Duterte signed the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

Rodrigo Duterte (opens in a new tab) signed Republic Act No. 11479, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, on 3 July 2020. The law replaced the Human Security Act and expanded the Philippine government's statutory powers to define terrorism, designate suspected terrorists, conduct surveillance and detain suspects under specified conditions.

What happened?

Congress passed the measure amid government warnings about terrorism and armed insurgency. Duterte certified the bill as urgent before signing it into law. The statute created a new Anti-Terrorism Council, broadened the legal framework for designation and surveillance, and allowed detention without a judicial warrant (opens in a new tab) for a period that rights groups argued was unusually long. It also created criminal offenses around recruitment, support and incitement.

The government's defence was that the old law was ineffective and that the Philippines needed stronger tools to confront groups carrying out bombings, insurgency and other violent attacks. Civil-liberties organizations argued that broad wording could expose activists, journalists and political opponents to investigation or detention, especially in a country where officials had used accusations of communist or terrorist links against lawful critics.

Who is responsible?

Duterte's role is direct and documented: he signed the act as president after supporting its enactment. Legislators who passed the bill and agencies that later enforced it have separate responsibility for their decisions. Signing the statute does not make Duterte personally responsible for every later arrest or designation carried out under it.

The effect at the moment of signing was institutional. National coercive authority expanded through a statute applicable across the country. That is why the act matters for civic freedoms even before any individual prosecution is examined.

What is established and what is not?

The law's text, signing date and enforcement powers are established through the official statute. Amnesty International and other rights organizations documented objections to provisions they believed could be used against peaceful dissent. The government consistently argued that legitimate political activity was not terrorism and that safeguards existed.

It is not established by the law alone that every later use was abusive or that every criticism predicted an actual violation. The narrower record is strong enough: Duterte deliberately enacted a broader counterterrorism framework despite public warnings that its definitions and detention powers could chill lawful political activity. Later cases must still be assessed on their own evidence.