New anti-terrorism law flawed but needed, analyst says
MANILA, Philippines — The new anti-terrorism law is “flawed” and the Supreme Court should strike down objectionable provisions but the Philippines still needs a law to intensify its fight against terrorism, an analyst said in an online forum of the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines on Friday.
Jakarta-based terrorism expert Sidney Jones, director of the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, said the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which will become effective on July 18, might be flawed but it doesn’t stand alone in the world.
“There isn’t a single terror law anywhere in the world that is completely satisfactory, and there isn’t anyone that made a perfect balance between human rights protection and what you may call repressive measures,” said Jones, formerly of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
But the country needs the flawed law because “the Philippines remains the regional hot spot and continues to be a more dangerous terrorist center than anywhere else in the region,” she said.
Jones did not explain why she thought the Philippines was a worse terrorist hot spot than Indonesia or Malaysia, the sources of Islamist recruiters and perpetrators of suicide bombings in the Philippines, but she insisted that “that is the context for the development of the new law, flawed as it is.”
Worst law replaced
“At least this should help in trying to keep people in custody while the process of investigation can go forward without having to result in phony charges and fake evidence,” said the former rights advocate.
Jones also claimed that the new terror law “replaces one of the worst antiterrorism laws that were ever passed,” referring to the Human Security Act of 2007.
“This law replaces one of the worst antiterrorism laws that was ever passed [Human Security Act of 2007] because it had so many safeguards that [were] never used, or almost never used … particularly, that personal liability provision,” she said.
Jones was referring to several provisions in the Human Security Act of 2007 that penalizes security forces, with imprisonment and monetary restitution, for making false or unproven accusations. Those provisions were removed in the new anti-terrorism law.
But Lt. Gen. Cirilito Sobejana, chief of the Western Mindanao Command of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, allayed fears of the possible abuse of the terror law.
No provision for rehab
The AFP would “make sure we will not lose sight [of] the three operational guidelines that we are following: follow the rule of law, respect for human rights and strictly adhere to international humanitarian law,” Sobejana pledged.
“We should not compare our Armed Forces before to what we have right now. I should say, with all modesty, that our AFP today is more professional and more mature,” he said.
Aside from its perceived violation of human and civil rights and disregard for judicial processes, Jones said the new law also lacked provisions for the rehabilitation of terrorists.
“There is basically no room for rehabilitation. Anybody who gets arrested for terrorism gets put away virtually for life and it doesn’t seem to be particularly very easy to move out of that very draconian regime,” she added.
At the same time, she said the success of the Bangsamoro region would be a crucial in the country’s fight against terrorism.
“The success of [the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao] is absolutely critical,” she said.
The Bangsamoro Transition Authority had earlier passed a resolution urging President Rodrigo Duterte to veto the terror law and asked to be represented in the Anti-Terrorism Council after the President signed the law despite their appeal.
