Despite parts declared unconstitutional, Anti-Terror Law still impedes peace 鈥� religious org
MANILA, Philippines — Even if some portions of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) were recently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (SC), a religious organization believes it is still a major roadblock to peace.
According to the Philippine Ecumenical Peace Platform (PEPP), an organization led by several prominent religious figures in the country like Diocese of Caloocan Bishop Emeritus Deogracias Iñiguez and Benedictine nun and activist Sister Mary John Mananzan, the whole ATA save for the portion removed would hamper the peace negotiations between the government and the communist rebels.
PEPP reasoned that there are still provisions in the law that would allow the Anti-Terrorism Council to designate individuals extra-judicially as terrorists.
“[…] As a whole, the Anti-Terrorism Law still greatly impedes on the peace negotiations between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). Certain alarming provisions in the law including the extra-judicial process in and power to designate terrorists, remain,” PEPP said in their statement on Friday.
“It brings to mind that only last June, the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) designated the NDFP as a terrorist group and a number of its key participants in the negotiations as terrorists. With this decision, the Supreme Court has retained a big hurdle for a peaceful resolution to the armed conflict,” they added.
Instead of the ATA, the PEPP believes that the right way to approach the decades-long insurgency is by addressing the root causes of the rebellion.
Article continues after this advertisement“As Christian leaders, we affirm that our opposition to the Anti- Terrorism Act of 2020 is based on our enduring call for broader peace. A peace that addresses the root causes of dissent and armed conflict and seeks their resolution through negotiation,” PEPP said.
Article continues after this advertisementOn Thursday, SC’s Public Information Office released an advisory which showed what particular portions of the ATA were deemed unconstitutional by the justices. There were two portions named — parts of Section 4 and Section 25.
Section 4 of the ATA defines what actions constitutes terrorism. Under Section 4(e), the law clarifies that terroristic acts do not include “advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights”.
This phrase was followed by a qualifier that says “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” — the exact portion struck out by SC for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.
Still, PEPP — led by signatories Iñiguez, Mananzan, PEPP co-chair and Cagayan Archbishop Antonio Ledesma, co-chair and Episcopal Diocese of Central Philippines Rev. Rex Reyes, National Council of Churches in the Philippines Secretary Bishop Reuel Normal Marigza, and PEPP Deputy Director Rev. Dr. Aldrin Penamora — welcomed the SC decision.
After the SC advisory was made public, Senator Panfilo Lacson — one of the primary authors and proponents of the measure when it was in the Senate — said that even with the removal of parts of Section 4 and Section 25, the ATA is a victory for peace.
Human rights advocates and critics of the said law also acknowledged that the SC decision was a ‘small victory’ for human rights and civil liberties. However, they also stressed that other portions of the law that they were concerned with remained intact.
The controversial Anti-Terrorism Act was passed by Congress on June 3, 2020, and was signed into law by President Rodrigo Duterte on July 3. It took effect on July 18 of the same year.
While it was hailed by administration allies and proponents of the law as a deterrent against terrorism — with Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana himself saying that fear of the law is baseless — several groups claimed that it may be used against critics of the government.
READ: Robredo questions ‘forced’ passage of Anti-Terrorism Bill amid pandemic
