A terror of a law

F

renchie Mae Cumpio hinted that the raid on their staff house was unnecessary. They would have simply opened the door to the state authorities, she told the court, because they had nothing to hide.

According to Cumpio, she and Eastern Vista, the media outlet she headed at the time of her arrest, were already the subjects of surveillance and harassment before state authorities barged in the middle of the night into the Tacloban City house that she shared with rights advocate Mariel Domequil, and then forced them to lie face down on the floor.

That raid was on Feb. 7, 2020, when Cumpio was just a 21-year-old journalist who often reported on alleged military abuses. Three more individuals – all rights advocates – were arrested that same day in Tacloban, in central Philippines.

All of the so-called “Tacloban Five” were charged with illegal possession of firearms. But Cumpio and Domequil were also charged with financing terrorism, and illegal possession of explosives with Alexander Abinguna. These last two offenses are non-bailable and have 30 years in jail as maximum penalty, aside from a maximum fine of PHP1 million (US$17,000).

In the last four years, Cumpio, Domequil, and Abinguna have languished in Tacloban’s city jail. Last Nov. 11, however, Cumpio was finally able to tell her story in court. In a press release, the International Federal of Journalists (IFJ) not only called for her to be set free immediately, but also stressed the need for the “urgent reform of ‘anti-terror’ legislation used to target the media, activists, and human rights defenders.”

“Where anti-terror legislation can be manipulated to target journalists, activists, unionists, or other human rights defenders,” IFJ said, “democracy remains under threat.”  

Indeed, in the last several years, activists and human rights groups have accused the Philippine government of using terrorism-related legislation in lawfare or weaponizing legal systems and state policies to further specific political or military objectives.

Authorities have accused not only rights advocates, journalists, and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) of supporting the underground communist movement. Also being haled to court on similar charges are lawyers, members of the religious community, medical professionals, and even farmers and fisherfolk.

Just recently, a storekeeper in the Mountain Province up north was charged with terrorism financing for allegedly selling goods to communist guerrillas, as was another woman who supposedly gave food to the communists.

A global dilemma

The Philippines’ Terrorism Financing and Suppression Act of 2012 (TFSA) and the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) were supposed to reflect the government’s commitment to the global fight against terrorism and its financing. Additionally, the executive branch has issued several directives to strengthen counter-terrorism measures to align with the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force requirements. This global inter-governmental body sets international standards to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.  

Aside from the communists, Philippine authorities are also up against armed challenges from various Islamist groups. The country ranks 19th in the 2024 Global Terrorism Index, a report that extensively analyzes the impact of terrorism across 163 countries. While this represents an improvement from previous assessments, the Philippines still ranks second in terrorism levels in the Asia-Pacific region, following Myanmar, with 34 attacks and 39 deaths in 2023.  

Yet the Philippines is not the only country where there has been increasing concerns over lawfare targeting CSOs and activists, among others, using counterterrorism legislations and related laws. 

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, for example, has criticized the anti-terrorism law there for provisions that “are not in line with international human rights standards.” In India, the state used similar legislation against non-profits, while South Korea’s version has been criticized for its threat to personal privacy. More recently, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan warned that proposed amendments to Pakistan’s anti-terrorism law could undermine due process and fair trials.  

On the eve of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights anniversary in 1999, the United Nations passed the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, criminalizing acts of terrorism and its financing. The U.N. Security Council strengthened this with Resolution 1373, which required domestic preventive measures from member states.  

While many countries have complied at a remarkable rate, the international community has yet to reach a consensus on the definition of terrorism. Human Rights Watch Asia senior researcher Carlos Conde says that this absence of a universally accepted and context-specific definition of terrorism has allowed state forces to interpret and apply the term in ways that may serve their interests. 

He remarks, “That kind of flexibility, granted to national security establishments, [especially those] with a long history of targeting civil society, is dangerous.”   

A June 2023 study by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights highlighted the growing misuse of counterterrorism measures targeting civil-society groups.

Often applied together, these measures create legal systems that undermine due process and lead to rights violations, such as judicial harassment, sanctions, and surveillance, the study said.

It also noted the severe impact of these practices, especially on marginalized groups, as well as the lack of effective remedies and oversight that exacerbates the abuse, particularly in regions and countries with a history of power abuse.  

Recently, Ben Saul, U.N. Special Rapporteur on promoting and protecting human rights while countering terrorism, urged regional bodies to ensure human-rights protection in their counterterrorism initiatives.  

“Overbroad terrorism laws,” he said, “can be weaponized to intimidate and arbitrarily imprison political and civil society activists, undermining liberty and freedoms of expression, assembly, association, religion, and political participation.”  

