Media Quote
Responding to the judgement by the Supreme Court of the Philippines declaring two portions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 as unconstitutional, Butch Olano, Amnesty International Philippines Section Director said:
“The decision by the Supreme Court highlights key dangers of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 – its overbroad definition of terrorism and the overreaching powers it grants the Anti-Terrorism Council. However, only two portions of the law were declared unconstitutional, and it remains deeply flawed and open to abuse by government authorities.
“Even with the Supreme Court’s decision, the law still allows the police and military to detain suspects without a warrant or charge for up to 24 days, which violates international law and standards. It grants overbroad powers to security forces to conduct surveillance, and to the Anti-Terrorism Council to designate groups and individuals as ‘terrorists’ without due process and without clear procedures to remove such designation. Other dangerous provisions also remain.
We reiterate our call for the government to amend the Anti-Terrorism Act to ensure it is consistent with international human rights law and standards. Until this happens, the law will continue to pose a threat to human rights defenders, activists as well as members of marginalised groups and others wrongly accused of terrorism by granting the government excessive and unchecked powers and being susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
“We reiterate our call for the government to amend the Anti-Terrorism Act to ensure it is consistent with international human rights law and standards. Until this happens, the law will continue to pose a threat to human rights defenders, activists as well as members of marginalised groups and others wrongly accused of terrorism by granting the government excessive and unchecked powers and being susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
Background
On 9 December, the Supreme Court of the Philippines announced that Justices voted to strike down two portions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
The qualifier under Section 4(e) – that terrorism as defined by the law does not include advocacy, protest, dissent and similar actions “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” – is declared unconstitutional “for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression”, according to the Supreme Court. With this decision, this part now reads: “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.”
The Supreme Court also declared unconstitutional the power of the Anti-Terrorism Council to designate a person or a group as terrorists based on a request by another country and upon determination that it meets the criteria of relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
On 3 July 2020, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020”, which replaced the Human Security Act of 2007. Amnesty International had called on the Philippine government to reject the law on the basis that it contained dangerous provisions and risked further undermining human rights in the country.