The Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Human Rights Caucus, and the author of the article (who opted to remain anonymous due to the ambiguity of the Anti-Terrorism Act) would like to note that their only intent is to raise awareness and spread information.
In light of momentous historic events and current issues that affect Filipino Americans, the Filipino American National Historical Society (FANHS) announced this year’s Filipino American History Month’s theme as “The History of Filipino American Activism.” FANHS chose this theme to highlight “the myriad ways Filipino Americans have participated in social justice movements.” While it is important to honor the past bravery and activism of Filipino Americans, it is imperative that this Filipino American History Month, we acknowledge the challenges of activism the Philippines and its diaspora are currently facing.
On July 3, 2020, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law Republic Act No. 11479, the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020,” replacing the Human Security Act of 2007, in order to “prevent, prohibit and penalize terrorism.” The Act reads that its implementation “shall uphold the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in the Constitution,” but language within the Act may result in depriving the people in the Philippines and the Philippine diaspora of their right to protest and other forms of activism. The Act states:
“[t]errorism is committed by any person who, within or outside the Philippines, regardless of the stage of execution: (a) [e]ngages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life; (b) [e]ngages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place or private property; (c) [e]ngages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure; (d) [d]evelops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons, explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons; and (e) [r]elease of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods, or explosions when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate the general public or a segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear, to provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, or seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety, shall be guilty of committing terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole…”
Although the Act notes “terrorism as defined in this section shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights,” human rights groups warn that the broad offenses within the section defining “terrorism,” and other sections within the Act, may allow the “hard-line Duterte administration . . . to prosecute political opponents” where the opponents’ intent is to intimidate the government.
Section 9 of the Act has also been highlighted by critics as problematic, as the text notes that inciting others through “speeches, writings, proclamations, emblems, banners, and other representations tending to the same end” could carry a punishment of twelve years in prison. Additionally, critics also bring attention to the Act for punishing the following offenses with 12 years imprisonment: threatening to commit “terrorism,” inciting others or proposing to commit “terrorism,” voluntarily and knowingly joining any “terrorist group,” and acting as an accessory in the commission of “terrorism.” Furthermore, the Act allows the police or military to detain suspects without a judicial warrant for 14 days, although that can be extended by an additional 10 days for a total of 24 days in detention without a warrant, and place suspects under surveillance for 60 days, although that period may also be extended by up to 30 additional days.
Proponents of the Act and the Duterte administration assert that the Act will not punish advocacy, protest, dissent, industrial action, or strikes if these acts are not “a serious risk to public safety.” But, in response to acts of Duterte’s administration deemed violent and suppressive by critics, those critical of the Act, which include Aaron Sobel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, query, “who defines what is and what isn’t a serious risk?”
According to a United Nations report, President Duterte’s campaign to “eradicate illegal drugs” has resulted in the deaths of at least 8,600 people, and the report notes that some estimates put the real death toll at more than triple this number. The United Nations Human Rights Office has also documented that, between 2015 and 2019, at least 248 human rights defenders, legal professionals, journalists, and trade unionists have been killed in relation to their work. Most notably and recently, Maria Ressa, a Filipino journalist and co-founder of the online news outlet Rappler, was targeted by the Duterte administration and, while not killed, was arrested and convicted of cyber libel.
Rappler and other news outlets in the Philippines have focused their reporting on President Duterte’s war on drugs, prompting an international rebuke of Duterte’s actions by Filipinos and others alike. It is asserted that President Duterte and his administration have created a difficult and, at times, hostile environment for reporters (and any individual exercising their free speech) by leveling death threats against some and advocating that no reporter should be “exempted from assassination.” In May, President Duterte effectively shut down ABS-CBN, the most influential broadcaster in the Philippines, and the only available news source in some of the country’s most remote regions. At one point, Rappler was so concerned about the safety of its reporters that senior editors debated whether to install bulletproof glass in their Manila newsroom. Now, journalists and any Filipino national or member of the Philippine diaspora fear publicly dissenting with the President. After the Act was signed into law, Filipino-American rapper Ruby Ibarra tweeted “I’m scared because my mama lives there. & I’m all the way over here in the Bay. I called her this morning and had to speak very vaguely while trying to inform her of the implications of this new law. I’m scared that my stance & actions would ever affect her.”
“Corrupt, coerce, co-opt. ‘You’re with us or against us,’” said Ressa, a dual citizen of the United States and the Philippines, about the Duterte administration. Ressa’s point about the Duterte administration could be applicable to the intent behind the Anti-Terrorism Act as well. A week after the Act was enacted, the Philippine National Police were seen confiscating newspapers from progressive news outlets. The Philippine government has demonstrated its persistence when it comes to protecting its agenda and, with the Anti-Terrorism Act, its protection coverage can expand over the diaspora.
“There is a graver danger that we seem to be overlooking in the #AntiTerrorismLaw. Graver, if only for the much wider application of the provision. Section 49 of the law penalizes ALL individuals, regardless of where they are or where they are from.” As noted earlier, the Act, under Section 4, reads that terrorism can be committed by any person within or outside the Philippines. Section 49 elaborates on this detail by noting that the provisions of the Act shall apply to “individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the crimes mentioned…on board Philippine ship or Philippine airship;” “individual persons who commit any of said crimes…within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity;” “individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes…against citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime;” and “individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine government.”
While the clauses within Section 49 appear to be narrow, the lack of specificity in certain terms including “crimes directly against the Philippine government” could allow for criminal punishment of all individuals of the diaspora engaged in activism against the government upon landing in the Philippines. “Not only does the bill broaden the scope of the definition of a ‘terrorist,’ & criminalize the right to protest/assemble, but it looks like it may apply to Filipinos in the diaspora as well (and non-Filipinos), upon entry in the Philippines…” tweeted Ibarra. A member of a Philippines Student Association in Chicago also expressed fear, saying, “[a]s a Filipinx-American, I find it very worrisome that peaceful Filipinx critics in the Philippines and abroad are being red-tagged, unjustly detained and arrested solely because they are trying to express their discontent towards action, or lack thereof, of the administration.”
This month, as we honor the history of Filipino-American activism, we must also be vigilant about protecting Filipino-Activism today and ensure that the right to free speech and to protest is not being curtailed by the Anti-Terrorism Act. As they say in Tagalog, the primary Filipino dialect, “ingat kayo palagi.” Always be careful.
The Asian Pacific American Law Students Association (APALSA): is an organization that represents South Asian, Pacific Asian, Southeast Asian, and East Asian law students at NUSL. In addition to providing a social and academic support network for Asian American students at the law school, the group is active in both community and campus issues. APALSA works closely with the administration and is represented on the Admissions Committee and the Committee Against Institutional Racism. Throughout the year, APALSA hosts various social activities for both NUSL students and other Asian-Pacific law students.
The Human Rights Caucus (HRC): was founded by Northeastern University School of Law students on December 10, 2008, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Human Rights Caucus serves as the hub for human rights issues not currently addressed by other student organizations, reinforces the ongoing work of existing student groups through the utilization of a legal human rights framework and connects law students to individuals/groups conducting current human rights work. Our mission is to connect NUSL students interested in human rights issues, to educate ourselves and others about domestic and international legal human rights frameworks, and to ensure that law students’ exposure to human rights is not limited to academic discussions but is practiced in our present internships and other social justice advocacy.