Carrie Lam, chief executive of Hong Kong, has a description for those opposed to Beijing's plan to enforce a new national security law, troublemakers. The law will "criminalize foreign interference along with secessionist activities and subversion of state power." Beijing will set up offices in Hong Kong where they can monitor people or groups involved in any act that oppose China and its policies, terrorist acts, or those involved in foreign interference or meddling. Opponents have criticized the bill as violating the "one country, two systems" that were agreed upon when Hong Kong was reverted back to China in 1997.
Back home, the new Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 that was quickly passed by Congress during a time of a pandemic has already been sent to the Office of the President. It merely waits for Duterte to sign it into law. If he does nothing for 30 days, it automatically becomes law. According to the opposition, the definition of terrorism is too broad. An Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) comprising of people appointed by the president will oversee the implementation of the law. That council will determine if whatever a person or group is doing can be considered terrorism. Authorities can then make warrantless arrests and violators can be imprisoned from three to 14 days while being investigated. If found to be innocent no compensation whatsoever from the government is expected. That's how powerful this ATC will be. What guarantee do the people have they will be fair and objective before labeling someone a terrorist? Or is it similar to how Carrie Lam thinks of everyone opposing the government?
There seems to be very little difference between the two laws now facing the people of Hong Kong and the Philippines. Both seemingly target the "troublemakers" or the opposition. The government gets a free hand on labeling anyone as a troublemaker or a terrorist. Legal and peaceful ways of expressing displeasure at the government may be labeled terrorism. You can be raided in your home, arrested without a warrant, and placed in jail while investigating your actions. Who wouldn't be afraid of that? How easily can the actions of the police or other authorities or the Anti-Terrorism Council itself be abused by the broad definition of a terrorist? Human rights are likely tossed out the window.
I have no argument if the targets of the new law are those like the Abu Sayyaf, ISIS, Maute, NPA, and any other group involved in armed conflict bent on the overthrow of the government. But a law where mere suspicion of being a terrorist could get one immediately arrested and detained? Where is one's right guaranteed under our Constitution?