7. Countering Terrorism: A New Excuse to Undermine Free Speech
By Leena Mohammed and Raiaab Ajmal, published July 2020
Editor's note & Preface: The world has seen an uptick in national security precautions against terrorism in recent years due to the spike of homegrown terrorists: terrorists that are not immigrants, but that instead are converts. National Security gives governments broad authority to protect citizens, but at what point do people's rights overtake government surveillance in the name of security? This article examines a case studies in the Philippines, which has limited free speech in the name of countering terrorism.
Undermining Democracy: The Citizens' Argument
The 16th president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte came into power on June 30th, 2016. Over the course of his term, Duterte has become a controversial topic of discussion, with many of his policies threatening the sovereignty and liberty of his people. One such law has taken the Philippines by storm as activists and citizens voice their opinions against its invasive, violent nature.
On the 22nd of June, President Duterte held a meeting with members of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID). During the meeting, he stated that despite the ongoing pandemic, terrorism was “number one” on the list of security threats faced by the country. The President also remarked, “If I do not do my duty now as President, we might just bargain away, place in jeopardy, the democratic values that the Filipinos have enjoyed for the longest time.”
An anti-terrorism bill, which had been passed by the Senate in February 2020, has been approved by the full Congress of the Philippines. In the coming weeks, the government expects the president to sign the proposal into law. The integration of this bill into Filipino law would allow the president’s administration to not only adopt a vague “definition” of the word terrorism but also exercise their power to arrest whoever fits the descriptions present in this “definition.” This bill is a revision of the 2007 Human Security Act (HAS) and has gained criticism as the policy is thought to be an infringement of people’s human rights. Following this legislation, the term terrorism will be defined as “intending to cause death or injury, damage government or private property or use weapons of mass destruction to "spread a message of fear" or intimidate the government.”
Hundreds have taken to the streets; protestors claim that this bill will simply give the government an excuse to arrest and penalize any critics of the government in the name of security. The broad definition gives the government to arrest without warrants, which poses a threat to innocent people all over the Philippines. The policy enables the government to proclaim any civilian a “terrorist”, and under the law, they can detain them for 14 days without a warrant. However, the Duterte administration can also extend the warrant by 10 additional days.
The bill also states that those convicted of planning and collaborating, instigating and facilitating a “terrorist attack” could possibly face a life sentence, without the possibility of parole.
These reforms are said to violate the bill of rights of citizens as stated in the Constitution. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) affirmed that “it will exhaust all avenue[s] to keep the anti-terrorism bill "within the bounds of our Constitution." President Duterte has ‘toyed’ with the idea of introducing martial law within his country, and many protesters are under the impression that the establishment of this legislation will give way to a “reign of terror,” abolishing democracy in the process.
The International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) proclaimed “the terror bill erodes the freedoms and liberties of Filipinos which are inalienable, guaranteed by their constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other internationally agreed-upon instruments to which the Philippines is a signatory." The matter reached the United Nations Human Rights Office, which, in a recent report, described the bill as one that "dilutes human rights safeguards."
The possibility of this legislation’s passage has forced citizens and activists to protest, even amidst an ongoing pandemic. Aside from these physical protests, Filipinos are joined by individuals from all over the world who are trying to help in any way possible and raise awareness, given the current circumstances. “#JunkTerrorBill” has gone viral on different social media platforms such as Instagram and Twitter. Opponents of President Duterte’s policies created petitions, which have gained traction worldwide. Those around the world wishing to help Filipino civilians make donations to support the protestors and their cause.
The whole country now waits in anticipation, worrying about whether or not their opposition is strong enough to persuade a seemingly democratic government from becoming tyrannical.
On the 22nd of June, President Duterte held a meeting with members of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID). During the meeting, he stated that despite the ongoing pandemic, terrorism was “number one” on the list of security threats faced by the country. The President also remarked, “If I do not do my duty now as President, we might just bargain away, place in jeopardy, the democratic values that the Filipinos have enjoyed for the longest time.”
An anti-terrorism bill, which had been passed by the Senate in February 2020, has been approved by the full Congress of the Philippines. In the coming weeks, the government expects the president to sign the proposal into law. The integration of this bill into Filipino law would allow the president’s administration to not only adopt a vague “definition” of the word terrorism but also exercise their power to arrest whoever fits the descriptions present in this “definition.” This bill is a revision of the 2007 Human Security Act (HAS) and has gained criticism as the policy is thought to be an infringement of people’s human rights. Following this legislation, the term terrorism will be defined as “intending to cause death or injury, damage government or private property or use weapons of mass destruction to "spread a message of fear" or intimidate the government.”
Hundreds have taken to the streets; protestors claim that this bill will simply give the government an excuse to arrest and penalize any critics of the government in the name of security. The broad definition gives the government to arrest without warrants, which poses a threat to innocent people all over the Philippines. The policy enables the government to proclaim any civilian a “terrorist”, and under the law, they can detain them for 14 days without a warrant. However, the Duterte administration can also extend the warrant by 10 additional days.
The bill also states that those convicted of planning and collaborating, instigating and facilitating a “terrorist attack” could possibly face a life sentence, without the possibility of parole.
These reforms are said to violate the bill of rights of citizens as stated in the Constitution. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) affirmed that “it will exhaust all avenue[s] to keep the anti-terrorism bill "within the bounds of our Constitution." President Duterte has ‘toyed’ with the idea of introducing martial law within his country, and many protesters are under the impression that the establishment of this legislation will give way to a “reign of terror,” abolishing democracy in the process.
