Today, judges in the Justice Ministry`s Counterterrorism Unit have the authority to arrest people suspected of “terrorism-related conspiracy” while gathering evidence against them.  Italy passed various anti-terrorism laws during the “years of lead” (anni di piombo) in the 1970s. Following the conclusion of peace negotiations between the government, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People`s Army (NPA) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in 2017, the government has since branded the CPP-NPA a “terrorist” and filed a petition to declare it a terrorist organization under the Human Security Act. the current Anti-terrorism Act. After progress was delayed by the courts, the government embarked on a new path: directly changing the law. Hence the anti-terrorism law. More than 1,000 students and human rights activists gathered on the UP Diliman campus on June 12, 2020, coinciding with the 122nd Independence Day of Spanish Colonial Rule, dubbed the “Grand Mañanita.”  They called on the government to “reject” the bill, fearing that it would restrict fundamental human rights and freedom of speech and expression. The rally took place despite the government`s ban on mass gatherings in general community quarantine in Metro Manila and other parts of the country due to the pandemic. Protesters were seen wearing masks and practicing social distancing.   Similar protests were organized by activists in various cities such as Baguio, Legazpi, and Cebu City. Protests have also taken place at other universities such as De La Salle University in Manila.  Activist Mae Paner was also present at the event, disguised as Metro Manila Police Chief Debold Sinas, who faced controversy over her May 8, 2020 birthday party, which police called “Mananita.”   This bill will undermine reconciliation efforts because it will facilitate the targeting of Muslims and reopen old wounds.
The anti-terrorism law is the latest in a series of power grabs passed under the guise of national security amid the coronavirus pandemic, posing a serious threat to Philippine democracy. The new law, which replaces the 2007 Human Security Act, criminalizes a new ambiguous offence: incitement to terrorism “through speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations … without participating directly in the terrorism commission.” Section 29 empowers law enforcement agencies to arrest and detain any person suspected of a terrorist offence without a warrant and for fourteen to twenty-four days, including persons charged with incitement. More importantly, the bill contains a vague definition of “terrorism” that offers little distinction between organizations that commit acts of terrorism and revolutionary armed movements, which is important for those who mediate between warring parties. The bill will give law enforcement agencies broad powers to determine what constitutes a “terrorist” and will shift the burden of proof to suspicious individuals and organizations. This is not only a threat to dissent and democracy, but also to peace. In fact, militaristic approaches to counterterrorism have caused the most suffering and displacement, led to collapses in ongoing peace processes, and spawned more aggressive dissident groups such as Abu Sayyaf, Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters and the Maute Group. If the government is sincere in its “whole-of-government approach” to peacebuilding, it must withdraw the law, resume deliberations, and listen to a wide range of voices in society, especially those who have suffered the brunt of terrorist violence and abusive anti-terrorism laws.
It must heed the teachings of Church leaders and peacemakers. We need a policy that addresses the roots of terrorism and prevents mistrust, injustice and the escalation of violence. Could the kingdom continue to provide refuge for militants who have not limited themselves to the opposition in a single country, but who travel from country to country and theorize in the International Revolution? Thus, fierce debates began to shake the island, which eventually decided to restrict freedom of movement. Thus, one of the first immigration control laws was created. In a completely different context, the same kind of debate would be lifted at the end of the 20th century with the resurgence of international terrorism, this time under the guise of Islamic terrorism. After the Bali attacks in October 2002, Indonesia adopted a government decree instead of Law 1/2002. In the Indonesian legal system, a government ordinance instead of the law has the same power as a law promulgated by parliament, except that it can only be promulgated in difficult circumstances and is subject to consideration by the next session of parliament. Nevertheless, the Indonesian Parliament transposed this emergency decree into Law 15/2003.
As since then, Indonesia has anti-terrorism legislation with strong political support. However, the anti-terrorism law cultivates a lot of criticism. The law contained provisions that can circumvent normal criminal procedures such as speedy and lengthy detention. One of the main controversial provisions of the law is that it allows intelligence information to be used as preliminary evidence that can be used to arrest a suspect. The role of intelligence as evidence has been the subject of heated debate in Indonesia.  The bill is another example of how the government has attempted to respond to a national crisis in a highly militarized and macho-populist way. Last year, the Philippine Congress — filled with Duterte`s allies — cut 4 billion pesos (more than $80 million) from the country`s disaster fund; Since 2016, when Duterte came to power, he has withdrawn 22.9 billion pesos (nearly $460 million) from the fund. When the Taal volcano erupted in January, instead of taking responsibility for the government`s careless approach to aid, Duterte instead cursed the volcano and threatened to “insult” Taal to annihilate it. A few weeks later, as the country prepared for the Covid-19 pandemic, Duterte did not convincingly announce that he was looking for the “idiotic” coronavirus because he wanted to defeat it. After protests against the controversial anti-terrorism law, several cloned Facebook accounts were created on the platform.