A total of 37 petitions were filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines challenging the law's constitutionality, making it the most assailed piece of legislation in Philippine history. On December 9, 2021, the Court announced that apart from two unconstitutional portions of the law, all other challenged provisions thereof are declared not unconstitutional.[4]
Overview
Definition of terrorism
The Act defines terrorism as:
Engaging in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person or endangers a person's life;
Engaging in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place, or private property;
Engaging in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage, or destruction to critical infrastructure;
Developing, manufacturing, possessing, acquiring, transporting, supplying, or using weapons; and
Releasing dangerous substances or causing fire, floods or explosions when the purpose is to intimidate the general public, create an atmosphere to spread a message of fear, provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures in the country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety[1]
The definition states that "advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights" shall not be considered as terrorist acts only if they "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."
Creation of Anti-Terrorism Council
The law also creates a presidentially-appointed body, the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), which would designate the persons who could be arrested as "terrorists."[5]
Because of other provisions of the law. these persons could be detained for up to 24 days (14 days with a possible 10-day extension),[6] and would not be automatically compensated for wrongful imprisonment as they originally were under the Human Security Act of 2007.[7]
Warrantless arrest
The law allows suspects to be detained without a judicial warrant of arrest for 14 days and can be extended by 10 more days, and placed under surveillance for 60 days, that can also be extended by up to 30 days, by the police or military.[6] But an analyst argues that this provision is essential for counterterrorism to "allow more time for investigators to get valuable information from the terror suspect. A longer detention period can also provide ample time to facilitate interrogation. It can also incapacitate the suspected terrorist from wreaking havoc. Most importantly, longer preventive detention can lawfully hold suspect when usual criminal charges cannot be filed for some technical considerations."[8]
Removal of safeguard against wrongful detention
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 also removes a section under the Human Security Act of 2007 which is meant to safeguard against the wrongful accusation and detention of suspects. Previously, if a person imprisoned under the HSA were found to actually not be guilty, that person would be compensated for wrongful detention, with the cost "automatically charged against the appropriations of the police agency or the Anti-Terrorism Council that brought or sanctioned the filing of the charges against the accused."[7]
Under the new law, a wrongfully detained person would have to file a suit against the government in order to get any remuneration for having been wrongfully accused.[7]
Groups branded "insurrectos" during the colonial era and World War II
During the colonial era, forces fighting for Filipino independence, such as those under Diego Silang, Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Aguinaldo, and Macario Sakay were intentionally labeled "insurrectos" and "bandits" in order to de-legitimize and downplay their cause.[10][11] In the 1930s, the Hukbalahap of the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP-1930) was one of the most active guerrilla forces fighting for Filipino freedom during World War II, but it found itself in conflict with the newly independent Philippine government after the war, until it was effectively defeated in the 1950s.[12]
Opposition groups during the Marcos administration
A new communist organization, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), was formed in 1969, and although it was still small, the Philippine government used its formation to take advantage of the cold war red scare in the United States to increase the influx of defense support funds from the US.[13][14][15]: "43" A 1968 Philippine senate investigation into the Jabidah massacre, in which Muslim recruits were supposedly massacred in Corregidor to prevent them from blowing the cover on a botched Military operation resulted in the rise of multiple secessionist movements in the Muslim-majority areas in western Mindanao Island, including the Muslim Independence Movement, the Bangsamoro Liberation Organization.[16] President Ferdinand Marcos cited the new communist and moro separatist movements among his reasons for declaring martial law in 1972, but also used his powers to "emasculate all the leaders" of the political opposition, allowing him to hold authoritarian power over the Philippines for more than two decades.[17]
