A proposed measure was filed by House Deputy Minority Leader and Leila de Lima, Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Partylist representative, seeking to conduct comprehensive inquiries into counterterrorism and terrorism financing laws to determine if they are being misused against democratic dissent and lawful civic engagement.

This was stated in House Resolution (HR) No. 786, which seeks to investigate the implementation of Republic Act (RA) No. 11479, or the “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020,” and HR No. 787, which seeks to investigate the enforcement of RA 10168, or the “Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act (TFPSA) of 2012.”

“Our objective is clear: to ensure that our laws protect our people instead of suppressing dissent. Counterterrorism measures erode their core purpose if they are weaponized by the State to promote a climate of fear, harassment, and intimidation among human rights defenders, activists, youth leaders, humanitarian workers, and civil society organizations,” De Lima said.

“These laws should not be a license for coercion, red-tagging, imprisoning without basis, and also to kill Filipinos,” she added.

The Bicolana solon, through HR 786, seeks to ensure that the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) fully complies with constitutional guarantees of due process, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, peaceful assembly, and the right to privacy, as well as with the country’s international human rights obligations.

The proposed resolutions also aim to determine the impact of the law on, and the threats it poses to, journalists, human rights defenders, civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples (IPs), labor leaders, youth activists, humanitarian workers, and other sectors engaged in lawful advocacy and civic participation.

It may be recalled that in July 2020, former President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law the ATA, which has faced numerous legal challenges to its constitutionality. In the consolidated cases of Calleja et al. v. Executive Secretary, decided in December 2021, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the law’s provisions but declared certain portions unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.

Meanwhile, under HR 787, De Lima wants to assess whether enforcement measures under the TFPSA have disproportionately targeted civil society actors and dissenters instead of high-risk money-laundering and corruption networks.