Sara Duterte decries possible abuse of anti-terror law to harass her

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte has accused the Marcos administration of weaponizing the Anti-Terrorism Act against her, saying the government is following the same "playbook" used against former congressman Arnolfo Teves Jr. to potentially freeze her assets and restrict her movements. 

Duterte claimed at a press conference on Wednesday, November 27, that she is being "oppressed" and harassed" through the filing of charges against her under the Anti-Terrorism Act — the most challenged law in the country that her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, signed in 2020.

"They want to cancel my passport, get me red-noticed internationally [by the Interpol] so I can't travel overseas, file anti-money laundering charges to freeze my money and properties, and issue search warrants," Duterte said in mixed English and Filipino.

This comes after the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) issued a subpoena against Duterte on Wednesday over her remarks during a profanity-laced press conference on Saturday morning. During that briefing, Duterte said she had already contracted a hitman to kill the president if an alleged kill plot against her succeeds.

The subpoena is part of the NBI's investigation of Duterte for her potential violations of Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, which pertains to grave threats. The document for the subpoena also states Duterte is facing a potential violation of Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

The vice president said she believes the charges being eyed against her for her controversial remarks "do not hold water."  

"I find the alleged violations of the anti-terrorism law funny because they're just trying to reach my properties and assets," she said.

Duterte also drew parallels between her and Teves, who is facing charges in relation to the murder of former Negros Oriental governor Roel Degamo. 

She said she expects investigators to use the same supposed strategy of deploying "clearing teams" before search teams to allegedly plant evidence in her properties. 

"They enter houses and properties. They say they have a 'clearing team' for safety during searches. The clearing team goes first, places whatever firearms or possibly illegal items, including drugs. Then the search team enters," Duterte said, adding: ""They're trying to do the same thing to me."

Claiming she is being "oppressed" and "harassed" by the Marcos administration, Duterte insisted anew that her remarks were not legally actionable. 

"There's no active threat if I'm dead. There's nothing wrong there, nothing illegal there," she said.

Why is Duterte facing a possible violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act? Justice Undersecretary Jesse Hermogenes Andres said in a press briefing on Wednesday that Duterte may have violated a provision of the law pertaining to the use of threats against a person's life.

The DOJ official pointed to Section 4 of the law, which lists five acts as an act of terrorism "regardless of the stage of execution." One of these, Andres pointed out, is when a person "engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person's life."

What's Teves' case? In the case of the former lawmaker, he's accused of allegedly financing terrorism and providing material support to terrorists.

He's charged with violations of the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012 and the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

Teves was also designated a terrorist by the Anti-Terrorism Council in August 2023. The move led to the freezing of his assets by the Anti-Money Laundering Council. 

The former lawmaker flew overseas before the killing of Degamo, his political rival, in 2023. He ignored orders from the House of Representatives to return, prompting an arrest warrant to be issued against him.  

Concerns with the anti-terror law 

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 faced 37 petitions before the Supreme Court, the most challenged law in Philippine history, for several key reasons. 

Among others, petitioners argued that the law's overly broad definition of terrorism criminalized legitimate acts of protest or dissent. 

They also criticized how the law enables authorities to freeze assets of suspected terrorists without court hearings, which could be used for political harassment.

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld most provisions. However, it struck down two parts about classifying protests as terrorism if intended to cause harm and the Anti-Terrorism Council's power to adopt foreign jurisdictions' requests to designate terrorists.

Duterte's allies in Congress were reported to have railroaded the measure, dismissing concerns from rights advocates that the law's provisions could be used to go after government critics.