This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. V, No. 14, May 15-21, 2005
Critics Warn President vs Rushing Anti-Terror
Bill
Legislative hearings on the
anti-terrorism bill have begun since May 4. It may just be a matter of time
before an anti-terrorism law is enacted, especially considering that President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared the bill as urgent as early as last February.
BY AILEEN ESTOQUIA Committee hearings for the
passage of an anti-terrorism bill are now ongoing at the House of
Representatives, barely three moths after President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
declared it urgent last February. Following the bombings in
Makati on Valentine’s Day this year, the President urged Congress to enact an
anti-terrorism bill that would “add teeth” to the government’s fight against
“terrorism.” Arroyo’s go-ahead would
allow the measure to move forward, said Rep. Marcelino Libanan (NPC, Eastern
Samar), vice chair of the House Committee on Justice and a proponent of the
anti-terrorism bill. The bill was also one of the 14 measures that Malacañang
wanted Congress to give priority to in 2003. Starting May 4, Congress
has scheduled weekly committee meetings on the consolidated draft of the bill.
Gabriela Women’s Party-list
Rep. Liza Maza, however, questioned the “suspiciously fast” deliberations. “Is
Congress rushing this? This is a very sensitive piece of legislation that could
potentially exterminate democracy in our country," she said. Because of its
nationwide impact, she said she would also push for provincial public hearings. Missing memo In relation to the
government’s anti-terrorism campaign, Bayan Muna Rep. Joel Virador assailed
Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales for issuing an order to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and Bureau of Immigration (BI) to monitor inbound overseas
contract workers from the Middle East since they may have been contaminated by
terrorist ideals. Virador said Memorandum
Order No. 77, issued on March 30, blatantly discriminated Muslims and vowed to
probe its validity. “The DoJ memorandum is highly unfair and discriminatory as
it specifically isolates Muslims as probable terrorists,” he said. No copies of the memo are
available until now, although Gonzales admitted to its existence at the
committee hearing on May 11. U.S. intervention Meanwhile, heated debates
marred committee hearings following reports that the U.S. government had a hand
in the creation of the bill. It was provided in the bill
that an organization may be proscribed as terrorist if the United Nations or
other international organizations do so. "The U.S. is clearly behind
this bill since (it is) at the forefront of the battle against terrorism even if
it means trampling on the human rights of the people,” Rep. Benasing Macarambon
Jr. (Lanao del Sur) said. Pro-ATB congressmen however
dismissed the reports. "The bill has nothing to do with the U.S. We need a
tougher anti-terrorism law,’’ said Rep. Roilo Golez (Parañaque City), a
proponent of the bill. House Foreign Affairs
Committee chair Rep. Antonio Cuenco (Cebu City) supported Golez, saying the
committees would not be influenced by any other entity. Justice Secretary Gonzales
said the talks about the intervention were only insinuations of people who are
against the bill. “There has never been any involvement of the U.S. government.
We are not proscribing an organization just because it has been proscribed by
another country,” he said. Why too many? There are 10 anti-terrorism
bills pending in the House of Representatives alone. These are House Bill (HB)
No. 309 by Rep. Imee Marcos (2nd District, Ilocos Norte); HB 948 by Rep. Judy
Syjuco (2nd District, Iloilo); HB 1925 by Rep. Robert Ace Barbers (2nd District,
Surigao del Norte); HB 2222 by Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr. (1st District, Makati);
HBs 2380 and 2621 by Rep. Amado Espino Jr. (2nd District, Pangasinan); HB 2615
by Rep. Roilo Golez (2nd District, Parañaque City); HB 2639 by Rep. Marcelino
Libanan (Eastern Samar); HB 3032 by Rep. Robert Vincent Jude Jaworski (Pasig
City); and HB 3103 by Rep. Douglas Cagas (1st District, Davao del Sur). The TWG included
representatives from the Department of Justice (DoJ), Department of Interior and
Local Government (DILG), Commission on Human Rights (CHR), Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Parole
and Probation Administration (PPA), Philippine National Police (PNP), Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Association of Judges, Public Attorney’s Office (PAO),
Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC) and the United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF). In the Senate, meanwhile,
five anti-terrorism bills have been filed. These are Senate Bill (SB) No. 735 by
Sen. Manuel Villar, SB 831 by Sen. Panfilo Lacson, SB 871 by Sen. Estrada, SB 38
Sen. Ramon Magsaysay, and SB 1768 by Sen. Alfredo Lim. All of these, however,
are still up for First Reading. Vague and Ambiguous Various groups are now
contesting the bill’s definition of terrorism, which is the “premeditated use,
threatened use, actual use of violence, force, or by any means of destruction
perpetrated against persons or properties with the intention of creating or
sowing a state of danger, terror, panic, fear, or chaos to the general public,
group of persons or particular person, or of coercing or intimidating the
government to do or abstain from doing an act.” Maza said it is
“dangerously broad” while Anakpawis Party-list Rep. Crispin Beltran suggested
that the term “terrorism” should be defined properly first. Lawyer Edre Olalia, vice
president of the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) added that
the definition was “potentially and actually superfluous as it covers the
definition and essential elements of other crimes.” He said that it is no
different from the definition of other crimes such as murder, homicide,
destruction of property, piracy, rape, physical injury, rebellion and sedition.
Because of this vagueness, it may be “open to subjective interpretation and
therefore abuse,” he added. Beltran said that the
proposed law might be used as an instrument against the opposition, recalling a
statement allegedly made by the President that staging a labor strike against
foreign employers is a terrorist act. Maza is similarly worried
because under the draft bill, the justice secretary has the power to proscribe
an organization as terrorist upon the recommendation of the Anti-Terrorism
Council. Rebellion or terrorism? In a committee meeting last
December, Maza also sought to clarify the difference between terrorism and
rebellion, which is already defined under existing penal laws. She cited the Oakwood
Mutiny, during which young soldiers seized a building in Makati and planted
bombs around the area as their way of protesting corruption in the military.
Maza said the act could be classified as a form of terrorism but under existing
laws qualified only as rebellion. Golez explained that the
bill, once enacted, would supersede the law on rebellion. He said it would be up
to the prosecution to appreciate the circumstances and the evidences as to
whether the act falls under rebellion or terrorism. Maza, however, protested
that there is no need for the bill because there are enough laws that will
penalize murders, bombings, rebellion, and other crimes. “The military already
has enough muscle to do their job. There is no need to give them more powers
which they can abuse via this terror bill," she said. Bulatlat © 2004 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
Bulatlat
Because these bills defined terrorism in different ways, the House
Committee on Justice and House Committee on Foreign Affairs created a Technical
Working Group (TWG) that would clearly define the subject and consolidate the
different provisions into a substitute bill.