ATB, an Arm of
Greater Terror – Senator Madrigal
Citing the danger of a
repressive regime using an Anti-Terror Bill to create a shadow criminal
justice system which, in turn,
will be used as an
instrument of a greater terror perpetrated by people in power against
their critics and political opponents, Sen. Jamby Madrigal proposes a
paradigm shift to “Human Security” whereby terrorism is fought not by
suppressing the rights of citizens but by promoting human rights and
justice.
By Sen. M. A. MADRIGAL
Paper read
before the Eminent Jurists Panel,
International Commission of
Jurists
Djakarta, Indonesia,
December 5, 2006
Posted by Bulatlat
The Honorable Members of the Eminent
Jurists Panel, Ladies and gentlemen:
On the eve of my departure for Geneva last 13 October 2006, one of the
leading newspapers in my country, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, published
an editorial.
It was addressed not only to the public
but also to senators such as myself, who have been called upon to
deliberate on a proposed anti-terrorism law. It said that any such law
“should be of limited duration and subject to an annual review and
reenactment by Congress, just as we would like to see a genuine system for
congressional oversight over the Armed Forces and the police to discourage
abuses.”
The moderate appeal of that newspaper
reflects the opinions of many millions of concerned Filipinos. In the name
of fighting terrorism we have seen human, civil, and political rights set
aside in order to confer upon government unprecedented powers over those
they view as their enemies.
The government of my country wants
increased powers too. The government of Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is
insisting on the passage of an oppressive anti-terrorism law. The proposed
legislation would grant it vast powers over my fellow citizens. To the
cautionary charge that such a law might become another instrument of a far
bigger terror and worse form of terror – that is, of State terrorism,
President Arroyo and her cabinet, and her allies in our legislature,
insist on denying it might ever be so.
But it will be so, because the
terrifying provisions of the law are there for all to see and read.
According to the provisions of the
proposed legislation, there is no clear definition of who a terrorist is.
A person may be labeled as a terrorist by reason solely of his religious
or political belief and his defense thereof. The bill's definition of
terrorism is too broad and too sweeping, covering many crimes that are
already punishable under existing laws. The proposed law blurs the
distinction between real acts of terrorism and ordinary crimes. Worse, it
can be interpreted to include all acts in pursuit of legitimate dissent.
In a time of intense crisis and undisguised political repression, the law
can and will be used to illegalize the legitimate activities of critics
and opponents of the current administration. This happened to six (6)
progressive parliamentarians and members of the House of Representatives
in our country, who were accused of participating in a rebellion against
the current regime. A few months thereafter, five (5) Farmers collectively
known as the “Tagaytay 5” were arrested and tortured without any warrant.
They continue to be detained until now based on trump up charges of
rebellion.
The vagueness of defining a terrorist
is not limited to the Philippines alone. Since 1995, the United Nations
has yet to come up with a clear definition of who a terrorist is.
Furthermore, the proposed legislation
creates a new set of crimes. It grants a disturbing freedom of movement
and discretion to the Philippine Law Enforcement Officers and the
Military.
Under the present draft of the bill,
Philippine police or any government law officer, including the military
may engage in wire tapping for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days
without incurring any criminal liability. This may be done through an
ex parte written application before our Regional Trial Court to be
permitted, and based only on reasonable grounds. The written application
and the order of the court are declared as “classified information.”
Mere membership in any organization
declared as a terrorist organization will become punishable by law. And
any legitimate exercise of one’s right to appeal for the redress of
grievances has the potential, under the proposed law, to be considered
terrorism, solely by reason of the membership of a suspect in an
organization, association or group of persons, labeled a terrorist group
by the government.
Any Filipino or foreigner is liable to
arrest and detention without judicial warrant of arrest for a period of 5
days. The police, military and government law officer will not incur any
criminal liability for abuses or false arrests. This provision as pointed
out by the International Commission of Jurists in their letter to the
Members of the Philippine Senate dated 03 November 2006 would violate
Article 9, paragraph 3 of the United Nations International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which requires that a person arrested
be brought “promptly before a judicial authority.” Under international
law, the term “promptly” does not exceed forty eight (48) hours, even if
national security concerns are involved.
Bank deposits, accounts and records may
be examined through an ex-parte written application by the police
and military officers before the Regional Trial Court. The written
application and order of the court allowing such examination are
considered classified information. The bank examination may be undertaken
for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days.
This panoply of powers, the executive
department argues, is a matter of national life and death and therefore,
she must enjoy these powers. But as the editorial I mentioned in the
beginning pointed out,
“We must bear in mind that the
administration trying to panic Congress into passing the law is the same
administration that proclaimed the February 2004 bombing of the Superferry
14 as an accident. Indeed, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo said it was
the work of “pranksters.” She and other officials admitted only that it
was what everyone thought it was -- the country’s worst terrorist attack
-- in October, after she had claimed victory in the May 2004 elections.
Yet four weeks after the bombing, Redondo Cain Dellosa, alias Arnulfo
Alvarado, had been captured by investigators and confessed he had planted
the bomb where it would inflict the greatest number of casualties. The Abu
Sayyaf claimed credit, but the government laughed it off -- until after
the elections. Even then, the President claimed six suspects had been
caught, though the two masterminds evaded apprehension.”
On the social and political, my
concerns on the proposed anti-terrorism legislation are as follows:
- In the hands of a
repressive regime, such as that of Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the
anti-terrorism bill will create a shadow criminal justice system that,
in turn will be used as an instrument of a greater terror perpetrated by
people in power against their critics and political opponents. I am
deeply bothered by the incident that occurred in the raid on a Good
Shepherd Convent in the Philippine province of Butuan and the statement
made by the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the province of Bulacan
that, churches can be used as sites for conducting anti-insurgency
campaigns. Recently, the Armed Forces of the Philippines sent a chilling
message to all human rights defenders when it called for the labeling of
the reputable Amnesty International as a “persona non grata.”