While martial law decimated the leadership of the political opposition, it radicalized otherwise "moderate" young people of the time, leading to the rapid growth of the Communist Party of the Philippines' New People's Army.[18] In western Mindanao, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) became the dominant voice of Muslim separatism after the burning of Jolo in 1974.[19] In northern Luzon, the murder of Macli-ing Dulag for his opposition to the Marcos administration's Chico River Dam project became a rallying cry which inspired the formation of militant groups such as the Cordillera People's Liberation Army (CPLA).[20]
After Marcos was removed from power through the mostly-peaceful People Power revolution of 1986, the Reform the Armed Forces Movement launched numerous coups to overthrow the government,[22] while conflicts continued with the MNLF, MILF, CCP, and smaller groups like the CPLA. Ideological differences in the CCP resulted in various groups who rejected its adherence to Maoist orthodoxy splitting into more than a dozen smaller groups, including the Revolutionary Workers' Party of the Philippines.[23]
In recent years, international organizations including the United Nations,[24]Amnesty International,[25] and Human Rights Watch[26] have called attention to the continued practice of red-tagging as a political tactic to stifle dissent in the Philippines. The practice, under which individuals or groups are labeled "communist" or "terrorist" regardless of their actual beliefs or affiliations,[27] has been noted for frequently targeting human rights organizations,[28] church or religious groups,[29][30] health worker unions,[31] the academe,[32][33] and the mainstream media.[34]
However, in the leadup to the passage and signing of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020, President Rodrigo Duterte said that his administration would focus on "communists." He called the Abu Sayyaf "terrorists of no value," saying "Actually the number one threat to the country, hindi Abu Sayyaf, hindi mga terorista of no value. Itong high-value targets itong mga komunista" ("Actually the number one threat to the country is not the Abu Sayyaf Group, not terrorists of no value. The high-value targets are the communists").[41]
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 repeals the Human Security Act of 2007, making changes to some of the provisions as well as the definitions under terrorism.[42] Senator Panfilo Lacson, one of the principal authors of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, said that the Human Security Act of 2007 was a "dead letter law" because it has been "severely underutilized" as it only resulted in a single convicted felon and had only one proscribed organization: the Abu Sayyaf.[43]
Senate Bill No. 1083
The bill was prepared by the Committees on National Defense and Security; Peace, Unification and Reconciliation; and Finance with the following as authors:[44]
The bill was introduced by the following representatives and filed on May 30, 2020.[47] Out of the 71 original authors, 15 members had their names stricken out as the authors of the controversial bill.[48] The bill was approved on final reading on June 3, 2020, as an adoption of the earlier version approved by Senate.[45] An additional 5 withdrew their authorship afterwards.[49]
Julienne "Jam" A. Baronda – Iloilo City, Lone District, withdrew authorship on June 3, 2020[49][48]
Joseph Sto. Niño B. Bernos – Abra, Lone District
Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon – Muntinlupa, Lone District, Principal author, later disowned bill as it "only copied Senate version". Withdrew authorship June 3, 2020[49][48]
Lianda B. Bolilia – Batangas, 4th District, withdrew authorship on June 3, 2020[49]
Juan Pablo "Rimpy" P. Bondoc – Pampanga, 4th District
The House of Representatives voted 173–31 in favor of the bill, with 29 abstentions, but was corrected to 168–36 a day after to reflect corrections and retractions from members. The members voted in the plenary and via Zoom and recorded in their "All Members" Viber community[48]
Republic Act No. 11479: Signing of the law
The law was signed by President Rodrigo Duterte on July 3, 2020, in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and comes as part of the Philippines continued fight against terrorism in its borders.[50] Proponents of the law have cited the siege of Marawi in 2017 as well as criminal activities from the Islamic State-linked Abu Sayyaf group, New People's Army Communist Rebels, and other supposed emerging threats to peace and public safety.[51] According to Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, the law took effect on July 18, 2020, 15 days after it was published in the website of the Official Gazette.[52][53] The Department of Justice released the law's implementing rules and regulations on October 16, 2020.[54]
Proposal for repeal
In 2022, Kabataan party-list Rep. Raoul Manuel, ACT Teachers party-list Rep. France Castro, and Gabriela women’s party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas filed a bill in Congress that sought to repeal the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which supposedly violates the Philippines' international commitment to uphold human rights.[55]
Legal challenges in the Supreme Court
Atty. Howard Calleja et, al. vs. Executive Secretary et, al.
