Anti-Terror Bill
Legalizing A Monster

With the country’s human rights situation already in dire straits, rights advocates say the passage of an anti-terror bill is like creating a new monster that would trample on the rights of innocent Filipinos. As a human rights lawyer said, “Fighting its implementation is protecting the innocent.”

BY DABET CASTAÑEDA
Bulatlat 

It took only a couple of days after the Feb. 14 triple bombing for proponents of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB) to revive the bill in the House of Representatives. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has since certified the bill as urgent.

Proponents of the controversial bill took their first shot at the ATB after the Rizal Day bombings in 2000. Due to popular resistance, the bill was shelved. It was resurrected in 2002 after the bombings in Davao City.

“Instead of solving these atrocities and punishing the perpetrators, the government is bent on passing a law that would further curtail the civil and political rights of the populace,” said human rights lawyer Edre Olalia to Bulatlat in a telephone interview.

At least four solons have filed separate anti-terror bills: Ilocos Norte Rep. Imee Marcos and Cebu Rep. Ace Durano (House Bill 3802 and House Bill 4980, respectively – An act defining terrorism, providing penalties thereof and for other purposes); and Sen. Robert Barbers (Senate Bill 1980 – An act to defter and punish acts of terrorism and for other purposes). The fourth senator, Panfilo Lacson, also filed a separate bill.

Commission on Human Rights Director Edgardo Diansuy, in an interview with Bulatlat, also said that although there is a need to curtail terrorism and secure individuals and the community, basic rights of individuals and organizations must be protected as guaranteed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Protecting the innocent

Olalia, who is also vice-chairperson of the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL), said the definition of the term terrorism in the Congress’ working draft already violates a person’s constitutional rights. The draft is a consolidation of the various versions of the bill.

In the House draft, Section 3 defines terrorism as “the premeditated use, threatened use, actual use of violence, force, or by any other means of destruction perpetrated against persons or properties with the intention of creating or sowing a state of danger, terror, panic, fear, or chaos to the general public, groups of persons or particular person, or of coercing or intimidating the government.”

Olalia said the word “terrorism” has no universally adopted definition while the above mentioned definition is vague. He added, “It is dangerous because the ‘terrorist activities’ are undefined.”

The CHR, as yet, has no official definition on terrorism, Diansuy said.

Section 10 of the proposed bill states that a person can also be arrested without warrant and detained for more than 30 days. Olalia said this violates the person’s right to due process, the right to defend oneself and the right to know the nature and cause of his accusation.

The anti-terror bill also violates the people’s right to self organization because it punishes mere membership in what the government calls “outlawed” organizations. By these standards, Olalia said a person may be found “guilty by association” and violates the judicial system’s presumption of innocence toward a suspect.

Marie Hilao-Enriquez, secretary general of the human rights alliance Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of Peoples’ Rights), said however, that even without the ATB, this violation has been repeatedly done especially to members of organizations critical of the government.

She cites as an example the “verbal and written attacks on legal organizations” during the 2004 elections where progressive party-list organizations were branded as “terrorists.” Also, progressive sectoral organizations and their members have been tagged as “terrorists” while some of them have been killed for being “threats” to national security.

Diansuy, on the other hand, said the bill’s provision on the installation and use of modern surveillance equipment encroaches on a person’s privacy and violates the right to free communication.

This provision contradicts the Constitution, the CHR director said, and therefore tramples on the basic fundamental principles of law. The inclusion of this provision would require the amendment of the constitution, he said.

In this regard, Diansuy said the CHR will come out with an advisory that would state that what the government intends to do is a violation of the people’s basic rights as promulgated by the constitution.

With this, Olalia, made clear that the opposition to the ATB is “not to tolerate criminals but to protect the innocent.”

CARHRIHL violation

More than violating the 1987 Constitution, Olalia added, the passage of the ATB is also a violation of the human rights agreement (Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law or CARHRIHL) between the Manila government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP).

The agreement, signed by both parties in 1998, upholds the rights of individuals and the community against warrantless arrests and illegal detention, invasion of privacy and extra-judicial killings, among others. It also upholds the rights of individuals and organizations who engage in the armed conflict.

ID system

While legislators busy themselves with the ATB, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Angelo Reyes has revived the proposed implementation of the National Identification System (NIDS).

Hilao-Enriquez said the ID system, if passed, would effectively centralize all vital information about an individual in a dossier that could be used against him.

This law was first proposed in 1996 under President Fidel Ramos when he issued Administrative Order 308 (AO 308), mandating the adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference Sytem.

A year after, the late Sen. Blas Ople filed a petition in the Supreme Court (SC) contending that the said order was unconstitutional. On July 23, 1998, the SC invalidated Ramos’s order.

Despite the strong opposition to the NIDS and the Supreme Court decision, Reyes and Macapagal-Arroyo have agreed to implement it in the local level.

Olalia said this shows that the president and DILG secretary have no respect for the SC decision.

Legalized impunity

The passage of the anti-terror bill will legalize the culture of impunity as a privilege given to the men in uniform, Olalia added. He said the ATB is an added instrument for infringing on the people’s rights.

“By making it into a law, it will leave the perpetrators of human rights violations unpunished,” he said. 

He further said ATB is unnecessary because there are enough existing laws that could be used to arrest or penalize suspected criminals. “There are existing rules on criminal procedure and the state is already empowered to implement these,” he said. In the implementation of these existing rules, the state has often overused its powers resulting in the escalation of human rights violations.

Agreeing with Olalia, Diansuy also called on the national government to be vigilant in securing its people and communities. “If these laws are well implemented, we will have a peaceful country,” he said.

He specifically called on the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) that as law enforcers, they should “do their work according to their mandate, responsibility and task and should consolidate all their efforts to protect the country.”

Incidentally, the CHR director admitted that the AFP and PNP remain to be the leading violators of human rights in the country. 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.