Filipino security are repeatedly accused of applying iron-fest policies and paying little attention to human rights of the citizens, especially Muslims. (Reuters)

ILOILO CITY, Philippines, April 1, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – The proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005, seeking to define and penalize terrorism, submitted to the Philippine Congress contain provisions that would violate the people’s rights guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution, according to host of legal experts and rights’ activists.

The moves comes as the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) warned that the coverage of Muslim issues is likely to further deteriorate, further aggravating Muslim citizens, and deepening the resentment many already feel over their present treatment.

Muslim lawyer and law expert, Dr. Fatemah Remedios Balbin, told IslamOnline.net Thursday, March 31, the wording of the bill is indicative of congressional attitude towards the Constitution as subordinate to the war on terror.

The Moro-Christian People Alliance (MCPA) holds the same opinion. Amirah Ali Lidasan, MCPA Secretary General, said, contrary to the assurances and promises of the leaders in government, the proposed laws on terrorism will not in any way reach peace or solve the “terror problem” that currently engulfs the country.

Dubbing the proposed laws unconstitutional and anti-people, Balbin said the bills place the constitution second in importance to (combating) the on-going war on terrorism when it gives precedence to the latter.

The Philippine Constitution, she pointed out, appears to have no force over the war on terrorism if the bill, which speaks of all necessary measures to prevent, fight, and penalize terrorism in all its forms, is passed into a law.

She further added provisions in the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005, for example, which allows and authorizes intrusions on the privacy of communications to overhear, record, monitor conversations, and allows the arrest and detention for 30 days without warrant and without preliminary investigation constitute gross violations of the Bill of Rights.

Lidasan agrees, adding the anti-terrorism bill along with the proposed national identification system will water down the constitutional mandate on the protection of the people’s rights ascribed in the 1987 Constitution and will also lead to the wanton suppression of peoples’ rights especially against those who bravely oppose the “militarist and corrupt United States-Arroyo [regime] tutelage”.

She stressed these double whammy measures will serve as floodgates to waves of transgression on the human rights and civil liberties of the Bangsamoro and Filipino people, and will further inflame the anti-Muslim hysteria that the Arroyo regime has time and again conveniently employed to cover up the military’s own brand of terrorism.

These measures will further enable the government to easily justify its crimes against the Moro people -- the vicious and cyclical purging and witch-hunting, terror tagging, and massacre of the Moro people, Lidasan further added.

In thumbing down the bills, the NUJP also pointed to the dangerous implications on civil rights. It predicted the freedom of speech, of assembly, the right to privacy, and other constitutionally-mandated rights are likely to be abused. State powers are greatly expanded, directly threatening political dissent and independent action.

“The phrase terrorism in all its guises, for example, allows a very loose interpretation that could result in getting legitimate but progressive organizations tagged as terrorist or terrorist fronts. Labor strikes or transport strikes might fall under terrorist acts. Acts that are part of expressions of civil unrest might also be included.

“A mere plan that might damage property or a simple proposal to hack into a computer could be considered terrorist acts. A person who runs amok in a marketplace could easily be charged of terrorism under the proposed definition. An irate employee threatening a business establishment might also be considered a terrorist act under the proposed definition,” the NUJP added.

The bills also contain vague and confusing phrases, according to the NUJP.

“The bills refer to the intent of terrorism as creating a common danger, terror, panic or chaos, which does not really touch on the usual intent of terrorism, which are more likely to be political, ideological, or religious. This opens the possibility that the bills could be directed against persons with political beliefs critical of the status quo.”

It also has deceptive phraseology, added the NUJP, when it described terrorism as a “crime against the law of nations and humanity.” There is no definition of terrorism under International Law, the group said, and terrorism is not a crime against humanity under International Law.

The bills in Congress are mostly silent about terrorism engendered by the state.

Reporters, the NUJP argues, are supposed to develop as many sources as possible, including those the government might consider terrorist. If any of the anti-terrorism bills now pending were passed, they would be obliged to become witnesses against these sources, or else be in danger of being themselves charged with helping terrorism.

And if more reporters would feel the need to restrain themselves when covering controversial sources, it warned, a broad range of ideas or information would be withheld from the people, affecting their ability to make informed judgments on important political and economic issues, such as the Muslim rebellion and the underground left movement, or even economic issues such as money laundering.

Arroyo is under attack for “disrespect” of human rights. (Reuters)

Balbin, meanwhile, pointed out the absence of the mention of the terrorism committed by the state. No where in the proposed Act on Anti-terrorism is there mention of state terrorism, which is equally reprehensible, if not more than terrorism committed by the people.

Police and state practices against its own people to dominate through fear by surveillance, disruption of group meetings, control of the news media, beatings, torture, false and mass arrests, false charges and rumors, show trials, killings, summary executions and capital punishment, which are cited in the Geneva Declaration on Terrorism, as well as the abrogation of civil rights, civil liberties, constitutional protections and the rule of law under the pretext of alleged counter-terrorism, should also be included in the anti-terrorism law, Balbin added.

Call for Opposition

On the other hand, MCPA warned that if the bills are not met with strong opposition and vigilance by civil libertarians and human rights advocates, these policies will levy death sentence to the “remaining democratic rights that we have”.

“As civil libertarians, peace advocates, as a Moro or a Filipino, as one nation, we must cast away our differences and together oppose the national ID system and anti-terrorism bill. With the united will and strength of the oppressed Filipino and Bangsamoro Moro people, let us continue our fight against state repression and despotism.”

The 10 bills filed before the Philippine Congress seek to define terrorism, establish various mechanisms to prevent terrorism from being committed, and set penalties for those found engaged in it.

According to the NUJP, the bills generally define terrorism as the use of violence or other destructive means to create public panic or individual fear or to force or scare the government from doing certain acts. Threatening to use violence to create panic is also considered terrorism.

Destructive means include harming people, destroying public or private property or critical infrastructure or essential facilities or mass transportation systems, taking people hostage, killing or attacking persons, attacking the cyberspace, engaging in environmental abuse, and handling nuclear or similarly harmful weapons.

Terrorists, according to these bills, can be either individuals or groups. Individuals found engaging in the acts described above would be considered terrorists. So would two or more persons who agree to engage in terrorism, as defined above.

Government

Hitting back, the Philippine government maintains it is for everybody’s protection. “The important thing is, we agree on the objective that we have to safeguard our citizens against terrorist attacks. And that this concern should be paramount in the minds of all, especially our leaders,” Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said.

He added that in most countries nowadays, especially the United States, some European and Asian countries like Singapore, Malaysia and others, anti terrorism laws have already been passed. And to a certain extent, Bunye said, these laws have been found effective in those jurisdictions.