The constitution provides, under Section 4 of the Bill of Rights,

the freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble and petition the

government for redress of grievances. Freedom of speech and press

means the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of

public interest without censorship and punishment 1

publish anything that a person wants without any restraints while

freedom of assembly means right on the part of citizens to meet

peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs. These two

rights complement each other as a byproduct of a republican

institution as stated by Justice Malcolm in the case of United States

vs. Bustos.2 Note that freedom of speech was formulated primarily for

the protection of “core” speech i.e., speech which communicates

political, social, or religious ideas and the right of peaceable assembly

is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally

fundamental according in De Jonge vs. Oregon. 3 This means that the

standards for allowable impairment of speech are also used for

assembly and petition.

Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is unconstitutional for it curtails the

same rights. While it is also true that the State adopted the “dangerous

tendency rule” which imposes that free speech may be curtailed or

punished when it creates a dangerous tendency which the State has the

right to prevent4, ATA elevates the crime of inciting sedition for

example, to a terroristic act due to the overbroad definition of

“terrorism” which are acts intended to cause death or serious physical

1
Gonzales v. COMELEC, 137 Phil. 471, 494(1969).
2
U.S. v. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731 (1918).
3
De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).
4
Cabansag v. Fernandez, 102 Phil. 151 (1957).
harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious

risk to public safety, blurring the line that separates an ordinary

criminal and a terrorist. So much so that in present time, the society

holds a negative perception to activism─ that the people automatically

equate voicing out grievances as attacks against the government thus,

considering the same as terroristic acts and ATA worsens this

simplistic view.

While it is true that the same law provides a safeguard under

Section 4 (e) that terrorism shall not include advocacy, protests,

dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, or any rally,

demonstration, march, parade, or procession held in a public place for

the purpose of presenting a lawful cause, or expressing an opinion to

the general public on any particular issue, as long as the enumerated

acts are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a

person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public

safety, the power of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) to designate

any individual, group of persons, organizations or associations as

“terrorists” permits the council to detain the same under mere

suspicion as provided under Section 29. 5

person or a group of person’s purpose is to exercise their right to a

public assembly, should the ATC view the same as a terroristic act or

suspect the same person or group of persons has committed, is

committing, or is about to commit the crimes defined and penalized

under Sections 4-12, the council may authorize any law enforcer agent

or military personnel to detain the same person/s without judicial

warrant of arrest.
5
The Anti-Terror Law of 2020 (R.A. 11479).
 It is also important to note that the council is comprised of the

Cabinet members of the President and all which answers to the latter.

If an event provides that the President identifies Person X is a terrorist

based on a political idea, which is not in parallel to the President’s

interest, the ATC is compelled to designate Person X as a terrorist.

