Critics Warn President
vs Rushing Anti-Terror Bill
Legislative hearings on
the anti-terrorism bill have begun since May 4. It may just be a matter of
time before an anti-terrorism law is enacted, especially considering that
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared the bill as urgent as early as
last February.
BY AILEEN ESTOQUIA
Bulatlat
Committee hearings
for the passage of an anti-terrorism bill are now ongoing at the House of
Representatives, barely three moths after President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo declared it urgent last February.
Following the
bombings in Makati on Valentine’s Day this year, the President urged
Congress to enact an anti-terrorism bill that would “add teeth” to the
government’s fight against “terrorism.”
Arroyo’s go-ahead
would allow the measure to move forward, said Rep. Marcelino Libanan (NPC,
Eastern Samar), vice chair of the House Committee on Justice and a
proponent of the anti-terrorism bill. The bill was also one of the 14
measures that Malacañang wanted Congress to give priority to in 2003.
Starting May 4,
Congress has scheduled weekly committee meetings on the consolidated draft
of the bill.
Gabriela Women’s
Party-list Rep. Liza Maza, however, questioned the “suspiciously fast”
deliberations. “Is Congress rushing this? This is a very sensitive piece
of legislation that could potentially exterminate democracy in our
country," she said. Because of its nationwide impact, she said she would
also push for provincial public hearings.
Missing memo
In relation to the
government’s anti-terrorism campaign, Bayan Muna Rep. Joel Virador
assailed Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales for issuing an order to the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Bureau of Immigration (BI) to
monitor inbound overseas contract workers from the Middle East since they
may have been contaminated by terrorist ideals.
Virador said
Memorandum Order No. 77, issued on March 30, blatantly discriminated
Muslims and vowed to probe its validity. “The DoJ memorandum is highly
unfair and discriminatory as it specifically isolates Muslims as probable
terrorists,” he said.
No copies of the memo
are available until now, although Gonzales admitted to its existence at
the committee hearing on May 11.
U.S. intervention
Meanwhile, heated
debates marred committee hearings following reports that the U.S.
government had a hand in the creation of the bill.
It was provided in
the bill that an organization may be proscribed as terrorist if the United
Nations or other international organizations do so.
"The U.S. is clearly
behind this bill since (it is) at the forefront of the battle against
terrorism even if it means trampling on the human rights of the people,”
Rep. Benasing Macarambon Jr. (Lanao del Sur) said.
Pro-ATB congressmen
however dismissed the reports. "The bill has nothing to do with the U.S.
We need a tougher anti-terrorism law,’’ said Rep. Roilo Golez (Parañaque
City), a proponent of the bill.
House Foreign Affairs
Committee chair Rep. Antonio Cuenco (Cebu
City) supported Golez, saying the
committees would not be influenced by any other entity.
Justice Secretary
Gonzales said the talks about the intervention were only insinuations of
people who are against the bill. “There has never been any involvement of
the U.S. government. We are not proscribing an organization just because
it has been proscribed by another country,” he said.
Why too many?
There are 10
anti-terrorism bills pending in the House of Representatives alone. These
are House Bill (HB) No. 309 by Rep. Imee Marcos (2nd District, Ilocos
Norte); HB 948 by Rep. Judy Syjuco (2nd District, Iloilo); HB 1925 by Rep.
Robert Ace Barbers (2nd District, Surigao del Norte); HB 2222 by Rep.
Teodoro Locsin Jr. (1st District, Makati); HBs 2380 and 2621 by Rep. Amado
Espino Jr. (2nd District, Pangasinan); HB 2615 by Rep. Roilo Golez (2nd
District, Parañaque City); HB 2639 by Rep. Marcelino Libanan (Eastern
Samar); HB 3032 by Rep. Robert Vincent Jude Jaworski (Pasig City); and HB
3103 by Rep. Douglas Cagas (1st District, Davao del Sur).
Because these bills defined terrorism in different ways, the
House Committee on Justice and House Committee on Foreign Affairs created
a Technical Working Group (TWG) that would clearly define the subject and
consolidate the different provisions into a substitute bill.
The TWG included
representatives from the Department of Justice (DoJ), Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG), Commission on Human Rights (CHR),
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), Parole and Probation Administration (PPA), Philippine
National Police (PNP), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
Association of Judges, Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), Council for the
Welfare of Children (CWC) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
In the Senate,
meanwhile, five anti-terrorism bills have been filed. These are Senate
Bill (SB) No. 735 by Sen. Manuel Villar, SB 831 by Sen. Panfilo Lacson, SB
871 by Sen. Estrada, SB 38 Sen. Ramon Magsaysay, and SB 1768 by Sen.
Alfredo Lim. All of these, however, are still up for First Reading.
Vague and
Ambiguous
Various groups are
now contesting the bill’s definition of terrorism, which is the
“premeditated use, threatened use, actual use of violence, force, or by
any 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, group of persons or particular
person, or of coercing or intimidating the government to do or abstain
from doing an act.”
Maza said it is
“dangerously broad” while Anakpawis Party-list Rep. Crispin Beltran
suggested that the term “terrorism” should be defined properly first.
Lawyer Edre Olalia,
vice president of the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL)
added that the definition was “potentially and actually superfluous as it
covers the definition and essential elements of other crimes.”
He said that it is no
different from the definition of other crimes such as murder, homicide,
destruction of property, piracy, rape, physical injury, rebellion and
sedition. Because of this vagueness, it may be “open to subjective
interpretation and therefore abuse,” he added.
Beltran said that the
proposed law might be used as an instrument against the opposition,
recalling a statement allegedly made by the President that staging a labor
strike against foreign employers is a terrorist act.
Maza is similarly
worried because under the draft bill, the justice secretary has the power
to proscribe an organization as terrorist upon the recommendation of the
Anti-Terrorism Council.
Rebellion or
terrorism?
In a committee
meeting last December, Maza also sought to clarify the difference between
terrorism and rebellion, which is already defined under existing penal
laws.
She cited the Oakwood
Mutiny, during which young soldiers seized a building in Makati and
planted bombs around the area as their way of protesting corruption in the
military. Maza said the act could be classified as a form of terrorism but
under existing laws qualified only as rebellion.
Golez explained that
the bill, once enacted, would supersede the law on rebellion. He said it
would be up to the prosecution to appreciate the circumstances and the
evidences as to whether the act falls under rebellion or terrorism.
Maza, however,
protested that there is no need for the bill because there are enough laws
that will penalize murders, bombings, rebellion, and other crimes. “The
military already has enough muscle to do their job. There is no need to
give them more powers which they can abuse via this terror bill," she
said. 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.
