Repressive Laws: Anti-Terror Law, Cyber Crime Act and more 

”In the prevailing climate of impunity, a law so vague on the definition of ‘terrorism’ can only worsen attacks against human rights defenders.” 

On 3 July 2020, former President Duterte signed into law the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020”, which replaces the Human Security Act of 2007. In its fast-tracked approval through the legislation, many human rights organizations and peoples’ movements, Amnesty included, have expressed concerns on the broad definition of terrorism, provisions suspending procedures safeguarding citizens against arbitrary arrest and detention, and discriminatory application of the law which could ultimately endanger activists and infringe on the peoples’ right to protest and dissent. The Anti-Terrorism act is operationalized by the Anti-Terror Council (ATC) responsible for giving the designation of “terrorist” to individuals and organizations; and holds the power to freeze their assets and file terrorism charges. Despite guidelines set out by the Supreme Court, there is a disturbing pattern of the ATC designating known political and civil society activists and human rights organizations as terrorists. 

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was passed during for President Aquino’s administration, and its provision on libel has been consistently weaponized against human rights defenders since its adoption. In June 2020, Maria Ressa, a prominent journalist and founder of an alternative online media outlet, Rappler, was found guilty of “cyber libel” after being convicted under the Philippines’ Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. She was sentenced to seven years in prison while Rappler remains under threat of shutting down. Many other activists and journalists, face the same or are threatened with the same charges especially after publicly criticizing officials in the local and national government.  

Police Suppression of Protests 

Excessive presence of police, even in permitted protests conducted in freedom parks, diminish the realization of the people’s right to assemble as such state forces bear excessive ‘non-lethal’ weapons, dress in full combat gear, and utilize trucks to block or disperse people.There are numerous instances of the police failing to apply the principle of maximum tolerance leading to violent dispersals of protests (e.g use of water cannons or shields) which have resulted in arbitrary arrests and physicaly injuries. Documented violent dispersals in recent years include NutriAsia Workers in July 2018, Indigenous people against OceanGold Mining in April 2020, CHR Protests in May 2022, among others. However, there is also a general lack of documentation and media coverage of protests and police response, especially in rural areas and involving vulnerable stakeholders (e.g. indigenous communities, farmers, fisherfolk, laborers). 

The National Task Force on Ending Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) 

Following the collapse of the peace talks wit the Communist Party of the Philippines New Peoples Army (CPP-NPA) in 2017, former President Duterte have established the National Task Force on Ending Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) under Executive Order 70. The task force, which was supposedly mandated to bring about sustainable peace through delivery of social services and facilitating societal inclusivity, has been the harbinger of a renewed and intensified crackdown against activists. 

The NTF-ELCAC has played a central role in perpetuating false and harmful narratives about activists and human rights work. They conduct talks in schools through the NSTP and within barangays wherein they flaunt lists of student and local organizations tagged as “terrorists” or “communists”, encouraging students and community members to identify “communists” among their peers, and implementing projects to gather information and put human rights defenders, church workers, development workers among others under surveillance. 

Delegitimization and Criminalization of Activists: Red-Tagging 

Red-tagging can be defined as the act of publicly accusing or labeling an individual or a group to be associated or directly a member of what the government identifies to be banned communist groups. While the government denies that red-tagging is an official policy, it has been practiced and implemented since the 1960s to counter dissent and progressive thought. This is what the NTF-ELCAC and laws like the Anti-Terrorism Act capitalize on. 

Red-tagging deligitimizes the work that activists, journalists, lawyers, trade unionists, and other human rights defenders do. It perpetuates the narrative that any criticism against the government is ill-intentioned, and any desire for systemic change is an attack against the state. This leads to activists being ostracized or even sanctioned in social spaces like work and school, and creates a “chilling effect” wherein people become too scared or too demotivated to exercise their right to freedom of expression, association and assembly. 

Red-tagging enables authorities to justify criminalizing human rights defenders and the extreme actions they take under the guise of national security. It puts a target on the back of activists by opening them up to unwarranted criminal charges, baseless terrorist designations, and threats to their lives, safety and security at the hands of the police and military—intimidation, online and physical harrassment, enforced disappearances, and even unlawful killings. 

Exploiting Vulnerabilities: Inequality and Discrimination  

– Dexter and Bazoo, Chad Booc as Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Activists 

– On 28 April, “red-tagged” Indigenous Peoples’ rights defenders Dexter Capuyan and Gene Roz Jamil de Jesus disappeared in Taytay, Rizal province, after reportedly being forcibly taken by individuals who said they worked for a police agency. In September, the Court of Appeals dismissed a petition filed by their families to compel the authorities to produce Capuyan and de Jesus in court. The Philippine National Police denied any involvement in the case.7 

– In July, the state Anti-Terrorism Council designated four leaders of an Indigenous Peoples’ rights group, the Cordillera Peoples Alliance, as terrorists, enabling the government to investigate their activities and freeze their financial assets. 

Protecting the Right to Protest, Protecting Human Rights Defenders 

While the “Right to Protest” do not explicitly appear in customary law such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is an amalgamation of every individual’s right to freedom of expression and right to freedom of assembly, and further reinforced by the intersections of other rights (e.g. right to life, right to adequate standard of living, right to participate in government”. 

In the Philippines, the right to protest is guaranteed by Section 4, Article 3: Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution stating that: “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”. The right to freedom of assembly is further legislated in Batas Pambansa Blg. 880: An Act Ensuring The Free Exercise By The People Of Their Right Peaceably to Assemble and Petition the Government. 

There is currently no legislation that recognizes the legitimacy of human rights defenders’ identity and work, protects them from harm against state and non-state actors, and provides remedy when their rights are violated. 

Among the bills currently pending in Congress is HB77 or the Human Rights Defenders Protection Act. It seeks to protect the rights of all human rights defenders and political activists, including the rights to life, due process, freedom of expression, and freedom of peaceful assembly, as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which the Philippines is a state party, and ensure that they are able to carry out their work free from harassment, threats, and harm. 

In the absence of a national legislation, several cities have passed local ordinances protecting human rights defenders within their jurisdiction. This includes the cities of Isabela, Basilan; Digos, Davao del Sur; and Puerto Princesa, Palawan. A draft ordinance in the city of Baguio is currently undergoing public consultations, and is the first ordinance to attempt to define and penalize red-tagging. 

It is in amidst these persisting challenges that Amnesty International Philippines launches the Philippine Protect the Protest campaign. Following a global vision of a world where everyone is able to take peaceful action and make their voice heard safely and without repercussions, the Philippine campaign seeks to reshape narratives about protest and activism, empower more people to take peaceful action towards the promotion and fulfillment of their human rights, and safeguard the security and welfare of every individual and community defending their rights and the rights of others. 

WHAT IS AMNESTY PHILIPPINES CALLING FOR? 

1. The state, state authorities, and government officials must end the practice of red-tagging immediately and cease any form of intimidation, harrassment, threats or attacks against activists. 

2. Abolish the NTF-ELCAC, investigate the practices of the task force throughout the duration of its operations, and address impunity within its ranks. 

3. Repeal the Anti-Terror Act and review provisions of the Cybercrime Act especially on libel. Thorougly investigate the abuses in terapplication of these laws, especially against activists. 

4. Pass the Human Rights Defenders Protection Act as a first step towards recognizing the work of human rights defenders, and include among its provisions the definition and penalization of red-tagging.