Breaking the Terror: Analyzing the Impact of

RA 11479 on Human Rights

Parro, Maria Fatima L.*
*
College of Law, Philippine Law School, 1942 Donada Street corner San Juan, Pasay City, Metro
Manila, Philippines.

Abstract: The creation of RA 11479 or “An Act to Prevent, Prohibit and Penalize Terrorism, thereby Repealing
Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007” came to the limelight on July 3,
2020 when the Chief Executive of the Philippines approved it. There were several issues with respect on how to
deal and suppress terrorism acts in the country which were tackled within the provisions of the said law. But,
there were several petitions which were filed that challenged the constitutionality of RA 11479. In connection to
this, certain people claim that RA 11479 is unconstitutional due to the fact that it interferes the human’s right
privacy as well as transgress the freedom of expression. As a conclusion, whether or not the RA 11479 must be
declared unconstitutional or void, the need for a law in order to extinguish terrorism in the Philippines is a must.
RA 11479 despite being ineffective, should not only be a matter of human right since it should be geared to the
preservation of innocent lives who could be victims of terrorists’ violence.

Keywords: terrorism, human rights, privacy, freedom of expression

I. INTRODUCTION
The word “terrorism” per se causes fear and danger among Filipinos. Terrorists unlawfully use
their strength which eventually cause lawless violence and turmoil on a given location in order for
them to meet their political agenda and as a way of taking control of the government and the people.
In the current times, there are already certain terrorist groups who were under surveillance like the
Communist Party of the Philippines -New People’s Army (CPP–NPA), Abu Sayyaf, Maute Group,
Asharul Khilafa Philippines, Moro Islamic Libertion Front (MILF) and the Bangsamoro Islamic
Freedom Fighters (BIFF) under the Islamic State East Asia1. Say for instance the Maute Group
which is the terrorist group that caused massive destruction and chaos in Marawi City. The Marawi
Seige started on May 23, 2017 and ended on October 23, 2017 due to the death of Omarkhayam
Maute and Isnilon Hapilon. During this endeavor, many soldiers and civilians have sacrificed their
lives for the restoration of the peace and order in Marawi City2.
Years after the prevalence of the Marawi seige was the strengthening of the laws by the
legislators which would address terrorism concerns in the Philippines. This is the reason why the

1 GOVPH. Retrieved January 16, 2021, from https://dfa.gov.ph/dfa-news/statements-and-advisoriesupdate/21397-adv-

16042019
2 Philippines Declares End in Months-Long ISIS Siege of Marawi. (2017). Retrieved January 16, 2021, from
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/philippines-declares-end-months-long-isis-siege-marawi-n813161
 Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (RA 11479)3 was created which served as a replacement for the repealed
Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9372)4.
II. Discussion
A. The Unconstitutionality of the Anti- Terrorism Act of 2020
Despite the fact that the Anti-terrorism law seeks to prevent and/or end the prevalence of
violent terrorist activities in the Philippines, there are certain groups of people who wants to declare
the Anti-terrorism Act of 2020 as unconstitutional. A total of 37 petitions were filed to the court
already which seeks to junk the Anti- Terrorism Act of 20205. The first petition was filed by Atty.
Joseph Calleja, Atty. Howard M. Calleja, Atty. Christopher John Lao, Brother Armin A. Luistro, Dr.
Reynaldo Echavez, Napoleon Siongco, and Raeyan Reposar. The group contends that certain
provisions (Sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 16, 17, 25, 26, 29 and 54) under RA 11479 should be void due to
its indistinctness of the definition of terrorism. Also, they made some points like “intimidating the
general public”, “creating an atmosphere or spreading message of fear”, “provoking or infuencing
by intimidation the government or any of its international organizations”, “seriously destabilizing or
destroying the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country”, “creating a
public emergency”, “seriously undermining public safety”, and the penalty for terrorism 6. The
indigenous people’s IP alliance Katribu,Samira Gutoc, Amirah Ali Lidasan, Abdul Hamidullah
Atar, Lorena Bay-ao, Nora Sukal, Jumoring Bandilan Guaynon, Jeany Rose Hayahay, Teresa de la
Cruz, Drieza Lininding, Tolentino,Chad Errol Booc, and Judith Pamela Pasimio, also filed a petition
to declare RA 11479 as unconstitutional due to its violation on the right to self- determination 7. The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) also filed a petition for the unconstitutionality of RA 11479
emphasizing on its vagueness8. IBP claims that it would be very difficult on their part to defend
terrorists under section 30, RA 11479 as follows:
Section 30. Rights of a Person under Custodial Detention. The moment a person
charged with or suspected of committing any of the acts defined and penalized under
sections 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, and 12 of this Act is apprehended or arrested and detained,
he/she shall forthwith be informed, by the arresting law enforcement agent or military
personnel to whose custody the person concerned is brought, of his/her right: (a) to be
informed of the nature and cause of his/her arrest, to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his/ her choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel of his/ her choice, the law enforcement agent or military
personnel concerned shall immediately contact the free legal assistance unit of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). It shall
be the duty of the free legal assistance unit of the IBP or the PAO thus contacted to
immediately visit the person/s detained and provide him/her with legal assistance...

