This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. V, No. 3, February 20-26, 2005
With the country’s human
rights situation already in dire straits, rights advocates say the passage of an
anti-terror bill is like creating a new monster that would trample on the rights
of innocent Filipinos. As a human rights lawyer said, “Fighting its
implementation is protecting the innocent.” BY DABET
CASTAÑEDA It took only a couple of days after the Feb.
14 triple bombing for proponents of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB) to revive the
bill in the House of Representatives. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has
since certified the bill as urgent. Proponents of the controversial bill took
their first shot at the ATB after the Rizal Day bombings in 2000. Due to popular
resistance, the bill was shelved. It was resurrected in 2002 after the bombings
in Davao City. “Instead of solving these atrocities and
punishing the perpetrators, the government is bent on passing a law that would
further curtail the civil and political rights of the populace,” said human
rights lawyer Edre Olalia to Bulatlat in a telephone interview. At least four solons have filed separate
anti-terror bills: Ilocos Norte Rep. Imee Marcos and Cebu Rep. Ace Durano (House
Bill 3802 and House Bill 4980, respectively – An act defining terrorism,
providing penalties thereof and for other purposes); and Sen. Robert Barbers
(Senate Bill 1980 – An act to defter and punish acts of terrorism and for other
purposes). The fourth senator, Panfilo Lacson, also filed a separate bill. Commission on Human Rights Director Edgardo
Diansuy, in an interview with Bulatlat, also said that although there is
a need to curtail terrorism and secure individuals and the community, basic
rights of individuals and organizations must be protected as guaranteed by the
1987 Philippine Constitution. Olalia, who is also vice-chairperson of the
International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL), said the definition of the
term terrorism in the Congress’ working draft already violates a person’s
constitutional rights. The draft is a consolidation of the various versions of
the bill. In the House draft, Section 3 defines
terrorism as “the premeditated use, threatened use, actual use of violence,
force, or by any other 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, groups of persons or particular
person, or of coercing or intimidating the government.” Olalia said the word “terrorism” has no
universally adopted definition while the above mentioned definition is vague. He
added, “It is dangerous because the ‘terrorist activities’ are undefined.”
The CHR, as yet, has no official definition
on terrorism, Diansuy said. Section 10 of the proposed bill states that
a person can also be arrested without warrant and detained for more than 30
days. Olalia said this violates the person’s right to due process, the right to
defend oneself and the right to know the nature and cause of his accusation.
The anti-terror bill also violates the
people’s right to self organization because it punishes mere membership in what
the government calls “outlawed” organizations. By these standards, Olalia said a
person may be found “guilty by association” and violates the judicial system’s
presumption of innocence toward a suspect. Marie Hilao-Enriquez, secretary general of
the human rights alliance Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of Peoples’
Rights), said however, that even without the ATB, this violation has been
repeatedly done especially to members of organizations critical of the
government. She cites as an example the “verbal and
written attacks on legal organizations” during the 2004 elections where
progressive party-list organizations were branded as “terrorists.” Also,
progressive sectoral organizations and their members have been tagged as
“terrorists” while some of them have been killed for being “threats” to national
security. Diansuy, on the other hand, said the bill’s
provision on the installation and use of modern surveillance equipment
encroaches on a person’s privacy and violates the right to free communication.
This provision contradicts the Constitution,
the CHR director said, and therefore tramples on the basic fundamental
principles of law. The inclusion of this provision would require the amendment
of the constitution, he said. In this regard, Diansuy said the CHR will
come out with an advisory that would state that what the government intends to
do is a violation of the people’s basic rights as promulgated by the
constitution. With this, Olalia, made clear that the
opposition to the ATB is “not to tolerate criminals but to protect the
innocent.” More than violating the 1987 Constitution,
Olalia added, the passage of the ATB is also a violation of the human rights
agreement (Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International
Humanitarian Law or CARHRIHL) between the Manila government and the National
Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). The agreement, signed by both parties in
1998, upholds the rights of individuals and the community against warrantless
arrests and illegal detention, invasion of privacy and extra-judicial killings,
among others. It also upholds the rights of individuals and organizations who
engage in the armed conflict. While legislators busy themselves with the
ATB, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Angelo Reyes
has revived the proposed implementation of the National Identification System (NIDS).
Hilao-Enriquez said the ID system, if
passed, would effectively centralize all vital information about an individual
in a dossier that could be used against him. This law was first proposed in 1996 under
President Fidel Ramos when he issued Administrative Order 308 (AO 308),
mandating the adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference Sytem.
A year after, the late Sen. Blas Ople filed
a petition in the Supreme Court (SC) contending that the said order was
unconstitutional. On July 23, 1998, the SC invalidated Ramos’s order. Despite the strong opposition to the NIDS
and the Supreme Court decision, Reyes and Macapagal-Arroyo have agreed to
implement it in the local level. Olalia said this shows that the president
and DILG secretary have no respect for the SC decision. The passage of the anti-terror bill will
legalize the culture of impunity as a privilege given to the men in uniform,
Olalia added. He said the ATB is an added instrument for infringing on the
people’s rights. “By making it into a law, it will leave the
perpetrators of human rights violations unpunished,” he said. He further said ATB is unnecessary because
there are enough existing laws that could be used to arrest or penalize
suspected criminals. “There are existing rules on criminal procedure and the
state is already empowered to implement these,” he said. In the implementation
of these existing rules, the state has often overused its powers resulting in
the escalation of human rights violations. Agreeing with Olalia, Diansuy also called on
the national government to be vigilant in securing its people and communities.
“If these laws are well implemented, we will have a peaceful country,” he said. He specifically called on the Armed Forces
of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) that as law
enforcers, they should “do their work according to their mandate, responsibility
and task and should consolidate all their efforts to protect the country.”
Incidentally, the CHR director admitted that
the AFP and PNP remain to be the leading violators of human rights in the
country. 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.
Anti-Terror
Bill
Legalizing A Monster
Bulatlat Protecting the innocent
CARHRIHL violation
ID system
Legalized impunity