- We are against the
use of violence against civilians. But national security should not be
used as an excuse to stifle the freedoms and the human rights guaranteed
by the Constitution. We agree with the position taken by Amnesty
International that, “security and human rights are not alternatives;
they go hand in hand.” Respect for human rights is the route to
security, not an obstacle to it. The route to security is through
respect for human rights, not their violations. As the UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stressed: "While we certainly need
vigilance to prevent acts of terrorism... it will be self-defeating if
we sacrifice other key priorities -- such as human rights -- in the
process."
- Worldwide, there
is now a growing clamor for either the repeal of or modification of
existing terrorism laws. In 2004, India, a country which has faced
serious threats from terrorism and other forms of political violence,
took a significant step forward for human rights by repealing the
Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002. In Canada, a Federal Judge has
struck out as unconstitutional the definition of terrorist based on his
political or religious belief. And most recently, according to a news
report, United States District Federal Law Judge Audrey Collins in a 21
November 2006 ruling struck down as “unconstitutionally vague,” an
executive order of President Bush allowing the latter to create a list
of specially designated global terrorist groups. The same ruling also
enjoined the government of the United States from blocking the assets of
two (2) foreign groups – the Tamil Liberation Tigers of Sri Lanka and
the Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan of Turkey which were placed on the list.
This ruling is significant considering the fact that, the Communist
Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army are also unjustly
labeled and included in the list of the United States as “foreign
terrorist organizations” and Professor Jose Maria Sison as a
“terrorist.” This ruling only amplifies the argument that the meaning of
terrorism is often determined by context rather than a logical
explanation.
- In a report on
India’s Anti-Terrorism and Security Law prepared by the Association of
the Bar of the City of New York for the Committee on International Human
Rights, it said that, “Attentiveness to these human rights concern is
not simply a moral and legal imperative, but also a crucial strategic
imperative. As the Supreme Court of India has recognized, “terrorism
often thrives where human rights are violated, and the lack of hope for
justice provides breeding grounds for terrorism.”
- Present
anti-terrorism legislations rely on the same institutions used in
fighting other crimes – the police or military, the prosecution and the
judiciary. More often than not, these same institutions have been
tainted with doubts and their competency to protect human rights laws
seriously undermined. If these same institutions are used to confront
the so-called menace of terrorism, intense pressure will only subject
them to commit further abuses.
I am not alone in raising these
concerns. In my visit to Europe last month, the International Commission
on Jurists, the International Federation of Journalists, Amnesty
International and Members of Parliaments have also expressed the same
concerns. More recently, the European Union diplomatic corps in the
Philippines have also expressed their concerns on the Anti-terrorism Bill,
particularly with the version re-imposing the death penalty.
I have studied the issue on terrorism
well particularly with respect to human rights. I intend to introduce in
the Senate a bill on this proposed legislation that will introduce a
paradigm shift on how we view security or “insecurity” by the state.
To break this cycle of merely
legislating offenses without addressing the root problem of why terrorism
exists, it is necessary to protect human rights and adopt a paradigm shift
on how we view issues on security.
This shift can be done by adopting the
principles of Human Security. Human security refers to the security of
individuals, as opposed to national security, which refers to the security
of states. The key elements of my proposed bill are:
• Adopt as a State policy to value the
dignity of every human person and guarantee full respect for human rights
as the means for ensuring the security of its people. Towards this end,
the State shall adopt human security measures to protect the people from
pervasive threats to their rights, safety and lives.
• Such measure, shall include conflict
management and post-conflict peace-building, to addressing the roots of
conflict by building state capacity and promoting equitable economic
development. The State shall further advance the protection and promotion
of human rights, the rule of law, the culture of peace and the peaceful
resolution of conflicts by adopting interventions that are
people-centered.
• Includes a separate chapter devoted
entirely on Human Rights, such as:
- recognition and
equality before the law;
- right to life;
- protection from
torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment;
- protection of the
family and children as the basic unit of society;
- protection of the
right to privacy and reputation;
- freedom of
movement;
- freedom of
thought, conscience and belief;
- peaceful assembly
and freedom of expression;
- right to liberty
and security of person;
- right to humane
treatment when deprived of liberty;
- right to fair
trial;
- compensation for
wrongful conviction;
- right not to be
punished more than once;
- right of ethnic,
religious or linguistic groups
• Strengthens the Philippines’
constitutional body – the Commission on Human Rights by giving it
prosecutorial powers on human rights abuses, and requiring it to adopt
human security programs that will address the root causes of conflicts.
Most of us here can recall when Pope
Paul VI told the United Nations, “If you want to be brothers, let the arms
fall from your hands.''
And we remember how he made that
emphatic, and immortal appeal, "No more war, war never again! Never one
against the other."
His hope, his entreaty, is our hope and
our earnest prayer; but it is nowhere near being accomplished reality
either in his time or in ours. But “Jamais la guerre!” That is what he
prayed; and it is what we must pray –and work to achieve. Our work begins
with speaking forcefully, and in a unified manner, against such draconian
laws and their approval. We ask your support and seek your intercession in
asking the non-passage of this proposed measure.
The Honorable Members of the Jurists
Panel, Ladies and gentlemen, Jamais le terrorisme! Never again, the
terrorism of the state against its own!
Posted by Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Media Center
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.