3 https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2020/07/03/republic-act-no-11479/
4 https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2007/03/06/republic-act-no-9372/
5 https://www.bworldonline.com/oral-arguments-on-petitions-vs-anti-terror-law-set-january/
6 https://www.rappler.com/nation/first-supreme-court-petition-filed-anti-terror-law-howie-calleja
7 https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/08/08/news/national/26th-petition-filed-vs-anti-terror-law/752191/
8 https://www.rappler.com/nation/ibp-34th-petition-anti-terror-law
 There were other petitions which were filed assailing the unconstitutionality of RA 11479. Since
these groups and individuals are too many to mention, the focus on this part of this research is the
contention of each individual and/or groups of people in claiming that RA 11479 is
unconstitutional. The petitioners claim that RA 11479 violates the principle of separation of
powers. Also the provisions under RA 11479 violates some human rights such as the right to
freedom of speech, right to self-determination, right to due process, right to privacy, right against
unreasonable search, right to a peaceful assembly, right of association, among others 9. On this
particular legal research, there are two violation of human rights which will be tackled – the Anti-
Terrorism Law of 2020 and the deprivation of the Right to Freedom of Expression and the Right to
Privacy.

B. Freedom of Expression and the Anti-Terrorism Law

The petitioners filed 37 petitions up to this date in order to declare RA 11479 as
unconstitutional. Under Article III, section 4 of the 1987 constitution, it sates that:

SECTION 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or

of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.

Since the constitution is the supreme law of the land, no laws shall be created by the
legislature which violates the provisions under the 1987 constitution. The claim of Justice Carpio,
Chel Diokno, Ted Te, and Ross Tugade is that unlike the Human Security Act of 2007 which
imposes 40 years imprisonment penalty on terrorists, the Anti-Terrorism Law imposes reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment on the aforementioned terrorists. They will also be deprived with the
issuance of parole as well as an allowance for having a good conduct. Terrorists are threats to the
state, but it is more threatening to read the definition of terrorism under RA 11479 since it can
impose penalty on a Filipino who is just using his freedom of expression or freedom of speech in
particular. There’s an irony between the provisions under the “Bill of Rights” and the misleading
definition of “Terrorism” in Section 4, Ra 11479 which states that:
Section 4. Terrorism. Subject to section 49 of this Act, terrorism is committed by and
person who within or outside the Philippines, regardless of the stage of execution;
(a) Engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person,
or endangers a person’s life; (b) Engages in acts intended to cause intensive damage
or destruction to a government or public facility, public place, or private property;
(c) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or
destruction to critical infrastructure; (d) Develops, manufactures, possesses,
acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons, explosives or of biological, nuclear,

9 https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/07/25/news/national/petitions-against-anti-terror-law-climb-to-19/745566/
 radiological, or chemical weapons; and (e) Release of dangerous substances, or
causing fire, floods or explosions when the purpose of suc act, by its nature and
context, is to intimidate the general public or a segment thereof create an
atmosphere or spread a message of fear, to provoke or influence by intimidation the
government or any of its international organization, or seriously destabilize or
destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country, or
create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety, shall be guilty of
committing terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the
benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act 10592.”

The petitioners have the right to file the petitions against section 4 of RA 11479 since if a
person “spread a message of fear” as part of the “freedom of speech” would immediately be
charged of committing the crime of “terrorism” and shall be penalized with life imprisonment
without the parole and GCTA as mentioned earlier10. But, what if that “message of fear” is not really
a “message of fear”? Take note that in the current times, some Filipinos are joking with works and
making a prank out of everything. Unfortunately, those pranksters if accidentally utters a “message
of fear” would be unintentionally jailed for their jokes since the provisions under section 4, RA
11479 should be followed. The side of the Chief Executive has a stand on this matter stating that it
also state under section 4, RA 11479 that:

"Provided, That, terrorism as defined in this section shall not include advocacy,
protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar
exercises of civil and political rights, which are not intended to cause death or
serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious
risk to public safety."

This particular statements would enable the Filipinos to be careful with the utterance of their
words and what they post on their social media accounts since it might be taken against them by the
government. On a certain perspective, it’s really evident that some statement under section 4 of RA
11479 tends to violate the right of Filipinos to freedom of speech which makes it unconstitutional.