Atty. Howard M. Calleja, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary, et al./Rep. Edcel C. Lagman Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Melencio S. Sta. Maria, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Baya Muna Party-List Representative Carlos Isagani T. Zarate, et al. Vs. President Rodrigo Duterte, et al./Rudolf Philip B. Jurado Vs. The Anti-Terrorism Council, et al./Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR), et al. Vs. Hon. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Christian S. Monsod, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Sanlakas, Represented by Marie Marguerite M. Lopez Vs. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Federation of Free Workers (FFW-NAGKAISA) here represented by its National President Atty. Jose Sonny Matula, et al Vs. Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines, et al./Jose J. Ferrer, Jr. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) Secretary General Renato Reyes, Jr., et al. Vs. H.E. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Antonio T. Carpio, et al. Vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al./Ma. Ceres P. Doyo, et al. Vs. Salvador Medialdea, et al./National Union of Journalist of the Philippines, et al. Vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al./Kabataang Tagapagtanggol ng Karapatan Represented by Its National Convener Bryan Ezra C. Gonzales, et a. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Algamar A. Latiph, et al. Vs. Senate, represented by its President, Vicente C. Sotto, et al./The Alternative Law Groups, Inc. (ALG) Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Bishop Broderick S. Pabillo, et al. Vs. President Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./General Assembly of Women for Reforms, Integrity, Equality, Leadership and Action (GABRIELA) Inc., et al. Vs. President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, et al./Lawrence A. Yerbo Vs. Offices of the Honorable Senate President and Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippines/Hendy Abendan of Center for Youth Participation and Development Initiatives, et al. Vs. Hon. Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Concerned Online Citizens represented and Joined by Mark L. Averilla, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties (CLCL) Members Rene A.V. Saguisag, et al. Vs. President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, et al./Beverly Longid, et al. Vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al./Center for International Law (CENTERLAW), Inc., et al. Vs. Senate of the Philippines, et al./Main T. Mohammad, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Brgy. Maglaking, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, et al. Vs. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./University of the Philippines (UP)-System Faculty Regent Dr. Ramon Guillermo, et al. Vs. H.E, Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Philippine Bar Association Vs. The Executive Secretary, et al./Balay Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (BALAY), et al. Vs. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Itegrated Bar of the Philippines, et al. Vs. Senate of the Philippines, et al./Coordinating Council for People's Development and Governance, Inc. (CPDG), et al. Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al./Philippine Misereor Partnership, Inc., et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Pagkakaisa ng Kababaihan Para sa Kalayaan (KAISA KA), et al. Vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al./Anak Mindanao (AMIN) Party-List representative Amihilda Sangcopan, et al. Vs. The Executive Secretary, Hon. Salvador Medialdea, et al./Haroun Alashid Alonto Lucman, Jr., et al. Vs. Salvador C. Medialdea, et al.
Decided
December 7, 2021 (2021-12-07)
Citation
G. R. No. 252578 et, al.
Questions presented
Constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11479 or the Anti-Terror Act of 2020
The law is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court by multiple groups. Oral arguments began on February 2, 2021, after it was initially delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[56]
37 petitions were filed before the Supreme Court.[57]
Former Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) chief Rudolf Jurado vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al.
G.R. No. 252623
Center for Trade Union and Human Rights, et al. vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et al.
G.R. No. 252624
Christian Monsod, et al. (with Felicitas Arroyo, Framers of the Constitution with Ateneo and Xavier law professors, the Ateneo Human Rights Center, Jesuit priest Albert Alejo and the labor federation Sentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa (SENTRO)) vs. Salvador Medialdea, et al.[59]
Algamar Latiph, et al. (Bangsamoro residents) vs. Senate, et al.[64]
G.R. No. 252765
Alternative Law Groups, Inc. (ALG) (a coalition of 18 legal resource non-governmental organizations) vs. Medialdea[65]
G.R. No. 252767
Manila Bishop Broderick Pabillo, San Carlos, Negros Occidental Bishop Gerardo Alminaza, United Church of Christ in the Philippines Bishop Emergencio Padillo and 17 others vs. Duterte, et al.[66]
G.R. No. 252768
Gabriela vs. Duterte, et al.
UDK 1663
Lawrence Yerbo vs. Offices of the Honorable Senate President and Speaker
Concerned Online Citizens led by Mark Averilla (popularly known as Macoy Dubs) vs. Medialdea [67]
G.R. No. 252903
Concerned Lawyers For Civil Liberties members including former Vice-president Jejomar Binay and former Senator Rene Saguisag vs. Duterte, et al.
G.R. No. 252904
Int'l Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination & Liberation global coordinator Beverly Longid, former ARMM Regional Legislative Assembly member Samira Gutoc, et al. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council
Coordination Council for People's Development and Governance Inc. (CPDG) et, al. vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et al.
G.R. No. 253252
Philippine Misereor Partnership Inc. et, al. vs, Rodrigo Duterte et, al.
G.R. No. 253254
Pagkakaisa ng Kababaihan Para sa Kalayaan (KAISA KA) et, al. vs. Anti Terrorism Council et, al.
UDK 16714
Anak Mindanao Partylist (AMIN) et, al. vs, Medialdea et, al.
G.R. No. 253420
Haroun Alrashid Alonto Lucman, et, al. vs, Medialdea, et, al.
