cus
By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
According to the groups from Mindanao I quoted yesterday, they “shudder to think how our congregational prayers, khutbahs, and halaqas might be considered as inciting to terrorism by oblivious persons in authority. We are scared for our youth who may be unsuspectingly going about their business in school or work, only to find out eventually (or never) that their every step is being monitored by state agents — who now have the legal cover to do so — when their only ‘crime’ is being Muslim.”
They added that they “worry for our communities displaced by conflict who will face more difficulty in accessing aid, as humanitarian organizations may be prevented from extending assistance lest they be suspected of providing material aid to terrorists.”
The Bacolod Sangguniang Panlungsod, on the other hand unanimously “expressed its grave reservation to Senate Bill 1083 or “An Act to prevent, prohibit and penalize terrorism” thereby repealing Republic Act No. 9372 or “The Human Security Act of 2007,” in a resolution passed during their session on June 10.
Authored by the lone opposition in the council, Councilor Wilson Gamboa Jr. the resolution claimed that “lawyers, as well as ordinary citizens are alarmed over the imprecise and poorly worded provisions of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 that the President has prioritized in the middle of a raging pandemic.”
The resolution noted that “on June 2, the House approved the bill on second reading during a session in which no amendment was entertained. And finally, on June 3, the House approved it on third and final reading with 173 votes in its favor and 31 against and 29 abstained.”
The city councilors also pointed out that the “bill defines terrorism as the commission of certain acts in order to intimidate the public, spread a message of fear, destabilize society, create an emergency or undermine public safety.”
It added that “that one of the purposes of terrorism is to provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any of its international organization” and that “a person suspected of violating the anti-terrorist act may be detained for as long as 24 days without being charged with any specific case.”
The Sanggunian resolution cited Article 7, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution which provides “that even when the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended, the maximum period that one can be detained without charges is three days, otherwise the person should be released.”
On the contrary, “Senate Bill 1083 provides that persons subject to surveillance or suspected will have already been in jail before they are made aware of the actions against them”, the council noted.
Thus, there is a “chilling effect” of the provisions by the inclusion of crimes -something that can be easily abused and wielded to any ordinary citizen who dare complain about the government.
The Sanggunian resolution also cited the views of “human rights advocates” who considered Senate Bill 1083 as “a tool of repression rather than thwarting terrorism. While any form of terrorism is unacceptable, national security can never be at the expense of the fundamental rights and freedom as enshrined in the Constitution.”
Finally, the councilors urged that the “Philippines in fulfillment of its responsibilities as signatory to several human right treaties, must promote and protect the enjoyment of basic human rights and lawful exercise of fundamental freedoms.”
As the bill had been sent to Malacanang for the President’s signature, different groups are urging President Duterte to reject the measure, saying it can be “weaponized” against critics of the government as it contains an unclear definition of “terrorism” that can spawn human rights violations.
One of these groups is the Integrated Bar of the Philippines that questioned the creation of the Anti-Terrorism Council and the detention of suspected terrorists for fourteen to twenty-four days without charging them in court.
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines-Committee on Basic Ecclesial Communities has also voiced its opposition to the bill, saying it contains provisions that are “reprehensive” to the rights of citizens.
Academic institutions and cause-oriented groups also expressed fear that the measure would be used to stifle free expression.
Their fears are not unfounded because the bill is not clear and precise and leaves open the way the enforcer perceives who the “terrorist” is, detains him and then looks for evidence.
On Monday, let us present the other side.
