Despite much criticism and protests from the public, President Rodrigo Duterte signed The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, officially designated as Republic Act No. 11479, on July 3, 2020. This law hopes to provide a strong legal backbone for the country’s terrorism criminal justice response, protect people from the threat of terrorism, and at the same time, safeguard the rights of those accused of the crime. Terrorism was given the following definitions found in Section 4 of The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020: (a) engaging in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, (b) extensive damage or destruction to a public facility, (c) damage or destruction to critical infrastructure, (d) developing, possessing, transporting, or using weapons or explosives,
and (e) releasing of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods, or explosions when the purpose of such act is to intimidate the general public or spread a message of fear, or seriously destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country. If found guilty of committing the crime, there is a penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole. Most of The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020’s provisions are not new to Philippine legislation as it is an amendment of The Human Security Act of 2007. The purpose of the two are essentially the same, but The Anti-Terrorism Act is far more comprehensive as the intent to commit the crime is included in what is punishable under the law. A good example of this, according to lawmaker Jericho Nograles, is in The Human Security Act of 2007, a suicide bomber may only be arrested after committing the crime, whereas under The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, even before the crime is committed if there is evidence of the suspect purchasing bombs for the purpose of terrorism, he may be arrested.

​

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is very vulnerable to abuse and weaponization by the people in power. It is under scrutiny for its said violations in the constitution and certain civil liberties like freedom of speech and human rights. Some of its notably concerning provisions include warrantless arrests, detention of, at most, 24 days, and wiretapping of suspected terrorists for, at most, 90 days. The responsibility of designating who is considered a “terrorist” lies in the hands of an Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) consisting of cabinet members. The Philippine government has 3 branches (executive, legislative, and judiciary) in order to properly distribute power, and have a check and balance system to ensure that the abuse of power of a single entity does not occur. With the executive branch being the law-enforcers and at the same time, performing functions that the judiciary branch is usually mandated to do through the ATC, abuse of the law is
most likely inevitable. It may be used to silence the Duterte Administration’s critics as well as opposition leaders which violate the Filipino people’s freedom of speech and expression. It also doesn’t explicitly say in the law, the standard or procedure of the ATC in deciding who is considered a terrorist, except for those who were already designated by the United Nations Security Council, which is why it can easily be abused thus it is flawed. It is also stated in The 1987 Philippine Constitution that “No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law,” meaning that all suspects are to be viewed as innocent until proven guilty, but with the provisions of The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, it seems that all suspects are viewed as guilty until proven innocent; the law of the land is violated and the human rights of the suspects are deprived. Although the purpose of the law and the motivation behind its creation means well, it has certain questionable provisions that should be amended. “No government should be without critics. If its intentions are good then it has nothing to fear from
criticism.” -Thomas Jefferson