October 14, 2005 · Posted in: Governance, In the News
Addressing the terrorism threat – 1
IN Tuesday’s forum at the Mandarin Hotel organized by Libertas (Lawyers’ League for Liberty) on the threat of terrorism, invited speakers took turns reflecting on the intrinsic dilemma posed by enacting an anti-terrorism law, which is how to balance the interests of the State and the protection of individual liberties. While there is a general consensus that the plague of terrorism must be fought, a divergence of views exists as to whether such a piece of legislation is necessary especially in the context of the current political situation.
The following are summaries of the presentations, including links to downloadable papers:
Lawyer Camilo Montesa, assistant secretary of the Department of Education, presented the results of the Mindanao Anti-Terrorism Legislation Consultation Workshop conducted on January 27-28 this year which was attended by 60 representatives from the executive and legislative depatrtments and civil-society organizations. The workshop focused on the nine draft bills filed in Congress at the time (five from the House of Representatives and four from the Senate).
Among the problems and concerns raised with regard to the provisions in the draft bills are the following:
- There is no clear Philippine policy on the anti-terorrism campaign, which is dictated more by U.S. agenda rather than the Philippine agenda.
- Preserving the State is more important than civil liberties.
- The law can be used to suppress legitimate dissent, the opposition and the people’s right to self-determination (in the context of the Bangsa Moro and indigenous peoples’ struggles in Mindanao).
- Definition of terrorism is broad and vague.
- In the case of warrantless arrests, the detention period of from 72 hours to 15 days gives too much latitude to police enforcers to violate the rights of citizens.
- The bills lack the safeguards to ensure the protection of civil liberties.
Workshop delegates also expressed fear that the anti-terrorism law will be anti-Muslim. There was likewise strong disagreement that the law is the solution and, in fact, may only exacerbate the situation. As such, the participants vowed that they will vigorously oppose the bill, even coming up with the catchy slogan "Kill Bill."
The group also came up with the following alternative ideas and proposals:
- The State and its agents must also be held liable for terrorist acts;
- Setting up of a compensation fund for those who will be wrongly accused of terrorism;
- For the government to conduct better intelligence work, strengthen peace and order councils and more consultations and dialogues with stakeholders, especially in Mindanao;
- Exploring community-based solutions to address the root causes of terrorism —poverty, ignorance and injustice — rather than purely legislation.
Read more of the workshop comments here.
8 Responses to Addressing the terrorism threat – 1
indio_lawless
October 14th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Thre is no doubt that we need to address the threat of terrorism– not by legislation, in my humble view, but by enforcing our existing laws particularly our penal laws which could be found in the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as well as the special ones.
Among lawyers, the point of debate is somewhat reduced not much in the elements of the crime but the timeliness and appropriateness of the penalties attached thereto including the proposal to “expand” the scope of some offenses which borders more on vagueness rather than specifics.
In the end of the day, one cannot be blamed to think that we are more of a regime of low rather than of law.
baycas
October 14th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
workshop is great! i hope this won’t be put to waste by the “CongressRail Project” (for the anti-terror law).
alecks, i couldn’t download the pdf, though.
Alecks Pabico
October 14th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
baycas,
Fixed the link. You should be able to download it now.
Toro
October 14th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Indio_lawless, our existing laws are inadquate to address the crime of terrorism as waged today by international terrorists. Moreover, terrorism as we know it today has expanded in meaning and purpose making the word difficult to define for purposes of usage. The word has a broad meaning that translates different purposes driven by different objectives. It can be applied against those that use unlawful means to achieve an objective, Loosely used, it may apply against those who advocate the overthrow of a legitimate government, a simple mass action like street demonstrations, a barangay under siege, the Abu Sayyaf, NPAs or the MILF. Most crimes perpetrated against a person or the state have corresponding punishment provided for, but the systematic use of terror through violent means and intimidation in absolute disregard for life and property which by the commission of the act itself may be regarded as crime against humanity, surely deserves much greater punishment. And this must be legislated.
But the the legislators must be precise in their definition of that word and its application in drawing out the law so that it may not be used for the wrong reasons. For instance, the MILF and the Abu Sayyaf may have the same mode of action in defying the government, but the difference in their objectives is that one may be classified as freedom fighters fighting for an independent Moro state, and therefore not terrorists; while the other is purely into banditry, which is also not terrorism, but crime of robbery perhaps including kidnapping for ransom. The street demonstrators want GMA out. If someone is killed in the process some one is liable for murder or homicide, but not of terrorism because civil protest action is within the constitutional bounds. An entire barangay under siege by a group of drug addicts is an ordinary criminal act. On the other hand the Jemaah Islamiya may want this government to fall, and while that will make a lot of GMA bashers extremely happy, the violent means the JI’s may want it done, however, is clearly an act of terrorism. The NPAs lost their tag as freedom-fighters and became terrorists when they began executing civilians and destroying properties of those who refused to pay taxes to them.
As far as I know, even the United Nations have not been able to reach a consensus as to what constitutes terrorism. The contentious point among nations is that someone’s freedom fighter is another’s terrrorist. The legislators must be careful in making a clear distinction in defining that word so that its application cannot be misconstrued and used to violate human rights.
mariatoo
October 14th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
i’m with you there indio lawless. most of the acts related to terrorism are already punished by the revised penal code or special laws eg physical injuries, homicide, murder, grave threats, illegal possession of firearms, sedition, rebellion etc.. what our congress can do is amend the existing law/s to increase penalties and/or add aggravating circumstances with corresponding increase in penalties. but what they really should concentrate on is how to prevent attacks from ever coming to be by say improved facility for “listening” activities and the like, policing of our borders, credible police presence in key/populated areas etc.
INSIDE PCIJ: Stories behind our stories » Addressing the terrorism threat - 2
October 15th, 2005 at 1:49 am
[...] The next forum speaker, Dr. Victor Ramraj, associate professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Singapore, delivered his paper "Anti-Terrorism Legislation in Comparative Perspective: Some Policy Concerns" and counseled that improved legislation does not always serve as a guarantee against future attacks. [...]
baycas
October 15th, 2005 at 6:10 am
thanks alecks
INSIDE PCIJ » House to ratify anti-terror bill
February 17th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
[...] Many groups and legislators had been lobbying against the passage of such the anti-terror bill. They claim that the “broad and dangerous” definition of terrorism may render “people power” an act of terrorism. (See related posts here and here.) [...]