The Philippines needs Duterte’s anti-terror bill, but addressing roots of extremism means going beyond its text

The country’s fight against armed insurgents has for decades cost lives, hamstrung development and diverted military resources
While strengthening the Philippine posture in battling terrorism is vital, the bill’s overreliance on draconian measures could backfire

Lucio Blanco Pitlo III

Published: 3:00pm, 18 Jun 2020

Why you can trust SCMP

While he was mayor of Davao, Rodrigo Duterte tolerated the presence of rebel groups so long as they did not bear arms or carry out attacks in his city. It was an uneasy arrangement that was generally observed. After becoming president of the Philippines, the self-confessed socialist even appointed some leftist leaders to his cabinet.

But this romance with the reds now seems to have unravelled as pressure mounts on the country’s remaining insurgent and terror groups. A controversial anti-terror bill recently passed by both legislative chambers is now up for Duterte’s signature. Whether it will be the nail in the coffin or a boon to recruitment for these armed groups depends on how it will be enforced, and whether it will be complemented by non-military measures.

Why are overseas Filipinos worried about Duterte’s anti-terror law?

Domestic security challenges have long kept the Philippines from shifting towards territorial and maritime defence. The country is home to Asia’s longest communist insurgency, by the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA); a three-decade reign of terror by the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG); and offshoots from two main Moro rebel groups that have since made peace with the government in return for autonomy.

Besides tying down the Philippines’ military to internal security, these conflicts have hamstrung economic opportunities in the countryside, discouraged investors and caught communities in the crossfire.

According to the 2019 Global Terrorism Index, the Philippines was ranked ninth for the countries most impacted by terrorism. It is the only Southeast Asian country in the top 15, with its neighbours ranked lower down – Thailand 18th, Myanmar 26th, Indonesia 35th and Malaysia 74th.

13:36

Battleground Marawi : A return to ruins

Insurgent and terror groups engaged in recruiting child soldiers, targeting civilians, extortion, disrupting public works, destroying telecommunications towers, and burning heavy equipment and provincial buses of companies that did not pay “revolutionary taxes”.

The CPP-NPA’s internal purges saw the deaths of hundreds of former members, later buried in “killing fields” unearthed in different parts of the country. The ASG has become notorious for its kidnaps-for-ransom, beheadings, and daring cross-border raids. In fact, the transboundary danger posed by this extremist group and its regional linkages, along with piracy, led neighbours Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia to conduct trilateral aerial and naval patrols.

Five Filipinos arrested for death threats against Rodrigo Duterte on social media

Most communist movements in Southeast Asia predated World War II and reached their zenith during the Cold War, but they eventually splintered, surrendered, withered or were dismantled by the 1990s. Not the CPP-NPA, which persisted, although its numbers and areas of operation greatly diminished.

With domestic stability, many of the Philippines’ neighbours were able to focus on economic development. To a much lesser extent, Jakarta continues to fight a localised insurgency in West Papua, and Bangkok still deals with occasional disturbances in its far south. But the Philippines joins Myanmar in a continuing struggle against armed groups in dispersed locations, although Naypyidaw is besieged by more rebel outfits than Manila. And while terrorism has become a regional concern, nowhere is the threat felt more than the Philippines, as showcased by the five-month battle to retake Marawi from the clutches of these radicals in 2017.

Philippine troops head back to the devastated village of Mapandi, Marawi, in 2017 after clearing it of Islamic State-linked militants. Photo: AP

The troop strength of home-grown insurgent and terror groups pales in comparison to their heydays in the 1980s and early 1990s. Nevertheless, their continued presence checks development in rural areas and diverts military resources away from external defence. In their present form, neither the CPP-NPA nor the ASG constitute an existential threat to the country. But Duterte seems disinclined to give them another 50-year and 30-year lease on life, respectively. Thus, in 2018, the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict was established.

The anti-terror bill provides the state greater authority to overcome these enduring domestic security challenges. It expands the range of punishable acts to include preparatory and mobilisation activities for the commission of terrorism. Planning, recruitment, training, financing, facilitating, conspiring, providing material support, inciting and proposing to commit terror are now covered.

Duterte’s ‘shoot-them-all’ approach to Covid-19 threatens his legacy as poor suffer in the Philippines

When it comes to suspects, the bill also allows for surveillance, extends the period of detention without warrant, restricts travel, and examines and freezes their financial assets. The proposed measure also has an extraterritorial clause that can apply to Filipinos or foreign nationals preparing for a terrorist attack against the country or a Philippine vessel or aircraft.

The bill creates an executive-led inter-agency Anti-Terrorism Council that can designate individuals and organisations as terrorists. The council can also direct and supervise the swift investigation and prosecution of terrorism cases and raise rewards for persons that can share vital information leading to the capture of terrorists. It can also cooperate with other countries in the global fight against terror.

A Filipino officer conducts a patrol on a reclaimed former Maute stronghold in Marawi City in 2017. Photo: EPA

The timing of the bill, however, was seen as a misplaced priority given the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic and its serious economic impact. Critics also expressed concerns about relaxing legal restrictions for police and security agencies, which might create openings for abuse.

The government was quick to point out the safeguards present in the proposed law to allay these concerns. These include the need to secure a court order before engaging in surveillance; inadmissibility as evidence of any information obtained in violation of the bill; and the opportunity given to persons or organisations about to be proscribed as terrorists to be heard before a court. The bill also prohibited the use of torture or coercion during interrogations.

The bill may help address the perennial concerns of security allies about the inadequacies of the country’s legal framework when it comes to dealing with the evolving landscape of terrorism. Both the CPP-NPA and ASG were designated as foreign terrorist organisations by the United States. Australia listed the ASG as a terror group and the European Union did the same for the CPP-NPA. The United Nations Security Council designated the ASG and its close affiliate, the Rajah Sulaiman Movement, as terrorist organisations.

But while the bill can strengthen the Philippine posture in confronting terrorism, addressing the root causes of terrorism will require measures that go beyond its text. The provision for preventing and countering violent extremism is a good start, but much of its details remain to be spelt out. Finally, an overreliance on draconian measures and limiting the space to express legitimate grievances may inadvertently drive people to the fold of the very groups the bill is out to defeat.

Lucio Blanco Pitlo III is a Research Fellow at the Asia-Pacific Pathways to Progress Foundation

Post