Senate Approved
Anti-Terror Bill Not Watered Down
but More Draconian Than the House Version
District representatives asked to declare no vote
during the election
CODAL wishes to
correct members of the Senate who contend that their version of the
anti-terrorism bill is watered down. In this instance, the authors of the
House version could not outdo Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile in crafting a bill
intended to terrorize legitimate dissenters. The claim by opposition
Senators that they managed to water down the bill, to justify their
approval of the same, is an illusory and untruthful statement. CODAL
commends Sen. Jamby Madrigal and Sen. Mar Roxas, the only two senators who
voted against the bill for maintaining their principled position despite
the absence of support even from pretend human rights advocates like Sen.
Joker Arroyo.
The Senate Bill
is draconian because it contain the following provisions that are not
found in the House version, and in fact, have never been found in
Philippine legal history:
I.
Under Sec. 26, it
allows for House Arrest despite the posting of bail, prohibition of the
right to travel and the right to communicate with others
Sec. 26
Restriction on the Right to Travel—In cases where evidence of guilt
is not strong, and the person charged is …granted... bail, the
court shall …limit the right of travel of the accused to within the
municipality or city where he resides. He or she may also be placed
under house arrest by order of the court… While under house
arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cell phones, emails, computers,
the internet or other means of communications with people outside his
residence until otherwise ordered by the court.
Considering
that the evidence of guilt is not strong, Section 26 violates the suspects
constitutional right to travel guaranteed under Section 6, Art. III of the
Constitution when it prohibited the travel of a suspect outside his place
of residence absent a court order. It also violates Sec. 13, Art. III
which grants bail as a right to “ALL persons, when evidence of guilt is
not strong” when it allows the house arrest of that person despite posting
bail. Worse, it prohibits that ‘suspect’ from communicating through
“cell phones, emails, computers, the internet with people outside his
residence” a form of incommunicado detention outlawed under Sec. 12
(2) Art. III of the Constitution. This provision virtually punishes a
mere suspect even if that suspect has not been convicted—a draconian
provision that tramples on the constitutional presumption of innocence and
the right to due process enshrined under Sec. 1 and 14 (2) Art. III of the
Constitution. This not only surpasses the House version, but any law
passed even by Pres. Ferdinand Marcos during martial law. Sen. Enrile,
with the support of opposition senators, certainly outdid
himself in crafting this law.
II.
Provides for
Indefinite Detention upon orders of an official who is not part of the
judiciary
A deeper
scrutiny of Section 19 of the Senate Bill shows that indefinite detention
is allowed upon the mere approval of a mere municipal official, among
others:
Sec. 19—In
the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not be
detained for more than three days without the written approval of a
municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a human rights
commission or judge of the municipal. . .
Section 19
actually states that a suspect may be detained for more than three days
provided a municipal officer, inter alia, of an amorphous
‘commission on human rights’ approves. An ‘official’ who does not have
the judicial authority to order the arrest of a person, is empowered by
the Senate to order his detention for more than three days, a blatant
violation of many provisions under Article III of the Constitution.
Worse, that suspect, who is not even judicially charged as an accused, may
be detained for more than three days, a clear violation of the Sec. 18,
Article VII of the Constitution which provides that “During the
suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or
detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall
be released.”
Demand
Rejection of ATB During the Campaign Period
The Senate bill
contains more repressive provisions on surveillance, opening and freezing
of accounts, and other threats on civil liberties which may be used by the
executive to persecute dissenters. The above provisions are not only
constitutionally infirm but are even violative international human rights
law and the principles of international criminal law, which makes the
Senate version worse than the House bill, or any other law in Philippine
legal history. Attacks against civilians by the likes of Al Qaeda. JI
and the Abu Sayyaf are condemnable and must be dealt with decisively.
However, the current anti-terror bill will not curtail attacks from these
groups and may even inspire more attacks once abused by the executive and
the military. The bill, even as it will not strike fear on the
‘terrorists,’ will certainly be used to terrorize the opposition. Pres.
Arroyo has shown her penchant to misuse laws against her detractors as
shown by our experience under EO 464, the CPR policy and Proclamation
1017.
The credibility
of the Senate and almost all senators on human rights issues are now
tainted if not completely destroyed. CODAL asks members of the legal
profession and human rights advocates to launch a campaign for the
rejection of the resulting bill once it is again by a lame duck House of
Representatives in June. The people must require their district
representatives during this election to declare that they will vote no on
the anti-terror bill once it is presented in the House for ratification.
This is one rare instance when the people must assert a clear position on
a national issue from local politicians in a local election. Since the
Senate failed to protect the people from this draconian anti-terror bill,
it is now up to the people themselves to directly act to force the
rejection of the bill. Posted
by Bulatlat
Reference Person: Atty. Neri Javier
Colmenares
Counsels for the Defense of Liberties (CODAL)
Date: February 9, 2007
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2007 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.