Consequently, if an individual has been designated by the council

under Section 25 based on probable cause, the law enforcement may

use that basis and equate it into suspicion thus, they are empowered to

arrest that person. 6

The Supreme Court, through Justice Leonen, scrutinized the

argument that ATA abridges free speech for it brings a “chilling

effect” to individuals, questioning that how there can be such when in

present time, people can still voice out whatever they are fighting for

so much so that in the context of this controversial law, people are

expressing their opposition to the same. In response, Attorney Molo

defined “chilling effect” on the freedom of expression as “that pause

in the writer as he composes his words, it is the hesitation inside the

mind of the speaker because of a vague and overbroad law.” 7 This

means that due to the vagueness and overbreadth of the law, it may

puzzle the people because they are not sure whether they have

committed, are committing, or may commit a crime that is penalized

under ATA. As a consequence it may impede the guarantee of free

speech which will cheapen the following benefits of the same

guarantee: (1) the promotion of growth of the individual and the

nation because if a person’s freedom to communicate his ideas to

6
ATL Oral Arguments (2020).
7
Id
others, his moral and intellectual development is stifled and the

benefit and stimulation that they may impart to their fellowmen is

stunted, (2) the possibility of scrutiny of acts and conduct of public

officials because it impedes the enlightenment of public opinion and

encouragement of political vigilance, and (3) guarantee of a

responsive and popular government because the people will not be

able to voice out their sentiments and aspirations freely, hindering

them from participating in the political process and national

development.8

As stated, freedom to assemble including the right to petition

are the complement of freedom of speech because freedom to

assemble is the right of the people to meet peaceably for consultation

with respect to public affairs and the right to petition is the right of

any person or group of persons to apply to the appropriate branch or

office of the government to redress of grievances without the fear of

penalty9 and in order for these rights to be accomplished, the element

of speech is a necessary element. Therefore, when freedom of speech

is abridged, the freedom to assemble and the right to petition are also

affected and vice versa.

The ATC has the executive power, to designate any

organization or association as terrorist groups. Tying back to the fact

that the members of ATC are made up of Cabinet members of the

President, the ATC can designate the CPP-NPA as a terrorist group

since President Rodrigo Duterte declared the group as the same back

in 2017 through Proclamation No. 374.10 However, the Philippine

Based on the former law, the Human Security Act, the Department of

Justice is then required to file a petition before the Regional Trial

Court to proclaim an “association, organization, or group of persons”

as a terrorist organization before it is considered as such. 11 Until now,

the court has yet to decide on the case filed in 2018. When the

ASEAN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in 2020 was held,

Communications Undersecretary for New Media and External Affairs

Lorraine Marie Badoy said that the National Democratic Front of the

Philippines (NDFP) has “targeted” the youth sector and has taught

young Filipinos “hate and mistrust towards the government. 12 Badoy

is not the only one who holds this view. In fact, right-wing supporters

view almost all activist groups, especially youth organizations, as

“misled” and “brainwashed” to incite hate towards the government,

making the youth vulnerable to recruitments to take arms and join the

New People’s Army ultimately. Because of this idea, the citizens do

not perceive activism as a democratic activity and a right rather, it is

an activity that mars the mind of the youth.

This is harmful because the ATC may regard any activist group

if they are suspected to have committed crimes defined and penalized

under Sections 4-12. Rallies have the tendency to be violent during

dispersal. Examples of famous rallies that did not end peacefully and

still remain fresh in the memory of the masses are the Kidapawan

Protest (2016), US Embassy Protest (2016), Hacienda Luisita

11
The Human Security Act (R.A. 9372)
12
Vera Files, VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Badoy errs in claiming NDF tagged as terror group by PH,
other countries (2020)
Massacre (2004) and Mendiola Massacre (1987) among others. 13 Of

during these times, when the ATA has not been born yet, aggression

between the law enforcement and the angry masses is already a

pandemonium, it is safe to expect that street protests will look turn

into mass arrests if the ATC wishes them to be since they have the

capability to consider rallies are intended to cause threat and serious

risk to individuals and public safety.

The freedom of speech and assembly, though not absolute and

subject to the regulation of the State through police power, 14 are

inalienable rights and are bound to be guaranteed and protected, not

only by the Constitution,15 but also by international instruments (e.g.,

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights among others). Taking this into account,

the right to association under Article III, Section 8 is more than just

forming such, but is also connected to the mentioned rights since

freedom of speech is a necessary component when people join for an

expressive purpose. The State recognizes the vital importance of

freedom of assembly and petition to the strength and stability of the

State.16 If the State contradicts itself where the ATC permits the law

enforcement to seize every events of public assembly, especially in

moments of disorder, and use it as an excuse to characterize the

assembly as intended to threaten the public order and safety, the rights

of the people that are components of a democratic society would

become a delusion since the line between disorderly and seditious

13
Francisco Katerina, LOOK BACK: Philippine protests that turned bloody (2016).
14
Primicias v. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71 (1948).
15
Id
16
The Public Assembly Act (B.P. 880).
conduct and between an essentially peaceable assembly and a

tumultuous uprising would become blurred.17

17
U.S. v. Apurado, 7 Phil. 422 (1907).