Now that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is the law of the land there is much work to be done. First thing to do is for the Anti-Terror Council to craft implementing rules and regulations to make the law function.
 |
| https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1108009 |
Members of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) are set to meet to review the newly-signed anti-terrorism law to ensure they have a common understanding of the Republic Act 11479 and craft its implementing rules and regulations (IRR).
National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr., who is also vice chair of the ATC, bared that these will be among the first tasks which will be carried out by the powerful body that formulates and adopts plans against terrorists and terrorism in the country.
“Kailangan bago tayo makapag-action patungkol diyan sa mga isinasaad ng ating bagong batas, Anti-Terrorism Law, ay kailangan gumawa muna tayo ng implementing rules and guidelines (Before we take any action stipulated in the new law, we need to create the implementing rules and guidelines),” he said in a Laging Handa public briefing on Saturday.
Once crafted, he said the IRR will be submitted to Congress, whose members will make up a Joint Oversight Committee.
The Committee will have the authority to summon law enforcement or military officers and members of the ATC to answer questions and submit written reports on the implementation of the law.
Esperon said the ATC would soon identify initial individuals and organizations to be included in the government’s list of terrorists.
Since the IRR has to be submitted to Congress for approval and since the IRR is basically a part of the law one would think that Congress would have crafted the IRR instead of leaving it to be done after the fact. One of the talking points about the new law is that it has teeth while the HSA of 2007 does not. But if there is no IRRs to make the law work that would mean, at this stage anyway, the law currently has no teeth.
Another first thing to be done by the ATC is make a list.
 |
| https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1301982/antiterror-councils-1st-move-make-a-list |
The initial groups and persons to be included in the government’s list of terrorists under the new anti-terrorism law will come from the United Nations, according to National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon.
Speaking at the Laging Handa briefing on Saturday, a day after President Rodrigo Duterte signed the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, or Republic Act 11479, Esperon said the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) would have to meet to ensure that all its members would have a “common understanding” of the law and then draft its implementation rules.
“The first thing we would do is look at what is in the list of the UN Security Council. We are following what the United Nations and the new UN Office for Counterterrorism have discovered,” he said.
“If there are organizations and names there that they know to be terrorists, we will put them in our list,” Esperon said.
The antiterrorism law states that the ATC will automatically adopt the UN Security Council Consolidated List of designated individuals and organizations designated or identified as a terrorist, or one who finances terrorism or a terrorist group.
The ATC may also designate groups or individuals, whether domestic or foreign, as terrorists upon a finding of probable cause that they committed or attempted to commit, or conspired in the commission of acts penalized under the antiterrorism law.
Esperon explained that after the designations, the justice secretary, one of the ATC members, would petition the Court of Appeals to declare organizations and persons belonging to these groups as terrorists.
“Use of social media as basis will be uncovered during surveillance which by itself must also have the permission of [the appeals] court,” he said in a text message to the Inquirer.
Arrests could be made after surveillance, and those making an arrest must have written authorization, Esperon said.
“They need to have training because not just anybody could conduct this arrest,” he said, adding that it was a “technical job.”
What could be so technical about arresting somebody? It might seem like a good thing that the Philippines will adopt the same list of terrorists as the UN. However reading that list is quite disappointing.
 |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups |
That is a complete list of all the groups designated by the UN as terrorist organizations. While Abu Sayyaf is on this list and there are a few Indonesia groups most of these organizations are located far away in the middle east. The Philippine government is not fighting any of these groups except for Abu Sayyaf of course and the government already classifies them as a terrorist organization. So adopting this list is pointless.
The main group the new terrorism law is supposed to be fighting is the CPP-NPA and the UN does not recognize them as a terrorist organization. That means they are still not legally a terrorist group despite Duterte's proclamations.
 |
| https://www.rappler.com/nation/266015-duterte-says-communist-rebels-terrorists-because-declared-so |
"These leftists and these communists, they think that we are always thinking of them," Duterte said. Leftist groups and the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) are among many quarters opposing the anti-terrorism law for its "draconian" provisions.
Duterte then described terror attacks "mostly in Mindanao," including the bombing of a Catholic cathedral in Jolo, Sulu, in January 2019 by suicide attackers with links to the Islamic State and the Abu Sayyaf.
"They think that they are a different breed. They would like to be treated with another set of law[s], when as a matter of fact, they are terrorist," Duterte said. It is unclear whether he was referring to communist rebels, leftists, extremists, or all of these.
