This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. V, No. 47, January 8-14, 2006
Analysis
Everyone’s a Suspect
The Anti-Terrorism Bill, which
the Macapagal-Arroyo administration is pushing for with support from the U.S.,
has been criticized by several sectors – including media groups – for containing
a definition of “terrorism” so broad it may include even legal protest actions
in its list of “terroristic” acts. It turns out we could expect a bill defining
terrorism so broadly everyone can be suspected of involvement with “terrorism.”
BY ALEXANDER MARTIN REMOLLINO
The passage of the controversial Anti-Terrorism
Bill (ATB) is expected to top the agenda of the House of Representatives when it
resumes session on Jan. 16. The House Committees on Justice and Foreign Affairs
had passed the bill on second reading last Dec. 14, and House sources say the
bill is as good as approved – meaning a passage of the bill at the plenary may
as well be expected.
The latest available version of the bill is the
one reported out by the two committees last Oct. 11. Members of the two
committees reportedly inserted a number of amendments before approving the bill
on second reading, but the House has yet to make the version with committee
amendments available to the public. Insiders from both committees say there are
no substantial alterations to the version reported out on Oct. 11.
The ATB, which the Macapagal-Arroyo
administration is pushing for with support from the U.S., has been criticized by
several sectors – including media groups – for containing a definition of
“terrorism” so broad it may include even legal protest actions in its list of
“terroristic” acts. Critics say people could expect a bill defining terrorism so
broadly everyone can be suspected of involvement with “terrorism.”
The threat is an act, or so the bill says
One of the bill’s salient features is the
frequency with which the word “threatened” or “threatening” appears in the
provisions.
It starts appearing in Sec. 3, where terrorism
is defined as “the premeditated, threatened, actual use of violence or
force or any other means that deliberately cause harm to persons, or of force
and other destructive means against property or the environment, with the
intention of creating or sowing a state of danger, panic, fear, or chaos to the
general public or segment thereof, or of coercing or intimidating the government
to do or refrain from doing an act.” The term reappears several times in Sec. 4,
which lists down several manners in which “terroristic” acts may be committed:
1
Threatening
or causing death or serious bodily harm to a person or persons;
2
Threatening
or causing serious risk to health or safety of the public or any segment of the
public;
3
Threatening
or causing substantial damage or wanton destruction or resorting to arson on
critical infrastructure or property, public or private;
4
Causing serious or unlawful interference with or serious unlawful
disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or
private;
5
Hijacking or threatening to hijack any kind of aircraft, electric
or railroad train, locomotive, passenger bus or other means of mass
transportation, or public conveyance, or piracy of ship or sea vessel;
6
Taking or threatening to kidnap or deprive any person of his/her
liberty;
7
Killing or violently attacking an internationally protected person or
depriving the liberty of such person in violation of the Convention on the
Protection and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons,
including Diplomatic Agents, and other international agreements;
8
Attacking or threatening to attack the cyberspace, by destroying
the actual machinery of the information and communication infrastructure,
disrupting the information technology underlying the internet, government or
private networks or systems, or committing any unlawful act against networks,
servers, computers or other information and communication systems;
9
Willfully destroying the natural resources in land, water and air, such
as forests or marine and mineral resources, or intentionally causing oil or
toxic spillages, or other similar acts of destruction against the environment
that threatens ecological security;
10
Unlawfully manufacturing, processing, selling, acquiring, possessing,
using, diverting, supplying or transporting chemical, biological, radiological
or nuclear agents, or equipment and instruments used in their production,
distribution, release or spread that would endanger directly or indirectly the
safety of one or more individuals, or to cause mass destruction or great damage
to property; or
11
Unlawfully manufacturing, selling, acquiring, supplying, disposing, using
or possessing explosives, bombs, grenades, projectiles, devices or other lethal
weapons, or substances or machinery used or intended to be used for the
manufacture of explosives in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection
with, an act of terrorism defined herein.
Under the bill, a mere “threat” to commit any
act of “terrorism” can be classified as a “terroristic” act, sufficient for one
to get life imprisonment and be fined P10 million ($190,403.66 based on a
$1:P52.52 exchange rate as of Jan. 6). The death penalty may even be meted out
if the “terroristic” act is “proven” to have resulted in the death of a person
or “found” to have been committed with equipment “peculiar to the armed forces
or other law enforcement agencies” or if the perpetrator is or used to be a
government official or employee.
As to whether what constitutes a threat or who
will determine what constitutes a threat the bill does not say. The
determination of what constitutes a threat to commit any act that falls under
Sec. 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill is thus left to the imagination of the
authorities.
With this, a protest action may be deemed a
threat to cause death or serious bodily harm to a person or group of persons, a
threat of serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of
the public, or threatening “substantial damage or wanton destruction or
resorting to arson on critical infrastructure or property, public or private”
–and protesters may be stopped and arrested even before they begin to march.
Other implications
The bill carries grave implications not only for
leaders and members of cause-oriented groups, but also for those in association
with them in even the remotest manner.
In Sec. 7 of the bill, “Establishing,
maintaining or serving as contact or link with any person or group of persons or
organization/s who have pursued or are pursuing terrorism” is listed among
several acts that “facilitate, contribute to or promote terrorism.” With this
provision, one only needs to have on him a single letter or even a text message
from anyone the authorities deem as having pursued or are pursuing “terrorism”
to get himself into trouble.
Especially vulnerable to this provision are
journalists interviewing “terrorists” in the interest of airing both sides of a
story or issue. The experiences of journalists Rene Dilan and Julius Babao, who
were recently questioned by the military and the police for doing coverages that
brought them into contact with suspected “terrorists,” are examples of what lies
ahead should the Anti-Terrorism Bill be passed.
But it doesn’t stop there. The same provision
targets just about anyone who comes into even the slightest contact with
“terrorists.” If a sidewalk vendor is found to have sold a cigarette to anyone
deemed as having pursued or pursuing “terrorism,” the authorities have license
to go after him.
Under the bill, conviction of any act that
facilitates, contributes to or promotes terrorism carries the same punishment as
that for committing “terroristic” acts.
Likewise, Sec. 14 of the bill provides that:
“Any peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person:
(a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or attempting to commit any of the offenses under this Act; or (b)
when any of said offenses has in fact been committed and he has reasonable
ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the same.”
What constitutes “reasonable ground” to believe
anyone has committed any of the offenses mentioned in the bill? The bill does
not say. Mere suspicion then may constitute a ground for arrest. Anyone who
lives on the same street with any person or group of persons deemed “terrorists”
can be arrested on mere suspicion that he has made contact with them. The bill
allows for detention of up to three days before filing charges.
At this point it would do well to recall a few
lines from the 1997 film Good Will Hunting – specifically from the scene
where the lead character, a young genius psychologically troubled by abuse he
suffered from family as a child, speaks in his own defense after being arrested
for assaulting an agent of the law. His words: “Liberty, in case you’ve
forgotten, is the soul’s right to breathe. When laws are girded too tight, man
is a syncope*.”
There can be little defense for Will Hunting’s
errant behavior in much of the film, but these very words are right on the money
and are worth pondering as the Anti-Terrorism Bill makes the final steps toward
passage. Bulatlat
*Syncope is defined as “a fainting or loss of
consciousness, caused by a temporary deficiency of blood supply to the brain.”
© 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
Bulatlat