Philippines casts a wide new terror
net By Stella Gonzales
MANILA - As the Philippines' new and
controversial anti-terrorism law took effect this
week, politicians, church leaders and a United
Nations special rapporteur have all called for a
deferment. Government officials were quick to
counter that the law is intended to protect the
nation and the economy from terror attacks.
Those opposed to the new Human Security
Act (HSA) expressed fears that it might lead to
more human-rights abuses and be used
against leftist opponents of
the government. The left-leaning Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan (Bayan), or New Patriotic Alliance, said
the law is "a new dark age for human rights and
civil liberties" and called the legislation "a
recipe for undeclared martial law".
The
government, on the other hand, says it needs the
legislation to protect the country's democratic
system. The "HSA is about defending our way of
life", President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo said days
before the law was implemented. She assured her
political opponents that the law will not be used
against them.
Defense undersecretary Ric
Blancaflor said: "Only terrorists have reasons to
be threatened." He added that the act has enough
built-in safeguards to prevent abuses, including a
provision that imposes a penalty of P500,000
(US$10,900) for government agents who wrongfully
detain a terror suspect.
However, the
measure took effect without the so-called
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) that
normally supplement a new law, raising concerns
among some legal experts. Senator Manuel Roxas II,
who voted against the measure, said it was "like
constructing a building without the architectural,
electrical and mechanical plans being approved".
He said, "The line between national0security
imperatives and human freedom may not be clear to
every law enforcer."
On the other side,
Ignacio Bunye, Arroyo's spokesman, said any delay
in the implementation would only embolden
terrorists. Instead of an IRR, he said, the
government will just issue a primer. The police,
meanwhile, said their officers have already
attended seminars about the new law.
That's little comfort to the law's
opponents, however. Bunye said the act could be
used against anybody who would resort to
terrorism, including communist rebels, religious
extremists and rogue police and soldiers. "The
law's message is clear: if you are armed and kill
civilians, you will be prosecuted," he said.
Specifically, the law broadly defines a
terrorist as anyone who commits an act punishable
under Philippine laws on piracy and mutiny in the
high seas, rebellion or insurrection, coup d'etat,
murder, kidnapping, crimes involving destruction,
arson, toxic substances and hazardous and nuclear
waste, hijacking, highway robbery and illegal
possession and manufacture of firearms and
explosives.
All these acts are considered
acts of terrorism if they sow "widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic" among the public "to
coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
demand". Those found guilty of the new law face
possible 40-year prison terms. The act also
penalizes accomplices and accessories to terrorism
and allows the detention of suspected terrorists
for three days without charges.
More
than al-Qaeda Based on statements of
government officials, those to be targeted by the
new law include not only the allegedly
al-Qaeda-linked militant group Abu Sayyaf in the
southern Philippines, but also the Communist Party
of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arm the
New People's Army (NPA).
That broad
interpretation of terrorism is causing concern to
several non-violent left-leaning organizations,
such as Bayan, because they have previously been
accused by the military of serving as fronts to
both the CPP and the NPA. After holding a rally
against the act on the day it was implemented,
Bayan said it was planning more mass
demonstrations and will file a case before the
Supreme Court to stop its implementation.
Martin Scheinin, the UN special rapporteur
on the promotion and protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms, said the long prison
term for convictions is one of the law's main
shortcomings. In a March statement, Scheinin said,
"The strict application of a penalty of 40 years'
imprisonment undermines judicial discretion in
individual cases and may result in a
disproportionate punishment due to the broad
definition of terrorist acts."
He also
called on Congress to reconsider the anti-terror
law, saying many provisions are "not in accordance
with international human-rights standards".
Scheinin also said that while there are "some
positive aspects" of the definition of terrorist
acts, "the end result is an overly broad
definition which is seen to be at variance with
the principle of legality and thus incompatible
with Article 15 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights".
Bayan said
the law makes terrorism "a catch-all crime that is
too vague and too broad". What makes things worse,
the leftist group said, is that the term
"terrorism" and who is a "terrorist" will
eventually be determined by a still-to-convene
Anti-Terrorism Council composed mainly of what
Bayan considers to be "right-wingers" in Arroyo's
cabinet.
Several of the new council's
members were behind "repressive policies and
measures" such as the Oplan Bantay Laya (Operation
Plan Freedom Watch), which sought to neutralize
suspected communist front organizations, the
declaration of a state of national emergency in
February 2006, and the executive order requiring
government officials in the Executive Department
to secure approval from the president before they
can appear before congressional inquiries, Bayan
said.
The members of the council will be
the executive secretary, the secretaries of
justice, defense, interior and local government,
foreign affairs and finance, and the national
security adviser.
"With this kind of
definition and the people that will determine its
application, Arroyo can use the law as an
instrument to quell legitimate expressions of
political dissent and social protest," Bayan said.
"Mass actions calling for the ouster of Arroyo are
already labeled as 'destabilization plots' and
'conspiracies to commit rebellion', thus it would
be easy for the government to classify them as
'coercing the government to give in to an unlawful
demand'."
The act also authorizes
law-enforcement officials to engage in wiretapping
and use other types of surveillance and tracking
devices, provided there is a written order from
the Court of Appeals. It prohibits the
surveillance and interception of communications
between lawyers and their clients, doctors and
their patients, and journalists and their sources.
But the National Union of Journalists in
the Philippines (NUJP) has pointed out that the
justice secretary himself has said the government
could wiretap journalists "if they are being
suspected of co-mingling with terror suspects".
The NUJP said the secretary's statement was "vague
and as fraught with danger as many of the law's
provisions, especially those that supposedly
define what terrorism is and who terrorists are,
provisions so open-ended they could actually lead
to anyone and everyone who government deems fit
being tagged a terrorist".
Meanwhile, the
CPP, in a "primer" posted on its website, said the
new law will pose "a major and serious legal
obstacle" to the advancement of the peace talks it
is holding with government representatives.
"It further diminishes, if not renders
impossible altogether, the possibility of moving
the talks forward," the CPP said, adding that the
NPA, in response to the implementation of the law,
will intensify "tactical offensives" against the
government.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
