I think during the Cory Aquino administration there were…patriotic senators who had spoken about it. I have a few of my colleagues who continue to speak about it, but I think the litmus test was when these colleagues voted for the Anti-Terrorism Bill, which I did not vote for. At the end, there were only about two of us who voted no to this bill which will be used as an instrument for further oppression of our people and further weaken the national sovereignty of the Filipino people.

You mean to say, out of 23 Senators, only two voted against it?

Mad. Two voted against it, one was in his office when the vote was called but he is a good colleague of mine and I believe he is one of the best senators we’ve ever had, Senator [Sergio] Osmena III would have voted against it. But aside from that, of the 23, only three perhaps in conscience would have voted against it.

What do you think has been the reason for this? These people aren’t stupid, rather well-versed in political issues …

Well, “political compromise,” I think would be the best way to put it. Some point to other [reasons], they were just justifying their “yes” votes because their amendments were accepted. Yes, the amendments which changed only the grammar [or wording] of the bill. But the amendments which would have changed the spirit of the bill were not accepted and the amendments to safeguard human rights were not really there.

They say that the bill is safe now because we’ve put enough safeguards. To me…and I would not say it…it is a four-lettered word but that is all foolishness. There are no safeguards in the bill. You do not have to be a lawyer to see it, I’ve discussed it with the International Court of Justice. I‘ve recently discussed it with United Nations Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism and Human Rights who issued a press statement asking the Philippines to repeal or amend the bill because it is not in harmony with the Covenant of Human Rights that the Philippines has signed. So it really makes a mockery of democracy, this is a licence to kill and legitimize state terror against its people.

Could you sum up your main arguments that made you vote against it? What are the most perfidious elements?

First of all, you can be arrested without any warrant on mere suspicion so it is back to the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.

If they don’t like your face, they can say I suspect you to be a terrorist and you can be arrested without warrant, your assets frozen, and you are put under surveillance and those of your family and friends who come in contact with you can be put under surveillance.

And what is worse is not only that there is a very vague provision in the law which the United Nations Rapporteur pointed out: [namely] that aside from a judge, any member of the Philippine Commission of Human Rights who is not even a judge can issue a warrant. So…they are making a mockery of our Commission of Human Rights by making them now an instrument to make possible state terrorism against the people.

I thought the Commission just investigates cases?

Yes, but it says, upon mere suspicion of someone being a terrorist, you can apply for a warrant from your [local] judge or you can go to the representative of the Commission of Human Rights in the area and get a warrant to arrest and bring that person to jail. You can arrest someone and detain him for three days without warrant. So there are really no safeguards.

If you look at it, the main sponsor was Senator Juan Ponce Enrile who in 1972 was the architect of Martial Law and he was the Minister of Defense under which Mr. Marcos committed human rights violations. The [first] Permanent People’s Tribunal, when it indicted President Marcos, also indicted Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, then the Defense Minister. And Mrs. Arroyo has used this same man to be again her architect of martial law… they say that the first time martial law was imposed, it was a tragedy. The second time with the Anti-Terror Bill, it is a comedy of errors

What in your view marks the difference between the Marcos era and the GMA administration?

Very easy. Marcos was a lawyer and he was very conscious of his place in history. When he wanted to extend his power way beyond his term, he was not a hypocrite and used all the excuses to declare Martial Law. At least the people then knew that we were under dictatorship and that we had limited freedom.

With Mrs. Arroyo, it is worse because she is the best hypocrite who ever lived. The Filipinos are living today under a dictatorship masquerading as democracy. It is even harder when Mrs. Arroyo tries tell the international community that the Philippines is a democracy when, on the average, she has already killed more people than Marcos did in his 20 years in power. Marcos killed three thousand or more people when he was in power. In the Macapagal Arroyo administraton, we have almost 800 people in less than five years.

Although she is a very small woman, I think she packs more repression, more hypocrisy, more killings, more violations of human rights, more violations of the constitution than Mr. Marcos ever did.

Do not forget, Mr. Marcos had a vision for the Philippines. Mrs. Arroyo has the myopic vision only of furthering herself in power way beyond 2010. And that is why should she get the majority in the lower and upper house this election–she would try to change the constitution into a parliamentary form and reign as Prime Minister for an indefinite number of years. Don’t forget we have no monarchy, our constitutional…institutions are very weak, and so to be a prime minister would again be tantamount to an indefinite period of having a dictator in the Philippines.

It must be awkward to travel around the globe and project such an image of the Philippines. How do your colleagues perceive the Permanent People’s Tribunal Session 2?

Well, my colleagues who are very much against Mrs. Arroyo are very happy that I am here. And we’ll use this indictment of Mrs. Arroyo to open the eyes of the Filipino people with regard to their gradual loss of freedom.

I feel as if we are living in a military junta with a puppet president willing to do what the military wants just to stay in power. And legislators like me have very limited power. All we can do is talk – if we are not killed.

I was water-cannoned last October for participating in a procession. And the last time I came here to [to Europe] and tried to negotiate peace talks with the NDF, I was under threat of being arrested when I arrived [home] for doing nothing.

In the Philippines, the modus operandi is that you are presumed guilty unless otherwise proven, whereas the presumption of innocence is what should be held especially under a constitution.

Mr. Satur Ocampo, a congressman, was not presumed innocent. [The government] got a warrant of arrest under trumped-up charges, he was arrested – I was with him in jail, I saw it. And then at the break of dawn [after his arrest], the police tried to kidnap him to bring him to a small town where his life could have been lost.

This is not a democracy. We are living under the worst form of dictatorship because it is masquerading as a democracy. To live in the Philippines is very frustrating at the moment. Whereas they tell you, you have your own freedoms, but what is in the law is not what is happening. Contributed to
(Bulatlat.com)

E. San Juan, Jr. was recently a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation Center, Bellagio, Italy; visiting professor of literature at National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan; and Fulbright professor of American Studies at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. He works with the Philippine Forum, New York, and the Philippines Cultural Studies Center, Connecticut. He authored a collection of poems in English entitled The Ashes of Pedro Abad Santos and Other Poems (1986). His recent books are Filipinos Everywhere (IBON), In the Wake of Terror (Lexington Books), U.S. Imperialism and Revolution in the Philippines (Palgrave Macmillan) and Balikbayang Sinta: An E. San Juan, Jr. Reader (Ateneo University Press).

Dr. Rainer Werning is a German political scientist who has lectured and researched in various institutions in the Philippines, UK and Japan. He interviewed Jose Maria Sison in The Philippine Revolution: The Leader’s View (1989), and co-edited Handbuch Philippinen (2006). He writes for various publications in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Luxemburg.

 Save as PDF