Macario, a student activist known for his anti-government views, decided to take measures into his own hands and carried out the following activities: 1) he mobilized his barangay and instructed its members on the finer points of mass uprising; 2) he organized the People’s Liberation Organization against Poverty (PLOP) and led a march to Malacañan to air their grievances, chanting subversive words denouncing the lack of action by the government to alleviate their plight; 3) he divided PLOP into groups of four members and ordered them to commit theft, raising over a million pesos to finance their activities; and 4) he posted a threat on his highly popular social media account that he will bomb several malls in Metro Manila, if the government will not give in to his demands of providing temporary cash handouts to the unemployed by the end of the month. The police then arrested Macario and charged him with violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Will the charge prosper? Discuss.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Yes, the charge against Macario for violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act (Republic Act No. 11479) will prosper. Under Section 5 in relation to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 11479, threat to commit terrorism is committed when a
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Why will the charge against Macario under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 prosper?
Threatening to bomb public malls to coerce government action satisfies Section 5 of Republic Act No. 11479.
Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 11479, what acts constitute the crime of threat to commit terrorism?
Section 5 penalizes threatening to execute acts of violence or destruction intended to intimidate or coerce the government.
How does the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 distinguish protected political advocacy from unlawful terrorism?
Section 4 explicitly excludes advocacy, protest, and dissent from terrorism unless intended to cause death, harm, or safety risks.
What is the legal effect of Macario social media post threatening to bomb Metro Manila malls?
Choices available with full access.
Under Republic Act No. 11479, what purpose must accompany a threat of violence to classify it as a terrorist threat?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Threat of Terrorism
Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 11479, or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, threatening to commit terrorism is a distinct punishable felony. A person commits this offense when he threatens to execute acts that intend to cause death, serious bodily injury, or extensive destruction to public or private places, with the purpose of intimidating the public, creating an atmosphere of fear, or coercing the government. Publicly posting a credible threat to bomb commercial malls to force government policy concessions directly satisfies all statutory elements of terrorism threat.
2. Acts of Terrorism
Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 11479, terrorism is committed by any person who engages in acts intended to cause death, serious bodily injury, or massive destruction to critical infrastructure or public places. To constitute terrorism, the act must be carried out with the intent to provoke or influence the government by intimidation, or to create a state of public emergency. Threatening to detonate explosive devices in crowded shopping malls falls squarely under the statutory definition of terrorist acts.
3. Freedom of Speech
While the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances, this protection does not extend to illegal acts or threats of mass violence. Subversive speech denouncing government inaction during a peaceful rally is protected expression. However, threatening to bomb public spaces to extort government cash handouts transcends protected political advocacy and constitutes a punishable terrorist threat under penal statutes.