"They are terrorist because we – I finally declared them to be one. Why? Because we – I spent most of my days as a president trying to figure out and connect with them on how we can arrive at a peaceful solution," the President added.
Duterte began his term in 2016 on friendly terms with the CPP and other leftist organizations. His administration attempted peace negotiations with the CPP’s political arm, the National Democratic Front (NDF), but efforts bogged down in November 2017 after mutual accusations of ceasefire violations.
Duterte briefly entertained an offer to talk peace with the NDF in December 2019. The attempt fizzled out earlier this year with the opposition of the military and Duterte’s defense and security advisers, who found the CPP-NDF's demands too tall.
"It was a good rapport while it lasted. Iyong na-presidente na ako, naiba na lang ang istorya(When I became president, the story changed) simply because in the ladder of priority, the highest for me would be the security of the state," Duterte said in his speech.
"Pero noong panahon ng politika, well, boto iyan eh. Bilangan ng boto," he added. (But when it was time for politics, well, those were votes. It was about counting votes.)
"You cultivate friendship with everybody, but there is always a time to be friendly and a time just to be firm. And I did my very best to produce something for the country. But unfortunately I would not be blaming anybody now unless they would start to blame me again so that I can also blame them. Eh wala talagang nangyari (But nothing really happened)," Duterte said.
From being friends with the communists to now declaring them to be terrorists. If Rappler was really out to get Duterte they would have brought up the fact that not only did Duterte cultivate friendship with the NPA but he also gave them millions and told others to pay NPA taxes. In fact he said he was unfit to be president because of his relationship to the NPA and others.
He also admitted that having friends with the enemies and supporters of the state has made him a compromised government official.
Duterte said it is one of the primary reasons why he brushed aside offers by the national leadership in the past for him to run the Department of National Defense and the Department of Interior and Local Government.
“I am not qualified and besides, I am a compromised public official. Both left and right are my friends. How can I discharge properly my duty if the rebel forces are also my friends,” he pointed out.
http://web.archive.org/web/20130123122338/http://pia.gov.ph/news/index.php?article=2381357700526
It is a matter of public record that Duterte cultivated friendship with enemies of the state in an effort to keep the peace. It is also a matter of public record that only the courts can legally declare that the CPP-NPA is a terrorist organization. That does not mean the CPP-NPA is not a terrorist organization per se but the legal declaration is very important. Without it the government cannot treat the CPP-NPA in a certain way. Duterte's "because I say so" is worthless and everyone knows it.
 |
| https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1304731/ping-duterte-has-no-power-to-say-who-are-terrorists |
President Rodrigo Duterte does not have the power to proscribe or designate groups as terrorist organizations, the main proponent of the Anti-Terrorism Act said on Thursday.Under the law, that authority is with the Court of Appeals or the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), said Sen. Panfilo Lacson, a former national police chief.
The legal proscription process in the appeals court entails due notice to the groups and individuals to be proscribed but with the burden of proving that they are terrorists is placed on the Department of Justice (DOJ), Lacson said.
With the new antiterror law in place, the proscription hearings would be transferred to a division of the appeals court authorized by the Supreme Court to handle the case, Lacson said.
The senator said the designation of terrorist groups and individuals followed the guidelines and standards of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, which was passed to counter terrorism across the globe in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
The ATC, composed of Cabinet members, could also designate individuals or groups as terrorists, but this is only for the purpose of asking the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to issue a freeze order on their accounts or assets, which could still be appealed, Lacson said.
For the AMLC, the enactment of antiterrorism law was part of the Philippines’ obligation to deter the transfer of funds for terrorist activities, which must be matched with “the same attention and commitment” to amending the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 so that the local economy could avoid crippling sanctions from international entities.
The country must also “demonstrate effective implementation” of the antiterrorism law before the “observation period” of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) ends in February 2021, the AMLC said in a statement.
Failure to do so will result in the country being included on the so-called gray list of the FATF, an international money laundering watchdog, which will then publicly identify the Philippines as a “high-risk jurisdiction with strategic antimoney laundering and counterterrorism financing deficiencies,” it said.
That will put the country on par with other marginally compliant states like the Bahamas, Botswana, Cambodia, Ghana, Iceland, Mongolia, Pakistan, Panama, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Yemen and Zimbabwe. Being on the gray list will give a negative reputation to the Philippine economy and the cost of doing business with both its citizens and corporations.
The European Union could then require its members to immediately impose enhanced due diligence on Filipino nationals and businesses, the AMLC said.
