IN a stunning turn of events, the Supreme Court upheld the Anti-Terror Law as constitutional today, leaving its multi-sectoral petitioners still in fear of what they labeled as a “repressive” law.
The high tribunal, however, struck down two provisions of the controversial law: Section 4, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the definition of terrorism in the said law be “overboard and violative of freedom of expression,” and Section 25 on the composition of the Anti-Terrorism Council.
Although it welcomed the decision to strike down two provisions of the said law, petitioner Bagong Alyansang Makabayan’s legal counsel said the Anti-Terror Law still has provisions that are injurious to human rights.
“We are glad and assured that the Court mainly struck down the qualifier in Sec 4 on the exercise of civil and political rights, thereby sustaining our position that activism and advocacy are legitimate activities and sacred rights of the people and should not be considered as terrorism at all,” Edre U. Olalia, National Union of People’s Lawyers president counsel for Bayan, said.
Olalia lamented that the rest of the “perilous provisions like other forms of designation, warrantless arrest, prolonged detention, freezing of assets, proscription, definitions of incitement, recruitment, membership, material support, humanitarian assistance, etc) remain in the books, for now.”
However, he assured that they will continue to fight the Anti-Terrorism Law in the courts.
“We will certainly regroup and close ranks and file a motion for reconsideration. We will not allow the (death) of the flickering light of our basic rights,” said Olalia.
In an emailed statement today, another petitioner of the law, Purple Action for Indigenous Women’s Rights (Lilak) fears that with the high tribunal’s decision, extrajudicial killings and warrantless arrests will continue unabated.
“As one of the 37 petitioners who contested the law, we express fear and discontentment that the decision of the Supreme Court still upholds the repressive law. The mere existence of the terror law spells more thorns in the lives and struggles of indigenous women and their communities,” Lilak’s statement reads in part.
The indigenous women’s advocacy group pointed out that when the Anti-Terrorism Law was passed in 2020, it saw the warrantless arrest, and the reported torture of two Aeta men – Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos. The two, along with two other minor indigenous women, were detained while fleeing their community in Zambales because of the bombings and military operations. They were the first to be charged under this law. The court later dropped the case, and both were released after almost a year of detention. The victims of this unlawful arrest cannot file for damages as the provision doesn’t allow it.
“While we recognize that the state obligation of ensuring the country has adequate and modern protection from global threats of terrorism, the danger lies with who implements the law and who they consider as ‘terrorists.’ Under the Duterte administration, anyone who stands critical and opposes its violent programs and policies is considered a threat and is subject to red-tagging,” Lilak’s statement continues.
Lilak is a collective of feminists and women activists advocating for the rights and empowerment of indigenous women who stood up against the Anti-Terror Act and among the 37 petitioners questioning the constitutionality of the law before the Supreme Court in August 2020.
“The indigenous peoples have been at the center of this dangerous mindset. For asserting their rights to their ancestral domain, and defending their lands from large-scale extractive projects, the government easily targets the IPs. This controversial law is designed to silence critics, adds more thorns to their existing struggle for their land, and their survival,” Lilak’s statement reads in part.
