Nandini Krishnan
On July 3rd, President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, signed a controversial anti terrorism bill that drew large amounts of criticisms and protests from rights groups. The bill replaces that created in 2007, and broadens the definition of the term “terrorism”. Amnesty International has released a statement that asks “the Philippine government to reject this legislation that contains dangerous provisions and risks further undermining human rights in the country”. Human rights activists have also noted that this law might lead to damage against political opponents, given his administration’s record of violent tactics against drug suspects and those critical of the government.
The president’s spokesmen went on the record and justified the bill by stating the “ the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach.” However, the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers has stated that they would challenge the legislation, describing it as “the most unpopular and perilous piece of legislation that could ever be pushed by” the government.
The passing of the bill came at a particularly turbulent time, with Maria Ressa, CEO and executive editor of Rappler, a news website that has been critical of Duterte, convicted for cyber libel only a month prior. Only days before the bill was signed, four people who were thought to be militants with links to the Islamis State were killed by the police in a raid in Manila.
While many countries have anti-terrorism billls, under this law, terrorism suspects may be detained for 2 weeks without any charge, and this time period may be increased to 24 days. This is significantly longer than the three days stated in the constitution, and human rights lawyers worry this may be weaponized against those who criticise government.
What has been criminalized?
The text notably states that those who are seen to be inciting others into acts of terrorism through “speeches, writings, proclamations, emblems, banners, and other representations tending to the same end” will also responsible, essentially threatening rights to freedom of speech. While it has been said that activism will not be condemned, many worry that the criteria for these mediums to be “a serious risk to public safety," is too loosely defined, and could essentially allow for these actions to be criminalised.
Furthermore, calls to action in the form of protests or rallies may be seen as provocative and could be seen to influence people to commit the acts of terrorism outlined in the bill. This may be especially true for large protests that are organised against the government. Additionally, they may also be seen as intent to risk public safety. This means that even if there are no injuries or damage to public property, the emphasis is only placed on intent to do so.
Many worry that this idea of “intent” can be misconstrued and allow for the government to abuse the power that has been given. Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, has said that “"By signing the anti-terrorism bill into law, President Duterte has pushed Philippine democracy into an abyss”.
Comments