The Philippines has been filled with violence, terrorism, and a breach of security ever since 1971. To fully address the problem at hand, the Philippine government has decided to use its authority to allow the incumbent to hold supreme power through the anti-terrorism law. This law grants sweeping powers to President Rodrigo Duterte’s government, which is already facing mounting legal challenges, as human rights organizations warn the legislation signals a new, dark chapter for the citizens of the Philippines. The act, which lawyers and professionals say uses a vague and overly broad definition of terrorism, permits warrantless arrests and allows authorities to hold individuals for weeks without charge or a valid reason. This allows for the government to misuse and abuse its power upon the people. The government has continuously justified its claim, saying the powers will allow it to respond to threats by militants, but humanitarian groups warn the law could be used to lock up peaceful critics, restrict freedom of speech, and may even limit access to humanitarian aid.
“Particularly in the context of COVID-19, where the role of humanitarian organizations has never been more important in terms of under-serviced communities, any action that restricts and limits the work of humanitarian organizations is irresponsible and unjustified,” said Professor Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, UN Special Rapporteur, on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The law allows for the criminalization of anyone who provides “material support” to an activity that is deemed a terrorist act. Though an exemption for humanitarian groups is outlined, Ní Aoláin says this is too limited and broad, and the law could have a chilling effect on agencies genuinely wanting to provide assistance and support.
The Philippines has become a breeding ground for arrests, especially against media reporters, and political journalists. The law will have ramifications not just for media, activists, and opposition figures, but also for members of the public who express opinions online. Anyone can be prone to arrest, just like what happened during the authoritarian years of the Marcos regime. It is unprecedented and illegitimate to give so much authority to the executive bodies, especially in a democratic country. The definitions in the context are so expansive and broad that legitimate actions can be labeled as terrorism. This could increase incentives for bribery and corruption, which could produce long-term harm to the citizens.
Under the law, an anti-terrorism council, appointed by the president, will have the power to designate individuals and groups as terrorists and detain them without charge for up to 24 days without enough credible evidence. The policy also allows for 90 days of surveillance and wiretaps against the accused, and punishments that include life imprisonment without parole. Duterte, who was urged by the people not to rush to sign the act into law, has rejected concerns about its scope and content and continues to fight for its legislation. Those not planning to bomb churches and public utilities to derail the nation had nothing to fear, he recently told the public, adding that communists were among the terrorists. The government continues to fight a long battle of communist insurgency, as well as threats from Islamist groups, in the south of the country.
Critics have argued that the government was deliberately using the cover of counterterrorism to suppress rights and liberties. Many fear the law’s sweeping definitions will provide a new tool to silence those who are calling for accountability for abuses of power committed under Duterte’s leadership, including extrajudicial killings carried out during an anti-drug crackdown launched after his election in 2016. Over the past few months alone, several actions have been taken by one of the country’s most powerful media outlets. In June, executive editor of Rappler, Maria Ressa, a critic of Duterte’s government, was convicted of cyber libel - over a story she did not write, and under a law that did exist at the time the article was officially released. Meanwhile, the country’s largest broadcaster, ABS-CBN, which has been repeatedly threatened by the president over illegitimate concerns, has been forced off-air. Duterte has denied that either of these cases was politically motivated.
International human rights organizations have made their stance against the law very explicit. Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in an official statement that the law is a “human rights disaster in the making that will open the door to arbitrary arrests and long prison sentences for people or representatives of organizations that have displeased the president.” HRW has long been documenting Duterte’s war on drugs, his killings, and the Anti-Terrorism Bill is only the most recent human rights abuse the organization has targetted. Amnesty International agrees with HRW’s position in branding the Anti-Terror bill “a new weapon to brand and hound any perceived enemies of the state” that will intensify the aggression against those who defend human rights. Is it legitimate to sacrifice your rights and liberties for the sake of national security?
Sources:
Written by Althea Ocomen from Manila City, Phillipines
コメント