The International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) proclaimed “the terror bill erodes the freedoms and liberties of Filipinos which are inalienable, guaranteed by their constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other internationally agreed-upon instruments to which the Philippines is a signatory." The matter reached the United Nations Human Rights Office, which, in a recent report, described the bill as one that "dilutes human rights safeguards."
The possibility of this legislation’s passage has forced citizens and activists to protest, even amidst an ongoing pandemic. Aside from these physical protests, Filipinos are joined by individuals from all over the world who are trying to help in any way possible and raise awareness, given the current circumstances. “#JunkTerrorBill” has gone viral on different social media platforms such as Instagram and Twitter. Opponents of President Duterte’s policies created petitions, which have gained traction worldwide. Those around the world wishing to help Filipino civilians make donations to support the protestors and their cause.
The whole country now waits in anticipation, worrying about whether or not their opposition is strong enough to persuade a seemingly democratic government from becoming tyrannical.
A Necessary Precaution: Preserving Safety
The Duterte Administration recently passed the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which has gained controversy due to its restrictive nature. The legislation aims to combat terrorism by detaining people that the government deems as terrorists. After the bill was passed, many Filipinos took to the streets, protesting and calling this a violation of human rights. They believe that the law is an attempt to silence citizens and remove their right to freedom of speech.
However, this powerful piece of legislation is necessary for the protection of all Filipinos, as thousands of citizens have died from suicide bombings, beheadings and shootings by terrorists annually. Terrorist groups like the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), which has ties to Al-Qaeda, have targeted and murdered over 500 innocent Filipino citizens over the years. The most notable of these attacks is the incident in Manila Bay, where 116 people died as a result of ferry bombing in 2004. Other terrorist groups in the country, such as ISIS and the New People’s Army (NPA) have been involved in multiple murders, kidnappings and executions of both tourists and natives.
Historically, the Philippine militia and police forces have struggled greatly with containing and combating extremism due to economic obstacles. The biggest struggle for the government is trying to reduce financing for extremist groups. The most humane way to achieve such a goal is through restrictive measures, such as the Anti-Terrorism Act. The structure of the act will effectively tackle extremism on a wider scale. The House of Representatives worked to create an anti-terrorism council, which will help decide which groups or individuals could be considered terrorists.
This bill has the potential to squash terrorism in the Philippines. The Anti-Terrorism Act is a productive and efficacious approach to extremist individuals and groups. Even if the person detained is found innocent, with no ties to terrorist organizations, they will only be detained for a maximum of 24 days while the search is conducted. Allowing the government to focus on individuals and groups that may be plotting to commit radical acts and handle them in such a way where the rest of the Filipino society does not have to get injured provides a great deal of security for all Filipinos.
Citizens are concerned, however,because they believe that the policy is an act of surveillance and directly violates people’s human rights. However, the government is unable to monitor the daily lives of the average citizen due to a lack of resources. Only people who are extremists or have ties to extremists should have concerns with the privacy of their data. This law is a matter of safety and national security for the general public. Filipino citizens deserve protection, and it is important that the government takes strict measures in order to prevent incidents such as Manila Bay 2004 from happening again. This issue is a battle of safety and ethics. When one has to choose between those two, the fact of the matter is that the majority would choose safety.
However, this powerful piece of legislation is necessary for the protection of all Filipinos, as thousands of citizens have died from suicide bombings, beheadings and shootings by terrorists annually. Terrorist groups like the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), which has ties to Al-Qaeda, have targeted and murdered over 500 innocent Filipino citizens over the years. The most notable of these attacks is the incident in Manila Bay, where 116 people died as a result of ferry bombing in 2004. Other terrorist groups in the country, such as ISIS and the New People’s Army (NPA) have been involved in multiple murders, kidnappings and executions of both tourists and natives.
Historically, the Philippine militia and police forces have struggled greatly with containing and combating extremism due to economic obstacles. The biggest struggle for the government is trying to reduce financing for extremist groups. The most humane way to achieve such a goal is through restrictive measures, such as the Anti-Terrorism Act. The structure of the act will effectively tackle extremism on a wider scale. The House of Representatives worked to create an anti-terrorism council, which will help decide which groups or individuals could be considered terrorists.
This bill has the potential to squash terrorism in the Philippines. The Anti-Terrorism Act is a productive and efficacious approach to extremist individuals and groups. Even if the person detained is found innocent, with no ties to terrorist organizations, they will only be detained for a maximum of 24 days while the search is conducted. Allowing the government to focus on individuals and groups that may be plotting to commit radical acts and handle them in such a way where the rest of the Filipino society does not have to get injured provides a great deal of security for all Filipinos.
Citizens are concerned, however,because they believe that the policy is an act of surveillance and directly violates people’s human rights. However, the government is unable to monitor the daily lives of the average citizen due to a lack of resources. Only people who are extremists or have ties to extremists should have concerns with the privacy of their data. This law is a matter of safety and national security for the general public. Filipino citizens deserve protection, and it is important that the government takes strict measures in order to prevent incidents such as Manila Bay 2004 from happening again. This issue is a battle of safety and ethics. When one has to choose between those two, the fact of the matter is that the majority would choose safety.
