Analysis
Everyone’s a
Suspect
The Anti-Terrorism Bill,
which the Macapagal-Arroyo administration is pushing for with support from
the U.S., has been criticized by several sectors – including media groups
– for containing a definition of “terrorism” so broad it may include even
legal protest actions in its list of “terroristic” acts. It turns out we
could expect a bill defining terrorism so broadly everyone can be
suspected of involvement with “terrorism.”
BY ALEXANDER MARTIN
REMOLLINO
Bulatlat
The passage of the controversial
Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB) is expected to top the agenda of the House of
Representatives when it resumes session on Jan. 16. The House Committees
on Justice and Foreign Affairs had passed the bill on second reading last
Dec. 14, and House sources say the bill is as good as approved – meaning a
passage of the bill at the plenary may as well be expected.
The latest available version of the bill
is the one reported out by the two committees last Oct. 11. Members of the
two committees reportedly inserted a number of amendments before approving
the bill on second reading, but the House has yet to make the version with
committee amendments available to the public. Insiders from both
committees say there are no substantial alterations to the version
reported out on Oct. 11.
The ATB, which the Macapagal-Arroyo
administration is pushing for with support from the U.S., has been
criticized by several sectors – including media groups – for containing a
definition of “terrorism” so broad it may include even legal protest
actions in its list of “terroristic” acts. Critics say people could expect
a bill defining terrorism so broadly everyone can be suspected of
involvement with “terrorism.”
The threat is an act, or so the bill says
One of the bill’s salient features is the
frequency with which the word “threatened” or “threatening” appears in the
provisions.
It starts appearing in Sec. 3, where
terrorism is defined as “the premeditated, threatened, actual use
of violence or force or any other means that deliberately cause harm to
persons, or of force and other destructive means against property or the
environment, with the intention of creating or sowing a state of danger,
panic, fear, or chaos to the general public or segment thereof, or of
coercing or intimidating the government to do or refrain from doing an
act.” The term reappears several times in Sec. 4, which lists down several
manners in which “terroristic” acts may be committed:
1
Threatening
or causing death or serious bodily harm to a person or persons;
2
Threatening
or causing serious risk to health or safety of the public or any segment
of the public;
3
Threatening
or causing substantial damage or wanton destruction or resorting to arson
on critical infrastructure or property, public or private;
4
Causing serious or unlawful interference with or serious unlawful
disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or
private;
5
Hijacking or threatening to hijack any kind of aircraft,
electric or railroad train, locomotive, passenger bus or other means of
mass transportation, or public conveyance, or piracy of ship or sea
vessel;
6
Taking or threatening to kidnap or deprive any person of
his/her liberty;
7
Killing or violently attacking an internationally protected person
or depriving the liberty of such person in violation of the Convention on
the Protection and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected
Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, and other international agreements;
8
Attacking or threatening to attack the cyberspace, by
destroying the actual machinery of the information and communication
infrastructure, disrupting the information technology underlying the
internet, government or private networks or systems, or committing any
unlawful act against networks, servers, computers or other information and
communication systems;
9
Willfully destroying the natural resources in land, water and air,
such as forests or marine and mineral resources, or intentionally causing
oil or toxic spillages, or other similar acts of destruction against the
environment that threatens ecological security;
10
Unlawfully manufacturing, processing, selling, acquiring,
possessing, using, diverting, supplying or transporting chemical,
biological, radiological or nuclear agents, or equipment and instruments
used in their production, distribution, release or spread that would
endanger directly or indirectly the safety of one or more individuals, or
to cause mass destruction or great damage to property; or
11
Unlawfully manufacturing, selling, acquiring, supplying, disposing,
using or possessing explosives, bombs, grenades, projectiles, devices or
other lethal weapons, or substances or machinery used or intended to be
used for the manufacture of explosives in furtherance of, or incident to,
or in connection with, an act of terrorism defined herein.
Under the bill, a mere “threat” to commit
any act of “terrorism” can be classified as a “terroristic” act,
sufficient for one to get life imprisonment and be fined P10 million
($190,403.66 based on a $1:P52.52 exchange rate as of Jan. 6). The death
penalty may even be meted out if the “terroristic” act is “proven” to have
resulted in the death of a person or “found” to have been committed with
equipment “peculiar to the armed forces or other law enforcement agencies”
or if the perpetrator is or used to be a government official or employee.
As to whether what constitutes a threat or
who will determine what constitutes a threat the bill does not say. The
determination of what constitutes a threat to commit any act that falls
under Sec. 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill is thus left to the imagination of
the authorities.
With this, a protest action may be deemed
a threat to cause death or serious bodily harm to a person or group of
persons, a threat of serious risk to the health or safety of the public or
any segment of the public, or threatening “substantial damage or wanton
destruction or resorting to arson on critical infrastructure or property,
public or private” –and protesters may be stopped and arrested even before
they begin to march.
Other implications
The bill carries grave implications not
only for leaders and members of cause-oriented groups, but also for those
in association with them in even the remotest manner.
In Sec. 7 of the bill, “Establishing,
maintaining or serving as contact or link with any person or group of
persons or organization/s who have pursued or are pursuing terrorism” is
listed among several acts that “facilitate, contribute to or promote
terrorism.” With this provision, one only needs to have on him a single
letter or even a text message from anyone the authorities deem as having
pursued or are pursuing “terrorism” to get himself into trouble.
Especially vulnerable to this provision
are journalists interviewing “terrorists” in the interest of airing both
sides of a story or issue. The experiences of journalists Rene Dilan and
Julius Babao, who were recently questioned by the military and the police
for doing coverages that brought them into contact with suspected
“terrorists,” are examples of what lies ahead should the Anti-Terrorism
Bill be passed.
But it doesn’t stop there. The same
provision targets just about anyone who comes into even the slightest
contact with “terrorists.” If a sidewalk vendor is found to have sold a
cigarette to anyone deemed as having pursued or pursuing “terrorism,” the
authorities have license to go after him.
Under the bill, conviction of any act that
facilitates, contributes to or promotes terrorism carries the same
punishment as that for committing “terroristic” acts.
Likewise, Sec. 14 of the bill provides
that: “Any peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest
a person: (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or attempting to commit any of the
offenses under this Act; or (b) when any of said offenses has in fact been
committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed the same.”
What constitutes “reasonable ground” to
believe anyone has committed any of the offenses mentioned in the bill?
The bill does not say. Mere suspicion then may constitute a ground for
arrest. Anyone who lives on the same street with any person or group of
persons deemed “terrorists” can be arrested on mere suspicion that he has
made contact with them. The bill allows for detention of up to three days
before filing charges.
At this point it would do well to recall a
few lines from the 1997 film Good Will Hunting – specifically from
the scene where the lead character, a young genius psychologically
troubled by abuse he suffered from family as a child, speaks in his own
defense after being arrested for assaulting an agent of the law. His
words: “Liberty, in case you’ve forgotten, is the soul’s right to breathe.
When laws are girded too tight, man is a syncope*.”
There can be little defense for Will
Hunting’s errant behavior in much of the film, but these very words are
right on the money and are worth pondering as the Anti-Terrorism Bill
makes the final steps toward passage. Bulatlat
*Syncope is defined as “a fainting or
loss of consciousness, caused by a temporary deficiency of blood supply to
the brain.”
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.