ASEAN Regional Coalition to #StopDigitalDictatorship damage to the interest or credit of the State.”19 Convicted persons may face prison terms varying from one month and one day, to six months, or be fined between PHP 200 to 1,000 ($3 to $18). These penalties apply to online incitement.20 During the 18th Congress from July 2019 to 2022, several bills were introduced to empower authorities to issue content takedown orders, “rectify” false or misleading content, or to block websites, without judicial oversight and procedural safeguards.21 At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 Anti-Terrorism Act was passed by the legislature and was signed into law in July 2020.22 Section 9 of the Act criminalises incitement of terrorism, which is broadly defined as any incitement of the execution of terrorism by a person not taking any direct part in the commission of such terrorism. Prohibited incitement could be in the form of speeches, proclamations, writings, and other representations. Those found guilty could be sentenced for up to 12 years. In addition, suspected terrorists can be detained for up to 14 days without a warrant or being charged, a term which may be extended for another 10 days in some cases. The constitutionality of the 2020 Anti-Terrorism Act has been challenged through 37 petitions lodged by various groups and sectors.23 Civil society has raised alarm regarding the Act’s broad scope, and its potential to be used by state authorities as yet another tool to target critics and stifle free expression. One of the common themes of the petitions was threats to freedom of speech arising from many provisions under the law, including that of incitement of terrorism. Even prior to its signing into law, the Act was heavily criticised by civil society groups, which called for its revocation.24 “ The Anti-Terror Bill disproportionately expands the State’s surveillance powers by providing longer periods of permissible surveillance and by creating new grounds therefore, while giving the government a wide berth when deciding who may be considered legitimate targets of this extreme form of privacy intrusion. At the same time, it deprives people who have been wrongfully detained [of] means of redress and reduces the powers of the Commission on Human Rights as an effective foil against potential abuses of the law. These proposals clearly violate the people’s constitutional right to communications privacy and do not adhere to international human rights standards. - Lisa Garcia, Executive Director of the Foundation for Media Alternatives The Philippines 219