Renewed Gov’t Pitch for Anti-Terror Bill Draws Flak

Following the reported foiling by British authorities of an alleged new terror plot, the Arroyo government renewed its pitch for the immediate enactment of the proposed Anti-terrorism bill.  But the Senate remains unmoved by government appeals and human rights lawyers vowed to block such efforts. 

By Jhong dela Cruz
Bulatlat

The reported foiling by British authorities of a “terrorist plan” to bomb transatlantic planes traveling from Heathrow airport to the United States placed countries such as the U.S. and the Philippines in full alert. Because the terrorist plot was supposed to use liquid bombs, all types of liquids and gels were banned from airplanes in Britain and the U.S.      

But the riding public in Metro Manila did not expect that their daily routine of taking commuter trains would be affected by these new security restrictions. Metrostar, operator of the Metro Rail Transit 3 (MRT 3), implemented a ban on all kinds of liquid including beverages and gel starting August 12. This caused delays as inspections were tightened in MRT stations. 

The heightened security measures were implemented not only at MRT stations, however.  The Arroyo government raised a nationwide security alert and ordered tighter security measures at airports, seaports, and public transport places around the country. It also convened the government’s Anti-Terrorism Task Force. 

The Arroyo government also took the opportunity to renew its pitch for the immediate enactment into law of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB). 

Senate objections

The international alert has apparently placed the Senate under pressure to immediately pass its version of the ATB.

The House version, authored by Representatives Marcelino Libanan (Eastern Samar) and Douglas Cagas (Davao del Sur), was passed in April this year. House Bill 4839 sought the definition, institution of mechanisms to suppress acts constituting terrorism and provided the penalties for such acts.

Senators have put brakes on the measure, however. Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel last week refused to accede to the government’s call saying the Arroyo government must first solve the spate of political killings, before the upper chamber would consider its own bill.

In a statement, Pimentel said, “It would be unwise to approve this bill while the administration has not shown sincerity and determination to solve political killings,” especially when “soldiers and policemen have been tagged as the perpetrators.”

“The problem with the government of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is that even if there is no Anti-Terrorism Law yet, it has been harassing people who are perceived to be her political enemies. They are being treated like terrorists,” he said.

Pimentel raised doubts on how the government might use the anti-terrorism act. “The President should resign first from her position before we can discuss this legislation,” he said.

The senator reiterated three important points in the proposed bill: the definition, which provides who are covered by the bill and the acts constituting terrorism; measures to protect human rights; and safeguards against possible abuse of the bill by the administration to harass critics of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Very unpopular

Meanwhile, lawyer Neri Colmenares, spokespersons of the Counsels for the Defense of Civil Liberties (CODAL), told Bulatlat in an interview that the anti-terror bill remains to be “very unpopular” among the people.

Because of this, he said, the government is wont to grab every opportunity to make the bill acceptable to the general public.

“The government is missing the point.  The bill is being opposed by rights advocates because this will worsen the already worsening human rights situation in the country,” he said.

Giving life to the bill would mean “legitimization of abuses,” adding it will be used particularly to target the legal opposition. “The government doesn’t need a bill to exterminate armed groups because it is already trying to do so…The proposed bill is clearly directed at the legal opposition,” he said.

“In reality, it has been passed,” the lawyer said, citing the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response, Proclamation 1017, and Executive Order 464. “And it is never about reform,” Colmenares said, but the legalization of actual acts of violence already taking place.

Detained Anakpawis (Toiling Masses) Rep. Crispin Beltran said Malacañang is manifesting signs of being a dictatorship.  It has courted the ire of international human rights organizations, including the Amnesty International, he added.

“(The government) hopes to turn the Philippines into another El Salvador, Argentina or Nicaragua and reverse the human rights situation to as far back as four decades ago, during the time of Martial Law, through such a bill,” Beltran said.

The bill contains provisions allowing government to detain suspects for 15 days without bail and allows it to place arrested persons in isolation.

Biggest terror threat

On the other hand, University of the Philippines professor Harry Roque said that there being no internationally-accepted definition of terrorism is not a trivial matter when the right of the citizens to be informed of their crime is concerned,.

In a separate interview with Bulatlat, Roque, professor of International Public Law, said, “If there is no internationally-accepted definition of what it sought to be penalized you will really never know what is being prohibited. It is very important that the international community should come up with a definition before we penalized this act.”

Meanwhile, he said, there are domestic and international laws that cover “terror acts” such as the Revised Penal Code for local remedies and the crimes against humanity or war crimes for acts considered as international crimes.

He reiterated that the right to due process is likewise violated. “The right to due process provides the accused with the right to be informed of the nature of charges against him/her. Unless there is sufficient definition of what it is the person is accused of, s/he could be acquitted of the charges filed against him/her.”

Roque also questioned the basis for providing for a different set of penalties for government officials convicted of terrorism in the version passed by the House of Representatives.  

The House bill imposes imprisonment ranging from 6 to 12 years and a fine ranging from P50,000 ($978.18 at an exchange rate of $1=P51.115) to P5 million ($97,818.64) for convicted government officials, while for others, the penalty is a fine of P10 million ($195,627.28) and life imprisonment.

“We follow the principle of equal protection of the law.  Providing for a different set of penalties for convicted government officials is a violation of this principle,” he said.

But more importantly, he said, “Her acts constituting dictatorial powers will fuel acts of terrorism (because they) are running out of constitutional options.”

“She’s driving the people to commit extra-constitutional or unconstitutional means…her continued reign is the biggest threat to the international fight against terrorism.” Bulatlat

BACK TO TOP ■  PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION  ■   COMMENT

© 2006 Bulatlat ■  Alipato Media Center

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.