President Duterte’s anti-terror law: A power grab
President Duterte’s Anti-terror Law: A Power Grab
WRITTEN BY PRASHANT KANDPAL AND KOUSHLENDER SINGH BUNDELA
23 August 2020
On 3 July 2020, amid the challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Rodrigo Duterte signed the Philippines’ controversial anti-terrorism bill into law. The ‘Anti-Terrorism Act 2020’ that replaced the ‘Human Security Act 2007’ has been widely criticised by opposition parties, as well as by international NGOs such as Amnesty International.
Opposition groups in the Philippines have concerns regarding the implementation of the bill, the unconstitutional provisions in the law, and the potential risk of abuse by authorities. The threat of extremist elements in the region of the Sulu Archipelago, a stronghold of Abu Sayyaf who are aligned to Islamic State’s ideology, however, has pushed the Philippines’ government to take strong action. The need to take measures received fresh impetus in the aftermath of the siege of Marawi in May 2017.
With the implementation of the Anti-terrorism Act 2020, President Duterte has sought to take a step towards curbing Islamist extremism. He may, however, face wider troubles within Filippino civil society as trust levels among the general public for key institutions like the police diminish. Many critics are also questioning the timing, because under the ongoing pandemic when people are expecting a comprehensive, economic relief package from the government, they are instead getting a national security law with unconstitutional provisions. Provisions that risk plunging the Philippines into a political crisis.
The Philippines’ long struggle with terrorism
Ranked ninth in the Global Terrorism Index 2019, terrorism and the threat of insurgency is not a new phenomenon for the Philippines. The 13th most populous country has been suffering from terrorism since 1968 when the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) adopted the program of a Socialist revolution via a protracted people’s war, which a year later saw their guerrilla wing, the New People’s Army (NPA) formed. Since then the Philippines has experienced numerous attacks at the hands of both Communist and Islamist separatists; The hijacking of Philippine Airlines BAC-111 in 1976 by Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) fighters, the Bojinka plot of 1994 and more recently the capture of Marawi in 2017 by Maute rebels.
Recent attacks from extremist splinter groups, including the resurgence of Islamic State in the region has forced Duterte to put his weight behind a reformed terrorism bill. Those protesting against the new anti-terror bill fear that provisions within it will give Manila unsupervised power over the citizens of the country.
For decades, the Philippines ’ government handled terrorism cases without dedicated anti-terror laws. This led to a public outcry and demand for a comprehensive approach in fighting terrorism. The result was in 2007 the Philippines government passed the Republic Act 9372 or Human Security Act of 2007, which was signed by the then President Gloria Arroyo to tackle militants in the southern Philippines.
HSA 2007 was seen in Manila as a response to the United States declaration of ‘War on Terror’ in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The law came under fire because of its broad definition of terrorism that defined terrorism as:
‘sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand’.
Civil society and opposition figures feared a vague definition could give the government an upper hand over the opposition parties and also raised concerns for potential human rights abuse by the Filippino armed forces. The 2007 law contained provisions such as high penalties of ten to twelve years imprisonment for mistaken arrests or violations of a detainee's rights. In the years that followed, HSA 2007 remained a bone of contention between its critics and the security forces.
Rodrigo Duterte in power
With his two decades service as Davao City Mayor, Rodrigo Duterte started his presidential campaign in 2016 on a law and order platform. Though the approach during his mayoral term helped make Davao city one of the safest in the Philippines, it also raised questions of human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch’s Coalition Against Summary Execution has documented 814 killings in Davao City from mid-1998 to early 2009 by death squads. From the beginning of his presidential campaign, shoring up the government’s capacity to tackle both Communist and Islamist extremism remained paramount for President Duterte and his leftist party The Partido Demokratiko Pilipino–Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban). His campaign was constructed around promises to wipe out corruption, drugs, and militancy in the Philippines within three to six months. His victory in the 2016 presidential elections’ by a sizeable majority highlights the willingness of many citizens to at least test the Davao Model at a national level.
Following his inauguration, Duterte combined his 22 years of mayoral experience with a hard-line approach to law and order. This became clear with his declaration of a ‘War on Drugs’ and the launching of ‘Oplan Tokhang’ (Operation Knock and Plead) which gave a free hand to the Philippines National Police (PNP) for conducting operations and even killings in the case of resisting suspects. Research by Human Rights Watch shows evidence of widespread and unlawful killings of mostly urban poor and of serious abuses of power by both Filippino security forces and more worrying unidentified vigilantes, likely backed by political elites. In the period between July 2016 and November 2017, around 20,000 drug-related killings were recorded. President Duterte’s ‘Oplan Tokhang’ received worldwide criticism from humanitarian agencies for unlawful and arbitrary arrests and extrajudicial killings.
A new anti-terrorism law for the Philippines
The approach of President Duterte to fight the drug cartels and political extremist groups faced international criticism but also blurred the lines of trust among the Filippino public for government policies. The limitations of governance due to the archipelago’s fragmented geography, the decades' long fight with the New People’s Army guerillas, and Islamic extremism was the combined rationale behind the constitutional reform strategy of Duterte’s government and the new anti-terrorism law.
