Several Provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 are Unconstitutional
A Position Paper by Francine Rubirose D. Senapilo (12 – Uzziah)
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is “a measure that seeks to give the country more teeth to
curb terror threats and acts.”, said Malacañang when it was signed into law on July 3 (Gita-Carlos,
2020). But is it really? If its purpose is to “curb terror threats and acts”, how come the law itself
brought terror to people? According to petitioners, the enactment of this law brings a “serious and
dangerous chilling effect on the citizens and other persons’ freedom of expression, speech and the
press, as well as other important fundamental rights under the 1987 Constitution” (Inquirer, 2020).
Rights groups have also raised concerns that the Act could worsen human rights abuses in the
country, because the definition of terrorism under the law is broad, vague or unclear. It has yet to be
seen how the law enforcers would rule using this legislation. Furthermore, several provisions are
believed to be unconstitutional. Hence, this paper provides a profound review of the nonadherence of
said legislation to the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, it is stated that “no xxx warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.” It issued two
“inviolable” major key points: 1) only a judge can issue warrants of arrests and; 2) warrants of arrest
must be issued only upon “probable cause”. But what has the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA)
done? ATA demolished these by authorizing the ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council) to order the arrest of
any person even if he or she has not committed any crime of terrorism. Under Section 29 of ATA, the
written authority of the ATC is required to arrest a person suspected of terrorism outside of cases
where warrantless arrests are already permitted. ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council) being an executive
body composed of 8 Cabinet secretaries and the Executive Director of the Anti-Money Laundering
Council, were granted powers to determine who are terrorists. This is, therefore, unconstitutional
since it was stated in the Constitution that “only a judge can issue a warrant of arrest”. Now, to our
second point, where warrants of arrest must be issued only upon “probable cause”. Probable cause
means that, on the basis of the testimonies of the defendant and his lawyers, the court has sufficient
evidence to conclude that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested has possibly
committed the crime (Carpio, 2020). So if the judge thinks an offense has not been committed, a
warrant for arrest will not and should not be released. But under Sections 25 and 29 of ATA, the ATC
can issue warrantless arrests without “probable cause” and based on mere suspicions. Section 25
Several Provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 are Unconstitutional
A Position Paper by Francine Rubirose D. Senapilo (12 – Uzziah)
provides: “The Anti-Terrorism Council may designate an individual, groups of persons, organizations
or associations whether domestic or foreign, upon a finding of probable cause, that the individual xxx
commit, or attempt to commit or conspire in the commission of the acts defined and penalized under
Sections 4 to 12” of the ATA. As a result of the law’s vague definition of “terrorism,” ATC will have
the authority to determine who is a terrorist.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 has also violated Article III, Sections 1 and 8 of the
Constitution. The Constitution provides that “the right of the people xxx to form associations xxx for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged”, and that “no person shall be deprived of xxx
liberty without due process of law.” That means that citizens have the freedom to join any
associations or organizations provided that their purpose is not contrary to law. However, as we have
stated earlier, under Sections 25 and 29 of ATA, the council has the power to designate people or any
associations as terrorists or engaged in terrorism. In addition, Section 10 of ATA provides: “Any
person who shall voluntarily and knowingly join any organization, association or group of persons
knowing that such organization is xxx organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism shall suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years.” Here, once the ATC designated a group as engaged in
terrorism, all members can now be arrested even without due process of law. This is unconstitutional.
Because arrests without hearing or due process results to deprivation of liberty; thus a violation to
Section 8, Article 3 of Philippine Constitution.
The Act also punishes any act and/or speeches that incites to terrorism. The law’s Section 4
describes that terrorism "shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or
mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights." However, this same provision
also states that the only forms of advocacy or protest that won’t be punished are those that 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." Hence, if they say that a protest is intended to cause harm or danger to
public safety, it can then be considered terrorism. This will light up fear or anxiety and thus, will
have a devastating effect on freedom of speech or expression. Again, this is absolutely
unconstitutional. It violates Article III, Section 4, where it is stated that: “No law shall be passed
Several Provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 are Unconstitutional
A Position Paper by Francine Rubirose D. Senapilo (12 – Uzziah)
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.”
When it should have united the nation against the serious threat of terrorism, the Anti-
Terrorism Act instead generated tension. It only fueled uniformed authorities to abuse without
hesitations. It actually brought more terror. Following all the violations of human rights that will be
brought upon by this Act, with all hard lessons of the past—the horrible stories of violence, killings,
and brutality perpetrated by trash officials, and with the cruel and abusive authorities sitting on their
high horses while the country is in shambles, it’s about time that we step up. We should not let them
trample on us anymore. With this, #JunkAntiTerrorLaw.
REFERENCES:
Carpio, A. T. (2020, June 23). [ANALYSIS] The Anti-Terror Act is worse than Martial Law. Retrieved
from https://www.rappler.com/voices/thought-leaders/analysis-anti-terror-act-worse-martial-law
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. (1987, February 2). Retrieved from
https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5470.html [accessed 21 December 2020]
Gita-Carlos, R. A. (2020, July 03). Duterte signs anti-terror bill into law. Retrieved from
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1107921
Human Rights Watch. (2020, June 5). Philippines: New Anti-Terrorism Act Endangers Rights.
Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/05/philippines-new-anti-terrorism-act-
endangers-rights
Several Provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 are Unconstitutional
A Position Paper by Francine Rubirose D. Senapilo (12 – Uzziah)
Torres-Tupas, T. (2020, July 07). 13 provisions of anti-terror law unconstitutional - FEU law profs.
Retrieved from https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1302749/13-provisions-of-anti-terror-law-
unconstitutional-feu-law-profs
