The maniacal anti-terror law (Part 1)

By Reni M. Valenzuela

The Supreme Court has laudable, valid points and reasons for coming out and in coming up with fresh rulings to remedy what’s wrong with the Anti-terror Law. But they are sorely wanting and lacking in muscles, sadly.

Our honorable magistrates of the High Court need to dive deeper into the ways, means and real intents of the law and ask themselves pertinent searching/probing questions. Who are the real terrorists — or terrorists in the making – or terrorists metamorphosing from bad to worse, and from worse to worst?

There are indeed compelling prior thoughts they need to downright ponder upon and answer to be able to know what must they do with the Anti-terror Law. Since when has activism become terrorism?

So much of the evils (open and concealed) that are embodied in the said abominable law, if we would mull over certain specific provisions of it, has been in existence already and being done illegally, immorally, ruthlessly by the powers that be (past and present) for crooked or political purposes or for other unjustifiable, execrable, despicable reasons only known to them.  Debauched.

Such malfeasance are under the auspices, courtesy of the confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) in the national budget, and/or pork barrel fund in various forms. Wonder not, therefore, why the funds are dubbed confidential and where the funds are going or being spent have to remain secret. Spurious. Ravenous. Wolves.

There is apparently more to the law than fighting the so-called “enemies” (or imaginary enemies) because the “solvers” should be fighting instead the “more/worse/real enemies” of the state – within. No warrior fights blind-folded lest he ends up fighting himself. Idiotic.

These “solvers”/government agents need to ever produce “enemies” or “terrorists” to justify their self-induced mandate, their existence and their huge budget (for a “reason”), not to mention their theatric, melodramatic, crafted scenario a la MMFF animated film.

Hence, their red-tagging habit continues, even as they persist in their indiscriminate, baseless accusations (left and right) of assorted decent, peace-loving people who do good to fellow citizens and society, and merely criticize/oppose the bad and ugly – like what they have been doing to some well-meaning, patriotic legislators and government officials – and principled, nationalistic, idealistic students in university campuses. Brutal.

Have we forgotten the red-tagged Patricia Non, the benevolent, clean pioneer of the community pantry (undiluted in heart) at the height of the pandemic lockdown to feed the hungry? Absurd. Odd. Screwy.

And what about the celebrity beauties, Liza Zoberano and Catriona Gray, who both likewise suffered red-tagging for sympathizing with and speaking out for the rights of women? Remember? These three ladies could or must have been subjected to surveillance operations. Weird. Are the “solvers” part of the crews of the punk Chinese vessels in the West Philippine Sea?

The hearts of these local bullies are not really geared toward solving the problem or any problem, but toward something else, personal and beneficial to no one but themselves. Truth be told.