Duterte’s campaign promise to eradicate terrorism now takes the form of the 2020 Anti-terrorism bill that will replace HSA 2007. This new law defines terrorism as an:
‘act intending to cause death or injury, damage to the government or the private property, or use weapons to ‘spread a message of fear"‘or intimidate the government’
The law creates an ambiguity in understanding the concept of terrorism. Most critics view it as a power grab under the pretext of national security and the weaponisation of the law for politically motivated arrests. Citing the battle of Marawi, the need for a strict approach to curb extremism is sine qua non for the Philippine government of Rodrigo Duterte. The siege of Marawi in 2017 by Maute rebels took a heavy toll on Filippino government forces. The battle lasted five months, with 165 casualties and saw over 1,000 soldiers and Marines injured along with 47 civilian casualties and around 360,000 people displaced during the conflict. Resettlement of displaced people is still a lengthy process for the Philippine government but provided Duterte with the impetus to change the law.
After Marawi, in the period between July 2018 to November 2019, the Philippines suffered six suicide bombings mainly in the stronghold of the IS-linked Abu Sayyaf terror group. The revival of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB), a failed 2014 peace deal between the Aquino government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), saw it renamed as Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL) and it’s ratification occurred after a two-round plebiscite in January and February 2019. BOL shows the willingness of Duterte’s government to stabilise the situation via the ballot box when presented with the opportunity.
However, recent attacks from extremist splinter groups, including the resurgence of Islamic State in the region has forced Duterte to put his weight behind a reformed terrorism bill. Those protesting against the new anti-terror bill fear that provisions within it will give Manila unsupervised power over the citizens of the country. The bill talks about appointing an anti-terror council, composed of executives appointed by the president himself. This council is authorised to arrest individuals without warrant, detain without charge for up to 24 days before presenting them in front of judicial authority, and 90 days of surveillance and wiretaps.
In conclusion
The scope of the definition of terrorism within the 2020 bill is so vast that it fails to distinguish and separate between the government’s critics, everyday criminals, and terrorists or insurgents. Political groups and human rights activists fear that Duterte’s anti-terror council, working under the direct supervision of the president, will wrongfully take advantage of grey areas developed within the law to suppress political dissent and make arbitrary arrests of anyone who is found to be opposing the government policies. The individual convicted based on the new definitions of ‘terrorism’ will face up to life in prison without parole. The law also labels the act of inciting others to commit terrorism ‘by the means of speeches, proclamations, writings, graffiti, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end’. Critics fear this provision will directly affect the freedom of expression of both individuals and the media.
Under the 2020 bill, free speech will be subject to prosecution, as the anti-terrorism council will be the sole judge to determine the level of threat and the convicted will face up to 12 years in prison. Active media houses can face the same fate as ABS-CBN News and Rappler if the council labels broadcast news as a ‘serious risk’ to the government. The method of investing power in one council, rather than reforming existing laws and improving the current system, poses a risk to democracy within the Philippines.
President Duterte’s policies are inviting repression. His ‘War on Drugs'‘ has already claimed the lives of more than 20,000 people. This new anti-terror law creates a scenario where authorities backed by the President may not feel liable for their actions and can continue their abuse of power. The main concern, however, is that the anti-terror law’s passage on 18 July occurred in the face of sustained protests from civil society, international organisations, and local human rights groups. The fear and concerns of these groups could manifest into continued protests and see the Philippines government faced with popular unrest during a nationwide lockdown owing to COVID-19. Terror outfits like the New People’s Army, Abu Sayyaf, or other active Islamic State elements or Communist terrorist organisations may then try to take advantage of public protests to manipulate and even recruit citizens to their cause.
With the country’s economy expected to lose 3-4 per cent of its GDP due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the risk of people protesting in the streets and terrorist groups getting stronger means Duterte and his cabinet risk plunging the Philippines further into crisis. Moreover, the countries fragmented geography when combined with the obstruction in governance means an uneven implementation of this law is all but inevitable. The implementation of the anti-terror bill, if it remains unchecked and unchallenged by Washington, risks an already shrinking democratic space in the Philippines becoming even smaller. Only time will tell how President Rodrigo Duterte’s grab for even greater power will play out.
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.
Author biography
Prashant Kandpal is a security professional having experience in the hydrocarbon industry and International financial firms in the field of security/geopolitical intelligence, counter-terrorism, and crisis management. He is currently working as an Associate (Threat Analyst) - the Asia Pacific for an international bank. He is also a counterterrorism analyst in The Counterterrorism Group.
Koushlender Singh Bundela is a security professional having experience in geopolitical risk assessment and counter-terrorism. Currently, he is working as Manager; Governance and Integration in a leading hydrocarbon company. He is also a counter-terrorism Intelligence Analyst at The Counterterrorism group. Image credit: Republic of Korea/Flickr.