress of the Philippines, and safeguards similar to those in comparative statutes like the Australian Counter-Terrorism Legislation. Subsequent developments included training, judicial reviews, and continued advocacy by organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Category:Philippine law