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.com
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.”