Subjecting an individual or entity to closer scrutiny would entail additional costs and paperwork or justification for banks and financial institutions, and if those costs outweigh the benefits, they may opt to cease doing business with risky entities or in places that restrict its activities, according to the council.
The additional costs of continuing any relationship under these restrictive rules “will naturally be charged to Filipino nationals and businesses in the form of higher interest rates or higher processing fees,” it added.
The international reputation and economic status of the Philippines hinges on the successful implementation of this law in stopping money laundering. The country has been given until February 2021 to show that the problem has been successfully addressed.
 |
| https://mb.com.ph/2020/06/14/ant-terror-bill-will-avoid-fatf-gray-listing-amlc/ |
According to the AMLC, the ATB is going to address the gaps in the HS and the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (AMLA). These gasps are the so-called “non-negotiables” such as: the definition of a designated person; on the unlawful acts of foreign terrorists; on the designation of terrorist individuals, groups of persons, organizations, or associations; on the AMLC’s authority to investigate, inquire into, and examine bank deposits; on the AMLC’s authority to freeze; on safe harbor for any person acting on good faith when implementing targeted financial sanctions; and on the function of the Anti-Terrorism Council to take action on relevant resolutions issued by the UN Security Council.
“If we fail to pass these provisions into law, the Philippines may be included in the list of countries with strategic deficiencies in its AML/CTF (anti-money laundering/counter-terrorism financing) framework,” said the AMLC.It's funny that the AMLC says they need these provisions to fill gaps in the law because the Philippines has had a storied relationship with their status on the FATF's black and gray lists.
 |
| https://www.philstar.com/business/2020/05/14/2013787/fatf-gives-philippines-more-time-address-dirty-money-flaws |
The Philippines was blacklisted by the FATF in 2000 for failing to address dirty money issues. This paved the way for the enactment of Republic Act 9160 or the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) in 2001.
The country was subsequently removed from the blacklist in February 2005. It narrowly avoided being placed on blacklist in 2012 as it criminalized terrorist financing and pursued quicker freezing of suspect accounts. The new law also tightened scrutiny of transactions in casinos, jewelry traders, among others.
To avoid being including in the grey list anew, legislators were supposed to pass and implement the proposed amendments to the AMLA and RA 9372 or the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007 before June.
Since the Philippines was removed from the blacklist in 2005 and avoided being blacklisted again in 2012 it would seem that the issue is not gaps in the law but enforcement of the law by the AMLC. In fact it seems that the real problem with the HSA is not the law itself but its enforcement.
 |
The newly signed anti-terrorism law will secure the country's freedom and democracy and "reinvigorates our constant vigil against the relentless threat of terrorism," the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) said Monday, as it lauded President Rodrigo Duterte's recent signing of the measure.
LCC-CLASS cited the timely passage of the measure, saying Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007 has "withered through the times and rendered itself kaput calling for its repeal”.
The country has been under threats of terroristic attacks in recent years, which includes the Jolo Cathedral attack in 2019, the Sulu encounter in 2018, Marawi siege in 2017, the Davao City night market bombing in September 2016, the Sawmill kidnapping and beheading in April 2016 when the Maute came out as a supporter of ISIS, and the Zamboanga siege in September 2013.
Despite these attacks, only one was convicted under the Human Security Act, Nur Sapian, leader of Hukbong Federal for the Marawi Siege, and only one prescribed organization which is the Abu Sayyaf.
Data from the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology shows there are 735 suspects or respondents undergoing trial, but not one of them is being tried for violation of the HSA.
Cases range from murder and illegal possession of firearms even though they were captured at the Marawi siege.
Even Abu Sayyaf members who were caught by government forces were mostly convicted of kidnapping, but not in violation of the HSA.
This is because HSA, the LCC-CLASS said, has no teeth.
It said up to this day, the constant threat of terrorism continuously manages to evade the long arm of the law.
“Now, with this more comprehensive measure, our government shall be better equipped to frustrate, foil, and preempt terrorist attacks and further radicalization,” it said.
The HSA certainly has teeth and does in fact criminalize terrorism in sections 3, 4, 5, and 6. If no terrorist has been charged under those sections then the problem is not the law but the prosecutors who filed the charges. Section 3(e) specifically lists kidnapping as a punishable terroristic offense. So those Abu Sayyf members could certainly have been charged under that section. The question is why weren't they?
Now that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is the law of the land it remains to be seen if it lives up to the hype. As I have extensively documented here without a competent military and police force everything will remain the same. Time will tell.
