SINCE THE "global war against terror" is the fashionable catchphrase these days, several anti-terrorism bills have been introduced that allegedly seek to counter and punish "terrorism". As usual, our legislators have fallen all over themselves to produce a new law without thinking over the consequences. Unfortunately, we citizens might later on pay the price for haphazard and ill-conceived legislation.

In the House of Representatives, Reps. Imee Marcos and Joseph Ace Durano have filed two "Anti-Terrorism Acts" numbered H.B. 3802 and H.B. 4980 respectively. They are similar to each other in that they contain broad, all-encompassing and ambiguous definitions of "terrorism" and "terrorist acts". Both seek to legalize unconstitutional practices purportedly to ease the investigation and apprehension of terrorists. Both endanger the freedoms of the very citizens they claim to protect.

In Rep. Marcos' version (H.B. 3802), for example, the following provisions are present:

Section 3 (a) loosely defines terrorism as "an act of violence or threat of violence intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a particular person or a group of persons for political purposes." Bombings would be included in this definition (and rightly so), but so could all forms of rebellion and insurgency that we know to be rife in this country. Both are commonly held as rooted in the social order and besides, are punishable under existing laws. To lump all armed groups under the 'terrorist' category is to license a holocaust against all those who have taken arms against the government. At least Rep. Durano's version specifies an act of terrorism as violence perpetrated against innocent civilians or non-combatants whose purpose is "to create a state of fear that will aid in extorting, coercing, intimidating or causing individuals or groups to alter their behavior." This is a more explicit, but still problematic definition.

Both bills contain several disturbing provisions that are at best dangerously ambiguous, and at worst, appear to be attempts to repress dissent and opposition among the populace.

Sec. 4 (a- i- B) of H.B. 3802 defines "terrorist activity" as that which is committed "in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security…" We wonder what acts would constitute endangering the public's sense of economic security. Currency speculation? Trade embargoes? Labor strikes?

In fact, both bills seek to classify as terrorist activity that which causes or threatens to cause "serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work." Strikes, especially national and industry-wide strikes, come to mind, along with sit-down protests and walkouts. While there is supposedly a guarantee that such acts of protest are taken to be "lawful advocacy," we know how that legitimacy can easily be subverted by the authorities and powerful businessmen.

Both bills define a "terrorist organization" as any entity engaged in terrorism or which has a "subgroup" engaged in terrorist activity "regardless of the legitimate activity of the organization or of its subgroups". How to establish whether a terrorist organization is the subgroup of a legitimate organization, we have no idea. From our experience with the Philippine military, it is enough to be Leftist to be associated with the New People's Army and it is enough to be a Muslim separatist to be associated with the Al Qaeda.

Both bills authorize the interception of communication (wire-tapping, e-mail, etc.) "upon order of a competent court" in the course of investigating or pursuing suspected terrorists. The problem is that we know that wire-tapping and other forms of surveillance are already being practiced by the military. To legalize them even under supposedly special circumstances would be to unleash unprecedented violations against privacy. Massive spying and eavesdropping will not help our notoriously incompetent intelligence services catch terrorists; it will only help them harass their political enemies and perennial targets such as activists.

Party-list group Akbayan, for one, believes that draconian measures meant to counter terrorism only serve to increase repression and jeopardize the rights and welfare of innocent citizens who express their dissent and criticism against government policy or the political order.

By all means, let us fight terrorism. But for that we do not need new laws-only a more efficient military and police force. Existing laws such as the Anti Money Laundering Law can be strengthened to catch out the financial sources of terrorist organizations. A separate law on "cyber crimes" such as data theft, sabotage of computer networks, etc. can be drafted, instead of including "cyber-terrorism" in one super law.

If there is indeed a need for anti-terrorism legislation, let it be more well-thought out, more discriminating in its definitions, more careful with the hard-earned civil and human rights of our people.

For comments and reactions to this article, please visit Tinig.com Forums.