From ‘red’ to ‘terrorist’

In the Philippines, the ATA, passed at the height of the COVID-19 lockdown, has become the most contested legislation in recent history, with 37 legal challenges so far questioning its constitutionality before the Supreme Court (SC). In December 2021, the High Court ruled two of law’s provisions unconstitutional, but upheld the rest of it.  

Wilnor Papa, Amnesty International Philippines’ advocacy and mobilization manager, nevertheless says, “It is a very dangerous law. Even though the SC has declared two provisions unconstitutional, when you look at it as a whole – how and who will implement it, along with the nitty-gritty details in its (Implementing Rules and Regulations) – you’ll see that it is likely to cause more problems than solutions.”  

Papa also points out that the increased government control and complex bureaucratic processes NGOs – especially rights groups – must navigate to receive and handle funds impede organizations from operating effectively. This is even as other laws, such as the Anti-Money Laundering Act and the Cybercrime Prevention Act, contain provisions that, combined with counterterrorism laws, could suppress dissent and curtail civil liberties.  

Since ATA’s enactment, the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) has designated several organizations and individuals as terrorists, including the CPP; its armed wing, the New People’s Army; and its political wing, the National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDFP), along with alleged leaders.   

The government previously sought to proscribe the CPP and NPA as terrorist groups in 2018 under the now-repealed Human Security Act of 2007, but the court rejected the petition. Even under the ATA, though, legal experts, including former Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, contest the designation.  

While acknowledging the government’s right to protect itself from terrorism, Conde raises concerns about the laws being used beyond their intended scope, potentially undermining democratic freedoms.  

Individuals linked to Islamist terrorist groups were previously the focus of such measures, Conde says. But he says that there seems to have been an “increase in the use of anti-terror laws to target individuals and groups suspected of providing financial aid to [CPP-NPA-NDFP].”  

“Red-tagging has morphed into terrorist-tagging,” he adds, “and this gives the national security establishments a firmer legal framework and ground. And that makes it scary.”  

Conde says that while global actors like the United States and the European Union oppose red-tagging for its harmful effects, the legal framework of terrorist-tagging provides a stronger basis for such actions, with international recognition and the potential for filing cases.  

In the Philippines, the CPP-NPA-NDFP’s terrorist designation is now central to the government’s lawfare strategy against activists and development workers.  

Between 2019 and Oct. 31, 2024, Defend NGO Network recorded 59 development workers in 21 NGOs facing terrorism-related charges in the country. The rights group Karapatan documented at least 122 activists and human rights defenders facing similar charges during the same period. All these cases are based on the alleged connections of the accused to the CPP-NPA-NDFP.   

In addition to filing charges, the ATC has designated several activists – many of whom are victims of red-tagging and fabricated charges – as “terrorists.” These include community doctor Maria Natividad Castro and Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) leaders Windel Bolinget, Sarah Alikes, Jennifer Taggaoa, and Stephen Tauli. 

Pushbacks and protests

Papa says that the government’s overreach and flawed enforcement of counterterrorism laws will not deescalate terrorism or armed rebellion in the country. Instead, he says, this could drive activists underground or to join the armed resistance, ultimately exacerbating insurgencies rather than resolving them.   

“It does not help that the agencies responsible for enforcing the anti-terror laws are highly flawed,” says Papa. “These are the same agencies involved in the drug war, accused of abuses in rural areas, and implicated in corruption.”    

Amid the attacks, advocacy groups in the country have been pushing back against the negative impacts of counterterrorism policies on human rights.   

On the legal front, at least 21 individuals have been cleared by courts or prosecutors’ offices of terrorism-related charges since its enactment in July 2020 to the present.  

In November 2023, CPA leaders filed the first legal challenge to the ATA since the 2021 SC decision. They are contesting the ATC’s terrorist designation and the freeze order on their bank accounts and CPA organizational assets.   

Such efforts have attracted support even from outside the country, with Cumpio’s case being the latest display of global attention on the issue. Like the IFJ, several groups worldwide have been calling for her release, while also highlightingthe state’s misuse and abuse of laws.   

More than two months before Cumpio took the witness stand, a group of UN experts had also written the Philippine government, expressing concern over the “criminalization and ‘red-tagging’” of 27 individuals who had or have connections with an anti-poverty network that – just like Cumpio’s Eastern Vista – is based in central Philippines. Among other things, the UN experts said that “these actions seem to demonstrate a deliberate misapplication of counter-terrorism legislation, including CFT law, for the purpose of discrediting legitimate human rights and humanitarian activities.”

The Philippine government acknowledged the communication on 13 September. A post dated Nov. 15 on the U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders website said of Manila’s response: “Regrettably, the Government did not address the questions and concerns expressed in the communication.” ◉