|
Subscribe |
The Anti-Terror Law and State Terrorism: Two Faces of the Same Coin?
July 14 marks the start of the implementation of the Philippine’s new anti-terror law – the Human Security Act of 2007. Will this mean the end of terror or will it only legitimize the mechanisms of the more serious threat of state-sponsored terrorism? BY DABET CASTAÑEDA The recent abductions of United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) Pastor Berlin Guerrero (link to Berlin’s statement) on May 27 in Biñan, Laguna and Bayan Muna-South Cotabato provincial head Gilbert Cardiño on June 6 in Koronadal City show how state agents could be ruthless to civilians accused of being members of the underground movement. Guerrero was arrested without warrant and subjected to physical and psychological torture for more than a day. His warrant was presented to him only when he was subsequently brought to the police headquarters in Imus, Cavite. Cardiño, who surfaced June 9, is still in a state of shock after being kept in a safe house for three days. In his sworn statement, Guerrero accused special units of state intelligence agents as responsible for his torment. But instead of obtaining justice, the UCCP pastor is now in jail facing murder and subversion charges which, Guerrero insists, are all fabricated. The cases of Guerrero and Cardiño are what human rights advocates consider as vivid illustrations of “state-sponsored terrorism.” Cases such as these, similar to the more than 800 incidence of extra judicial killings and almost 200 cases of enforced disappearances documented by the human rights group Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of Peoples’ Rights), lay basis to the fear that the Philippine’s new anti-terror law – the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007 – will only legitimize the mechanisms of state-sponsored terrorism, Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) lawyer Jose “Chel” Diokno said. Definition The HSA lists 11 crimes punishable with terrorism: piracy, rebellion or insurrection, coup d’etat, murder, These acts are already punishable under the Revised Penal Code; but as defined by the HSA, these acts will be considered “terrorism” if it sows and creates a “condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give into an unlawful demand.” A person may be convicted of terrorism if these three elements - it constitutes a crime listed as terrorism, the crime caused widespread fear and panic among the populace, and it is meant to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand – are present. Penalty for terrorism is 40 years imprisonment without the benefit of parole. The definition is vague and very hard to prove, Diokno said. “First, when is a demand unlawful?” Diokno asked. “That question is debatable up to the Supreme Court and I do not know how the court is going to decide on that,” he said. Second, Diokno said there is no objective mandate to determine whether an action “creates widespread fear and panic.” “Is it a question of public opinion? Will there be a poll to determine that? How many witnesses do you need?” Diokno further asked. Diokno said another relevant question is, “Is the crime defined by the result?” “This means one element of the crime, the result, is beyond the control of the perpetrator. This makes things more complicated because the three elements of the crime should be answered before the court could convict any offender,” the human rights lawyer added. State-sponsored terrorism State-sponsored terrorism, meanwhile, is very clandestine, Diokno said. “The terror itself is the fear it creates on people because of the killings,” the lawyer added. What is more worrisome, Diokno further said, is that the public will never know whether an individual’s human rights are being violated because terrorism charges are based on intelligence reports. The human rights lawyer said what spells more trouble is that the HSA does not recognize state-sponsored terrorism. “The new anti-terror law deals only with ‘revolutionary terrorism,’” Diokno said, pertaining to acts defined as rebellion in the Revised Penal Code. Diokno further said the HSA does not provide protection against state-sponsored terrorism. “In fact, other provisions that are supposed to stop terrorism provide mechanisms for more serious state-sponsored terrorism,” he said. He gave as an example certain provisions which would, after securing a court order, allow the government to wiretap communications and seize bank accounts and assets of individuals suspected of engaging in terrorism. The military’s intelligence community “will have the most convenient excuse because their surveillance is now legal,” Diokno said. “The HSA legitimizes state-sponsored terrorism in the guise of toppling ‘revolutionary terrorism,’” the FLAG lawyer added. Unconstitutional Ruel Pulido, human rights lawyer and former counsel of rebel soldiers identified with the Magdalo group, went a step further, concluding that the HSA in unconstitutional because it legitimizes wiretapping. Article 3 Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution states that any evidence obtained through wiretapping or voice recording cannot be used in any court proceeding. “But by legitimizing wiretapping, it can already be used as evidence in court. It allows the state to use tape recorded evidence to pin down a suspect, in violation of the 1987 Constitution,” Pulido said. Under the HSA, if after 30 days of hearings the tapes still failed to prove that a terrorist act was committed by the suspect, the tapes will be put under the custody of the Court of Appeals (CA). “What does this say? That the CA will safe keep the evidence to protect the civil liberties of a suspect after violating the individual’s right to privacy?” Pulido asked. Authoritarian rule Since the first anti-terror bill was introduced in Congress in 1995, civil libertarians have expressed alarm that the passage of such a bill would bring the country back to the dark days of martial rule. “In effect, Presidential Decree 1081 (PD 1081) declared by the late Pres. Ferdinand Marcos on Sept. 21, 1972 and the HSA of 2007 are almost the same except that the death penalty was an active law during Marcos’ time,” Diokno explained. It is even worse now, Diokno said, because we are under a constitution that recognizes a democratic system of government. “During martial law, everyone expected the system of government to be totalitarian and dictatorial,” he said. “The HSA is totally incompatible with our Constitution because it promotes a different kind of government,” Diokno added. Against state enemies The law’s provision automatically suspending its implementation two months before and after an election is evidence that the HSA gives the government so much power that can be used against its perceived enemies, Pulido said. But Pulido said the implementation of the HSA would have generated lesser negative reactions from civil libertarians and ordinary citizens if the government is deemed as truly representative of the people. Bulatlat ( categories: )
|