On December 9, 2021, the Supreme Court announced that except for the qualifier to the proviso in Section 4 of R.A. No. 11479, i.e., "… which 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" and the second method for designation in Section 25 paragraph 2 of the same law, i.e., "Request for designation by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions," the rest of the challenged provisions of the law are declared not unconstitutional. It further advised the parties and the public to await the publication of the decision and the separate opinions for the explanation of the votes.[4]
Challenges to allegations of violating the anti-terror law
In 2021, the Olongapo Regional Trial Court acquitted Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos, Indigenous Aeta residents of Zamboanga, in the first known anti-terror law case, ruling that the accusations were the result of mistaken identities.[68]
In November 2023, the prosecutor's office in Santa Rosa City in Laguna rejected a complaint against human rights worker Hailey Pecayo and other activists over the alleged violation of the anti-terror law.[69] In the same month, a prosecutor in Antipolo, Rizal, dismissed anti-terror law charges against human rights activists Kenneth Rementilla and Jasmine Rubia.[70]
In November 2023, Windel Bolinget and three other Indigenous rights workers of the Cordillera People's Alliance filed a case before the Baguio Regional Trial Court challenging their designation as terrorists by the Anti-Terrorism Council.[71]
Responses and reactions
International
United States
On July 15, 2020, 50 members of the United States Congress urged Ambassador Jose Manuel Romualdez to request the Government of the Philippines to consider repealing the "oppressive and unnecessary legislation".[72][73] The 50 representatives are:
On June 30, 2020, at the 44th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. The UN High Commissioner for Human RightsMichelle Bachelet has criticized the then proposed bill saying it could have a "chilling effect" on human rights work in the country and called for restraint on signing the bill from President Duterte.[74]
In November 2023, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change Ian Fry urged the government to repeal the Anti-Terrorism Act and abolish the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict. Fry also suggested that the government set up a "truth and reconciliation process to deal with the harm that has been caused by the military to members of the community."[75]
Amnesty International
Nicholas Bequelin, Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific Regional Director, has said upon hearing news of the law being signed:
"This law's introduction is the latest example of the country's ever-worsening human rights record. Once again, this shows why the UN should launch a formal investigation into ongoing widespread and systematic violations in the country."[76]
Greenpeace
The Southeast Asia office of Greenpeace urged the repeal of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 due to its "sweeping definition of terrorism" which it said could be abused to stifle dissent.[77]
Others
The Washington Post called the bill's enactment as "another nail in the coffin of the Philippines' waning democracy."[78]The Diplomat has stated that the law "takes aim at dissent."[79] While Al Jazeera notes that the law is "poised to cause more terror."[80] Various international artists have expressed dissent against the legislation, including Taylor Swift.[81][82] Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg also joined the petition against anti-terrorism law.[83] German Climate change denier and right-wing activist Naomi Seibt condemn Greta Thunberg's opposition to the anti-terror law for attacking the Philippine Government and give a support to the anti-terrorism act.
Local
Neri Colmenares, speaking at a mobilization against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, December, 2021
Commission on Human Rights
The Philippine Commission on Human Rights in June 2020 aired concerns that the passage of the draft law was being railroaded in Congress.[84] It described the draft law as "highly intrusive" and open to abuse by state forces.[84]
Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
On July 2, 2020, the Bangsamoro Parliament passed a resolution urging President Rodrigo Duterte to veto the anti-terrorism bill, arguing that it would lead to abuses and would unfairly target Muslim Filipinos who have historically faced religious discrimination.[85] After the passage of the bill into law, Chief Minister Murad Ebrahim released a statement saying that Bangsamoro regional government fully respects President Duterte's decision to sign the bill into law and that it would seek representation in the Anti-Terrorism Council.[86] In response, presidential spokesperson Harry Roque pointed out that the law does not provide for a council seat for the Bangsamoro regional government although the same law mandates the council to coordinate with the autonomous region's government.[87]
Philippine Independence Day protests
