“They are already doing this” without the new law, he said, before adding that to track every internet user in such a way “would actually be a distraction for military intelligence” and “a waste of time and resources”.

The only hurdle remaining before the bill becomes law is the House of Representatives, but as both it and the upper chamber are packed with allies of Duterte, who has made it “priority” legislation, an easily reconciled version of both chambers’ bills is expected to pass without too much difficulty – especially with both the Department of National Defence and military urging swift approval.

Isis terror tactics being exported to Southeast Asia, US official says

Dela Rosa said the yelling man was Mohamed Kiram Reza, a Filipino arrested in Davao the year before the video was filmed who the police were “forced to release” under the Home Security Act, because it forbade suspected terrorists to be held for longer than three days if no charges were filed.

“If only we had been allowed then to detain him for at least a week in order to build a solid case against him as a terrorist, he would not have had the opportunity to commit more terror acts, like beheading these victims,” Dela Rosa said.

Since its enactment 12 year ago, only one terrorist and one terrorist organisation has been convicted or proscribed under the old law, Lacson said, partly because it required a suspect to first be convicted of so-called predicate crimes such as rebellion, bomb-making or piracy before a terrorism charge could be brought.

The proposed new law, however, introduces court-ordered “preliminary orders of proscription” that allow authorities to jail charged suspects for up to six months while their assets are frozen and investigated, and their accomplices and associates are surveilled. The judge would then have rule whether to “permanently proscribe” the suspect as a terrorist, and any associated groups as terrorist organisations.

It also removes a fine of P500,000 (US$9,840) per day for wrongful detention, which Lacson said had discouraged authorities from charging suspected terrorists – noting that even those captured during 2017’s Marawi siege were charged with rebellion instead of terrorism.

It is unclear from the wording of the bill what a permanent order of proscription would mean, and whether it would be tantamount to being convicted as a terrorist, which carries a penalty of life imprisonment without parole.

La Viña, the rights lawyer, described the preliminary order of proscription as “one of the worst aspects” of the bill. “It allows officials to be cavalier in the way they will misuse the law. They already do this now even with the fine; this will embolden them further.”

Senate Minority Floor Leader Franklin Drilon, who eventually voted in favour of the bill, noted during earlier deliberations that the version being put forward by the upper chamber contained a “broad definition of terrorism” and asked whether those taking part in mass protests where “violence takes place”, such as those seen in Hong Kong last year, would be classified as “a terrorist or [part] of a democracy movement?”

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” replied Lacson, who was among those accused of torturing prisoners during the rule of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos – a charge he has denied. Those who “rise up in arms to correct an abusive regime lose, [then] they are dead” and “will be answerable criminally for their acts. And that is a fact of life”, Lacson said.

Senator Francis Pangilinan, president of the opposition Liberal Party, voted against the bill, describing it as “an even worse tool for repression” that “may be used against critics and opposition leaders” – a warning that carries echoes of the detention of Senator Leila De Lima, a vocal Duterte critic charged with drug and terror offences in 2016. The latter charges, arising from allegations that she aided in the release of three suspected members of the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group, were only thrown out in 2018.

Potential targets of the proposed law include the Magdalo, a party-list group of active and retired soldiers linked to former Senator Antonio Trillanes that authorities in 2018 claimed were plotting a coup against Duterte, who likened them to Isis.

Trillanes, for his part, said he was not “personally bothered” about being labelled a terrorist, but expressed concern that the new law could be used for political persecution and “security agencies might not have enough internal checks to make discretionary calls to arrest the guilty while protecting the rights of the innocent”.

While Sison, the exiled founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines, described it as a “fascist law” that “will kill any prospect of peace negotiations” in the country’s long-running communist insurgency. His party, and its armed wing the New People’s Army, were declared terrorist organisations by Duterte in a 2017 presidential proclamation.

It is unclear whether merely associating with such groups on social media could lead to an arrest under the new law, but the question raises some “valid points”, according to Herminio Bagro III, a lawyer who has taught constitutional law and serves as chief aide to Pangilinan, the senator.

“When a legal provision is vague, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the law says,” he said, adding that until that time it would be left to the police to interpret it “and give meaning to vague or non-restrictive provisions, and let the prosecutors, and then ultimately the courts, decide afterward”.

The possibility of these new powers falling into the hands of “the most despotic of implementers” concerns Senator Risa Hontiveros, who voted against the bill, warning her fellow legislators they were “giving future authoritarian regimes carte blanche to arrest or detain any one it can link to a terrorist organisation no matter how tenuous the connection”.