C. Privacy and the Anti-Terrorism Law

The wiretapping as well as protracted surveillance under RA 11479 violates Article III, section
3 of the 1987 constitution under the bill of rights which states as follows:
Section 16. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of
Communications. The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200, otherwise known as the

10 https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/explainer-comparison-old-law-dangers-anti-terror-bill
 “Anti-Wire Tapping Law” to the contrary nonwithstanding, a law enforcement agent
or military personnel may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals secretly
wiretap, overhear and listen to, intercept, screen, read, surveil, record or collect,
with the use of any mode, form, kind, or type of electronic, mechanical or other
equipment or device or technology now known or may hereafter be known to science
or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for the above purposes, any
private communications, conversation, discussion/s, data, information, messages in
whatever form, kind or nature, spoken or written words (a) between members of a
judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, as provided in Section 26 of
this Act; (b) between members of a designated person as defined in section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 10168; or (c) any person charged with or suspected of committing
any of the crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of this act: provided,
that, surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers
and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources, and confidential
business correspondence shall not be authorized.

Under Article III, section 3 of the Bill of Rights:

SECTION 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this
or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Article II, section 3 of the bill of rights emphasizes that right to privacy of communication
shall be observed unless the court orders it if and only is public safety is at stake. The
problem with this particular matter is the fact that whether or not the court orders the
surveillance of a person through the supervision of his communication, the surveillance of a
prospective terrorist despite its violation to right to privacy is a requirement under Section
16 of RA 11479. The petitioners contends that a person who is suspected as a terrorist
without the consent of the court must be tracked especially the recordings of his
conversations with another person which somewhat deviates from article III, section 3 of
the 1987 constitution which somewhat makes it unconstitutional.

III. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

A. Summary
As a summary, RA 11479 or the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020” was created in order to
extinguish and prevent the terrorism acts in the Philippines. Unfortunately, there were already 37
petitions in order to declare it as unconstitutional because it violates certain rights such as right to
privacy and right to freedom of speech and/or expression. The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 violates
the right to privacy under section 16 which deviates the provisions under article III, section 3 of the
1987 constitution making it unconstitutional. On the Other Hand, section 4 of RA 11479 deviates the
right to freedom of speech under article 3, section 4 of the 1987 constitution as well.
B. Conclusions
Wherefore, the conclusion of this legal research on the fact that certain provisions under RA
11479 is unconstitutional has a valid stand. But since the court currently had its legal arguments over
this matter, there is a must to abide by the order of the court on their final stand with respect to the
unconstitutionality of RA 11479.
C. Recommendations
Based on the given facts in order to settle the unconstitutionality of RA 11479 which infringes
the freedom of expression and privacy, the following recommendations are made:
1. Create a group of qualified individuals who will review the provisions under RA 11479.
2. Search on the Anti-terrorism laws of other countries that have the most effective means of
combating terrorism.
3. Identify the gaps under the Anti-terrorism laws and pinpoint the ways on how to address these
gaps.
4. Conduct another legal research study on the violation of the other human rights by the provisions
under RA 11479.

IV. References
Buan (2020). Dangers in old law and anti-terror bill. Retrieved on January 19, 2021, from
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/explainer-comparison-old-law-dangers-
anti-terror-bill

Buan (2020).Lawyers, civic leaders file 1st petition vs anti-terror law. Retrieved on January
19, 2021, from https://www.rappler.com/nation/first-supreme-court-petition-filed-
anti-terror-law-howie-calleja

Depasupil (2020). 26th petition filed vs anti-terror law. Retrieved on January 19, 2021, from
https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/08/08/news/national/26th-petition-filed-vs-anti-
terror-law/752191/
Depasupil (2020). Petitions against Anti-Terror Law climb to 19. Retrieved on January 19,
2021, from https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/07/25/news/national/petitions-against-
anti-terror-law-climb-to-19/745566/
GOVPH (2021). Advisory: on the list of groups designated as terrorist organizations by the
Philippines. Retrieved on January 16, 2021, from https://dfa.gov.ph/dfa-
news/statements-and-advisoriesupdate/21397-adv-16042019.

Official Gazette (2020) RA 11479. Retrieved on January 19, 2021, from

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2020/07/03/republic-act-no-11479/

Official Gazette (2020) RA 9372. Retrieved on January 19, 2021, from

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2007/03/06/republic-act-no-9372/

Philippines Declares End in Months-Long ISIS Siege of Marawi. (2017). Retrieved on January
16, 2021, from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/philippines-declares-end-months-
long-isis-siege-marawi-n813161

Santos (2020).Oral arguments on petitions vs anti-terror law set January. Retrieved on January
19, 2021, from https://www.bworldonline.com/oral-arguments-on-petitions-vs-anti-
terror-law-set-january/