Thursday, July 30, 2020

With a new Anti-Terror Act: Philippines take another step towards authoritarianism

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Vanshita Banuana

Article Title

With a new Anti-Terror Act: Philippines take another step towards authoritarianism

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 30, 2020

URL

President Duterte addressing the 18th Congress

President Duterte addressing the 18th Congress | Source: Oliver Marquez via Philippine News Agency

On July 3, 2020, President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte signed a new Anti-Terrorism Bill, which was rushed through the houses of Congress without appropriate discussion, and has amassed protests and disapproval within the nation and abroad since its draft was first announced.

The Confederation of Lawyers in Asia and Pacific (COLAP) has raised concerns that anti-terrorism bill of the Philippine government is “violative of human rights and the due process of the law.” It's statement opposing the the bill stated following concerns with the bill:

  1. It punishes suspected individuals for organizations who are proscribed as terrorists and that the very broad and vague definition of terrorism under the bill poses danger to the basic freedoms of the people.
  2. The suspect’s right to due process of law is virtually denied and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court is virtually negated.
  3. It enable the President-backed Anti-Terrorism Council to label any individual or group as a terrorist “without the opportunity of being heard.
  4. Any member or sympathizer of a proscribed organization is punished as a terrorist even if he or she does not actually take arms against the government.
  5. The bill encroaches on one’s privacy as it gives the government access to personal and bank information and freezes bank accounts and assets.
  6. The bill violates the sovereign rights of states and the internationally mandated norm that criminal jurisdiction is confined to the territories of a state, citing its extraterritorial nature.

Hundreds of protestors took to the streets of Manila protesting the bill on 27th July when President Duterte gave his annual State of the Nation address. While it is true that the has nation faced the threat of terrorism in recent years, it is also agreed upon that Duterte’s response has been perhaps equally brutal.

This bill was also criticised by the Christian religious organisations which issued a joint declaration on this law. They stated “We are bothered by the broad and vague definition of terrorism and terrorist. It can include acts of dissent, free speech, right to assemble, right to organize, freedom of belief, among others. By such a broad definition it is open to abuse and misuse.”

An opposition Congress member, Edcel Lagman and two lawyer groups of Philippine approached the Philippine Supreme Court and asked it to strike down the new anti-terrorism law, or parts of it, as they called it unconstitutional for infringing on civil liberties.

The Philipino American Student Association (FASA) also denounced the new anti-terrorism law in its Instagram post which stated, “FASA sa UW denounces Duterte’s signing of the Anti-Terrorism Bill to which its terms do nothing to resolve the true terrorism in our nation and instead conducts an outright assault on the freedom of speech from our people living on the motherland and even Filipinx abroad,”

International Human Right organisation, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Nicholas Bequelin, in response to this law said, “Under Duterte’s presidency, even the mildest government critics can be labelled terrorists. He further stated, “This law’s introduction is the latest example of the country’s ever-worsening human rights record. Once again, this shows why the UN should launch a formal investigation into ongoing widespread and systematic violations in the country.”

Prior to this, Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ received global scrutiny, especially for the numerous extrajudicial killings that have occurred since he came to power and the effect of this aggressive policy on the poorest citizens of the nation.

Apart from this, he has also repeatedly voiced opinions in favour of martial law and silenced news media that spoke against him. But he seems to be encouraged largely by his own people, among whom Duterte continues to be popular.

Many have called Duterte the ‘revival’ of authoritarianism in the small Southeast Asian country, which has only recently seen some semblance of democracy after years of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos (of whom Duterte was a close family friend).

The Philippines is walking a thin line between fascism and democracy, and which side it ends up on depends not only on the actions of its government, but just as much on the actions of its people.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:41 PM

What is the "Black Lives Matter" movement of USA

Over 55 years have passed since the signing of civil right laws which were supposed to be the panacea for all the ills of raciest abuses faced by the Black-Americans. A lot has increased since for the Black Americans but much more is still to do. They still live in the fear of law enforcement officials who monitor their movement on the street and also in their homes. The blacks are killed  at the lightest alleged provocation by city police without any fear of serious repercussion. The Federals law enforcement agencies also have a history of racist behavior and brutality towards black Americans.

“Black Lives Matter” movement was started in 2013, after a white person named George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of African-American teen Trayvon Martin in February 2012. The movement got its name as the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter was widely used on social media to protest the acquittal of George Zimmerman.  This movement aims to highlight the injustices, brutality, oppression, gratuitous killings, systemic racism, ruthlessness, bad form, and unaccountably that American culture, particularly law implementation, harbours toward black individuals. Dissenters have pointed out the uncalled intensity of the police, military weaponry, and impulsive usage of the same. The problem of policing in America is more than just individual bad police officers, the culture protects wrongdoers and rewards blind loyalty and is impervious to change. American citizens have recognized these loopholes and will not tolerate these wrongdoings anymore

On 25th May 2020, a 46-year-old black man named George Floyd, died at the hand of a police officer after allegedly using a counterfeit $20 bill at the convenience store. The killing was extensively covered by the cross section of media across the USA and American public saw the horror of the painful death of an unarmed black person by the police. A national-wide protest erupted as millions of people, including whites came out in the streets,  demanding justice for George Floyd. Slogans such as “I can’t breathe”, “All lives will not matter unless black lives don’t”, “Stop police brutality” were raised on the streets across the cities of America. The “Black Lives Movement” which was hitherto mostly confined to a section of blacks youths, quickly expanded to include a wide section of American citizens. 

In his death George Floyd became the symbol of police brutality against the black community in the USA and brought the “Black Lives Matter” from the fringe to the center of American social and political discourse.

Read More