More than 1,000 students and human rights activists gathered inside the UP Diliman campus on June 12, 2020, coinciding on 122nd Independence Day from Spanish colonial rule, dubbed it as "Grand Mañanita".[88] They called for the government to "junk" the proposed bill stating fears that it would curtail basic human rights and freedom of speech and dissent. The rally was held despite a government ban on mass gatherings under the general community quarantine in Metro Manila and other parts of the country because of the pandemic. Protesters could be seen wearing masks and practicing social distancing.[89][90] Similar demonstrations were held by activists in various cities such as Baguio, Legazpi, and Cebu City. Demonstrations were also held at other universities such as the De La Salle University in Manila.[90] Activist Mae Paner also present at the event, dressed up like Metro Manila Police Chief Debold Sinas who was faced controversy over his birthday celebration on May 8, 2020, which the police called it "Mananita".[88][91]
Churches and religious organizations
The National Council of Churches in the Philippines, a fellowship of ten Philippine Protestant denominations, denounced the bill as "a travesty against God's will as it gives the government, or even just a few persons in the Anti-terrorism Council, the absolute power that determines what course people's lives will take by putting forward a very vague definition of terrorism."[92] The Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches had likewise expressed reservations about the bill, saying "We firmly believe this Act imperils the rights of Filipinos and sense of dignity which, having its origin in God, our laws are called to uphold and protect." The PCEC specifically cited "vague definitions of terrorism, and the extended period of warrantless detention, which opens the way to serious abuses of a person's rights and dignity" as reasons for concern.[93]
Others
The National Federation of Peasant Women (Amihan) have said that the rising cases of red-tagging in the country confirm the prevalent criticisms against the controversial legislation.[94] The Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines (AMRSP), which brings together the heads of men and women religious orders in the country, have expressed their dissent against the law, which they say may "assault human dignity and human rights."[95] Various Filipino artists have also expressed disappointment and dissent against the signing of the bill.[96][97] Members of the Filipino art community have also expressed their dissent.[98] But Dr. Rommel C. Banlaoi, chair of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism[99] defends the need to have a new Philippine anti-terrorism law as threats of terrorism in the Philippines have escalated even during the COVID-19 pandemic.[100] Nonetheless, Dr. Banlaoi encourages those opposed to the anti-terrorism law to continue what they are doing in order to remain vigilant and to ensure human rights protection during the implementation of the said law.[citation needed]
Seven protesters from University of the Philippines, who were condemning the controversial anti-terror bill, and one bystander were arrested in Cebu City in June 2020 for alleged violations of general community quarantine guidelines.[104][105][106] Dubbed as "Cebu 8", the detainees were jailed for 3 days.[107] PNP Central Visayas denied the allegations that they used excessive force to disperse the anti-terror bill protests.[108]
Following the protests against the controversial anti-terrorism bill, several cloned Facebook accounts have been created on the platform. It started with University of the Philippines Cebu on June 6, 2020, which was targeted by the newly created, dummy Facebook accounts.[109] The Facebook accounts later targeted residents in Metro Manila, Iloilo, Dumaguete, Cagayan de Oro City, and other areas where protests against the bill were held.[109][110][111] As a result, the hashtag #HandsOffOurStudents trended on Twitter, where netizens condemned the creation of fake accounts.[112] Department of Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra expressed concern over the matter and ordered the agency's cybercrime division to coordinate with the NBI and the PNP to investigate the matter.[113][114]
^ ab"Republic Act No. 11479". Philippine Gazette. July 3, 2020. Archived from the original on July 28, 2020. Retrieved July 3, 2020. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
^"Statement On Republic Act No. 11479". Office of the Presidential Spokesperson – Republic of the Philippines. July 3, 2020. Archived from the original on June 28, 2021. Retrieved July 3, 2020.
^Aureus, Leonor J., ed. (1985). The Philippine Press Under Siege II.
^Claudio, Lisandro E. (2013). Taming people's power : the EDSA revolutions and their contradictions. Quezon City. ISBN978-971-550-655-7. OCLC864093220.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^The final report of the Fact-Finding Commission : pursuant to R.ANo. 6832. Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines: Bookmark. 1990. ISBN971-569-003-3. OCLC23880806.
^"Fake Facebook accounts ng ilang estudyante, alumni at faculty ng U.P. naglabasan | TV Patrol". ABS-CBN News. Archived from the original on June 9, 2020. Retrieved June 9, 2020 – via YouTube. "Naglabasan ang mga fake at duplicate accounts ng ilang mga UP Cebu students at mga alumni, pati miyembro ng faculty. Ikinabahala ito ng universidad; tiniyak naman ng pamunuan ng UP na nakipag-ugnayan na sila sa Philippine National Privacy Commission para tulungan ang mga na-biktima ng fake at dummy accounts. Mino-monitor umano ng National Privacy Commission ang nagsulputan pekeng accounts at ipina-abot sa pamunuan ng Facebook. Pati si Department of Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, nabahala rin sa pangyayari ito. Ayon sa kalihim, agad niyang aatasan ng DOJ Office of Cybercrime na nakipag-ugnayan sa NBI at PNP Cybercrime Units para agad itong maimbestigahan."
.jpg)
