Antiterrorism bill 101

Antiterrorism bill 101

By DJ Yap, TJ Burgonio, Nancy C. Carvajal
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Last updated 03:52am (Mla time) 02/19/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- Lawyer Maria Socorro Diokno cites a hostage-taking incident to illustrate what to her is the conundrum of the antiterrorism bill that is likely to overcome its final hurdle in Congress Monday before it is sent to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be signed into law.

The Senate version of the bill was adopted earlier this month by the bicameral conference committee. The Senate later passed the bill. On Monday, the House in plenary is likewise expected to approve it.

The antiterrorism bill penalizes any person who commits any of 12 crimes under the Revised Penal Code and other criminal laws and causes “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.”

The crimes enumerated include illegal possession of firearms, murder, rebellion, mutiny in the high seas, arson, piracy, robbery, kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Under the bill, these crimes are punishable by 40 years’ imprisonment without parole.

Diokno mentions during a forum an incident two years ago in which a man took his wife and child hostage and threatened to harm them unless the government stopped the demolition of his house, causing panic in the neighborhood.

“Is that considered terrorism?” Diokno asks. “Possibly yes, which is absolutely ridiculous ... that is how difficult this bill is to understand.”

Diokno, secretary general of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), points to the lack of standards and the subjective notion of what constitutes “fear and panic” in the antiterrorism bill, titled the “Human Security Act of 2007” (HSA).

“The crime of terrorism is defined by results,” she says. “In other words, a murder has to have been committed and the murder must be found to have sown widespread fear and panic. Otherwise, what makes a regular murder a terrorist act and what makes it a murder?” she asks.

Murder under the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion perpetua -- 20 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

The security act will be enforced by an antiterrorism council composed of Cabinet members with support from the Anti-Money Laundering Council, the police and other law enforcement agencies.

Militant groups already are scrutinizing the impact of the bill in the light of concerns that have surfaced even at the outset of its introduction -- in various versions -- in the Senate and House of Representatives over its draconian overtones.

Offshoot of 9/11

The bill was an offshoot of 9/11, the ensuing US-led global war on terror and the emergence in the Philippines of al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups such as the Abu Sayyaf and the Indonesia-based Jemaah Islamiyah, blamed for recent deadly bombings and kidnappings in the country.

The concerns have also been fueled by the Philippine military’s history of human rights abuses during the Ferdinand Marcos regime, a continuing anti-insurgency campaign that intensified following Ms Arroyo’s directive to end the communist threat before the end of her term in 2010, and an opposition campaign to unseat her over alleged cheating during the 2004 presidential election.

Senators led by Aquilino Pimentel Jr., Franklin Drilon, Joker Arroyo and Edgardo Angara have managed to introduce some safeguards into the antiterrorism bill.

“It was a threat to human rights when it was introduced,” says Angara. “It has undergone practically an overhaul. It’s a better bill [now].”

Angara said the measure was better than the Patriot Act of US President George W. Bush, or the antiterrorism measures in Britain.

“In the UK, or even here, you can go to any judge and get a warrant,” says Angara.

He says only trained law enforcement agencies can enforce the Philippines’ antiterrorism act. “No Tom, Dick or Harry of a judge can issue a warrant,” he says, pointing out that this will be the responsibility of the Court of Appeals.

He also says that blunders in the implementation of the law can result in 10 to 12 years’ imprisonment of the enforcing authority. He says the “Hello Garci” wiretapping controversy will now be history because of built-in safeguards in intelligence eavesdropping.

Pimentel’s 98 amendments

Pimentel introduced 98 amendments to the Senate version of the bill. Of these, 96 were approved. Now, says the Senate minority leader, the human security act is “a little more humane.”

Among the amendments adopted were:

• Requiring a show of probable cause before anyone is tagged a terrorist.

• Approval by the Court of Appeals before police could place people under surveillance or tap their telephones, e-mails and other communications.

• Requiring the police to immediately bring an arrested person before a judicial authority (whose meaning was expanded to include human rights officials to make sure that there is always a check on police abuses right from the moment the arrested person is picked up).

• Exempting journalists and their sources from making compulsory disclosures to the police or judicial authorities, for that matter, lawyers and their clients, doctors and their patients as well.

• Compelling police to report to judicial authorities the results of their surveillance.

• Compensating victims of illegal or unfounded arrests P500,000 a day for wrongful detention.

• Making the law effective two months after the May elections and suspending its effectivity one month before and two months after every election.

“In any event, I also know from experience that no matter how good a law is, it may be abused,” says Pimentel, who was imprisoned during the martial law years.

‘Basic fear’

“That’s my basic fear. And it is not an empty one, considering the experience of our people. We are not legislating in a vacuum. We have to input the fears and the apprehensions of our people into the enactment of laws that we craft.

“Knowing then that illegal arrests are prohibited by the Constitution and the Revised Penal Code and still they happen -- all this without any anti-terror law, I can only hope for the best,” says Pimentel.

“I would have wanted that the acts now punished as terrorism, since they are already penalized in the Revised Penal Code, be punished under the code or under the special laws that define certain crimes that are included as predicate offenses in the HSA,” he says.

“Had my idea been adopted, there would be less danger of abuse and less chance that our people’s rights would be violated under the pretext of fighting terrorism,” says Pimentel.

‘It’s sufficient’

Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, author of the anti-terror bill, expressed satisfaction that the bill meets the needs of national security. “As far as I am concerned, it’s sufficient. We will see if it’s enough after it’s implemented. You can never tell. Society is dynamic.”

Enrile, defense minister under the late dictator Marcos, says there’s one item in the bill that he wants refined. He says the P500,000 fine for every day of wrongful detention of a suspect is too heavy. He says it should be reduced to P50,000.

He says he agreed to Pimentel’s proposal just to end the long debate. “We can amend it. We’ll see first if there’s grounds to amend it.”

Jamby’s objection

But Sen. Anna Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal remains opposed and plans to question the bill before the Supreme Court, pointing to some provisions which she describes as unconstitutional.

“The bill is not about national security because we don’t have terrorism problems,” says Madrigal. She points out that what the nation needs is tighter implementation of existing laws and more intelligence gathering. “The bill is about legitimizing Gloria Arroyo’s muzzling her political enemies.”

She points to the so-called “Tagaytay 5” -- suspected communist insurgents who were arrested for allegedly attempting to sow terror during the May 1 celebration last year -- and the case of Anakpawis party-list Rep. Crispin Beltran, who is facing rebellion charges.

“They are in jail on mere suspicion,” she says. “If they say you look like a terrorist, they can detain you.”


Copyright 2007 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.