No Need for
Anti-Terror Bill
If only the government
of the Philippines would enact laws on conventions that the country is
treaty-bound to comply with, there would be no need to legislate an
anti-terrorism bill (ATB). Passing the ATB will only replicate existing
international humanitarian laws and laws on crimes against humanity, a UP
law professor says.
BY DABET CASTAÑEDA
Bulatlat
Several treaties and conventions
already signed by the Philippines in past years are more than enough to
cover so-called terrorist acts thus making the proposed anti-terrorism
bill (ATB) now in Congress redundant.
A University of the Philippines law
professor who testified at the recent House Committee on Justice hearing
on the ATB said Congress only needs to enact enabling laws to implement
the treaties that government is duty-bound to implement without even
passing the proposed ATB.
Harry Roque, professor of Public
International Law at the UP College of Law, in his attestation to the
committee hearing on Aug. 3 proposed to enact the country’s treaty
obligations specifically relating to the Geneva Conventions of 1951,
additional protocols as well as the rules on the means and methods of
warfare, and possibly a legislation to implement crimes against humanity
as they exist in customary law.
Crimes against humanity, as defined by
the United Nations International Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
(ICTFY) and the UN tribunal for Rwanda, are widespread or systematic
attacks against civilian population.
No enabling laws
Roque, who is also a member of the
prosecution team in connection with the impeachment complaint against
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo at the House, cited specific treaty
obligations that the country has signed for which no enabling laws have
been enacted. These include the various conventions on torture, genocide,
against the taking of hostages, the physical protection of nuclear
materials, on the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of fixed
platforms located at the continental shelf, on the marking of planting
explosives with the purpose of detection, on the suppression of terrorist
bombings and on the suppression of financing terrorism.
“We are parties to these conventions
and we are duty-bound to enact local enabling legislations to such,” he
said.
Roque told the committee, chaired by
Rep. Simeon Datumanong (second district, Maguindanao), also said these
existing laws and norms in the international community are adequate enough
in dealing with what is known today as “modern-day terrorism.”
A bill specifically dealing with
terrorism is not needed for the simple reason that even the international
community has not precisely defined “terrorism,” he said.
Roque’s attestation prompted some
members of the justice committee to suggest that they wait for the UN to
provide an accurate definition of terrorism by September.
Rep. Rozzano Rufino Biazon (lone
district, Muntinlupa) also suggested that the committee look into the laws
that are needed to be passed and that can substitute for the ATB.
The committee is expected to fast
track its deliberations on the ATB as the bill has been certified as
urgent by the president after the Feb. 14 bombings in Makati, the
country’s financial district.
Meanwhile, the justice committee faces
tougher days ahead as it starts the hearings on the Macapagal-Arroyo
impeachment on Aug. 10.
Skirting an agreement
Roque also said that the country needs
to legislate on the international humanitarian law to penalize persons who
do not comply with the Comprehensive Agreement on the Respect for Human
Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), a rights agreement
between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the
National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). The agreement was
signed in 1998.
Revolutionary movements worldwide
consider the CARHRIHL a breakthrough it being the only human rights
agreement signed by parties engaged in a civil war.
However, Roque said the CARHRIHL is
“just an agreement in principle to observe but if any of them would breach
the agreement there are no provisions on how to deal with the breach.”
On the contrary, human rights lawyer
Edre Olalia said in a separate interview, that there is such provision as
stated in Part 5 of the agreement. The provision states that both parties
shall receive complaints of human rights and international humanitarian
law, investigate such cases and recommend specific actions toward these.
Olalia, who is also a legal consultant
of the NDFP, said that both the GRP and NDFP have, in fact, created last
year the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) to determine if both parties
comply with its provisions. They have set up a Joint Secretariat (JS)
which is tasked to document violations of both parties.
“In principle, there is a system and a
structure to address violations of the agreement. In practice, however,
the JMC is being limited to accepting complaints,” Olalia said. Since its
operations started, 386 complaints have been filed against military,
police, paramilitary and other agents of the GRP while eight cases have
been lodged at the NDFP Section.
Olalia also said there is no need to
legislate laws to ensure adherence to the CARHRIHL it being a bicameral
agreement entered into by the two belligerent parties in the context of
the peace negotiations. Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.