The Law: Mobilizing or Immobilizing The New Form of Protest

The Law: Mobilizing or Immobilizing the New
Form of Protest
Margaux Angeli G. Norega
The law, as we know it, has been one of the most abused entities in this
world. Politicians circumvent it to gain more power. Criminals abuse it and get
away from their crimes. Even the ordinary civilian breaks it by the simplest
things. All these bad things keep happening in the name of the "Law" and most
of us don't even know about it. Most of us hardly had any say about such issues.
That was until we had the social media.
The rapid growth of technology in the Philippines has increased the awareness
of the Filipinos of their rights to voice out their opinions and resentment through
what we call now as social media — applications or websites that enables its
users to share photos, thoughts and ideas through a social participation in the
internet.
The use of social media has grown rapidly over the years. It is claimed that
social media platform such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are shaping the
Filipinos to be more politically engaging, especially the youth. These social
media platforms make exchange of information that is vital to make online
protests. They also create an environment of emotional support and motivation
for the online protestors through social identification and group efficacy. With
this environment of support and motivation, means of protest has been taken
away from the streets, and into our homes and devices, thus making us more
expressive and more confident with the content of our protest. It is an avenue
which allows us to elaborate and organize our thoughts in a non-arbitrary
fashion.
However, just recently an issue has occurred concerning our use of the social
media. In today’s time, the most legally and politically questioned issue
circulating around all social media platforms in the country is the issue on the
Anti-Terrorism Law. There are apparently different sides on this issue which
paved a great division in our society. In all social media networks, it is
composed of quarrels, debates, and long discussions between human rights
groups and groups/loyalists to the current administration. Due to these online
discussions and debates concerning the current law, the gap and controversy of
this law has grown ever more wide.
Immediately after the Supreme Court opened on July 23, 2020 since the Anti-
Terrorism Act took effect, four petitions to the said court were filed against the
law by opposition senators, human rights lawyers, journalists, student
organizations, activists and Bangsamoro people. "It chills freedom of
expression. It chills free speech. It chills freedom of the press. It chills freedom
of association," says Neri Colmenares, a leading human rights lawyer who is
also one of those petitioning to the Supreme Court. Additionally, Retired
Supreme Court associate justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales
themselves led a group of legal luminaries from the University of the
Philippines College of Law in asking the SC to declare the entire Anti-
Terrorism Law as null and void for being “unconstitutional as written.” With
these said and done, this law, according to these legal personalities, has a
chilling effect on the freedom of speech such as the online protests we have
today.
However, Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque, also a human rights lawyer,

said no "draconian" provisions will be introduced to the Human Security Act of
2007. "Wala naman pong draconian na provision diyan. Lahat po ng provision
diyan binase din natin sa batas ng iba't-ibang bansa na mas epektibo po ang
kanilang pagtrato sa sa mga terorista," he said.
President Duterte also called for the urgent passage of the bill to "address the
urgent need to strengthen the law on anti-terrorism in order to inadequately and
effectively contain the menace of terrorist acts for the preservation of national
security and the promotion of general welfare."
With all these in consideration, the public is now in a standstill, waiting for the
Supreme Court’s decision on the matter. This decision is vital since it affects the
way protest is exercised in the social media. Does this law truly have a chilling
effect on our freedom of speech? Or does it respect dissent and discourse
ultimately? The future of social media protest, as an avenue for peaceful dissent
and protest, is now left in the hands of the law, and in the hands of the courts.
Hopefully, this freedom of dissent will not be abused and overpowered by
authorities who wish to silence people from expressing their ideas. I believe that
protest, as long as it is peaceful, is vital in changing the norms and laws we have
in society. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., I firmly believe that “our
lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.”

The Law: Mobilizing or Immobilizing The New Form of Protest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Law: Mobilizing or Immobilizing The New Form of Protest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Law: Mobilizing or Immobilizing The New Form of Protest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Law: Mobilizing or Immobilizing the New

However, Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque, also a human rights lawyer,

You might also like