A LAW that has alarmed lawyers and human rights groups is being brewed in Congress, and more frightfully, it appears to be bound for approval. The move, the groups say, revives previous attempts to reimpose authoritarian rule in the Philippines and silence political dissent.

Authored by Rep. Imee Marcos, the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act evokes a scenario of terror similar to the Marcos years. If passed, HB 3802 will allow law enforcers to spy on suspected terrorists and gather information from phone conversations, e-mail, and even text messages.

It will also extend a suspect's detention from 36 to 72 hours. Because of the Act's very broad definition of terrorism, even peaceful demonstrations and strikes can be considered as terrorist acts.

These are just some of the alarming provisions of the new Anti-Terrorism Act, which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo classified as a priority measure. Arroyo's endorsement—coupled with a perceived overt pressure from the US government and the "war hysteria" created by the 9-11 attacks - makes the Anti- Terrorism Act as good as a done deal.

Terror vs. terror
In the House, the Committee on Justice is assigned to prepare a substitute bill based on Congresswoman Marcos' HB 3802. Although the Act has reportedly undergone two revised drafts, questionable provisions raised by cause-oriented groups have remained in the bill.

One possible flaw of the proposed Act is the definition of terrorism itself. Lawyers of the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) say the bill defines terrorism so vaguely that it is dangerously open for abuse. And, as far as Bayan Muna Rep. Liza Maza is concerned, the definition gives the state a "license to further violate human rights."

HB 3802 defines terrorism as "an act of violence or threat thereof intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a particular person or a group of persons for political purposes."

The draft fails to specify what "act of violence or threat,""state of terror" or "political purposes" mean. Being too broad and vague, PILC lawyers note, the definition cannot pass the "test of constitutionality" in determining the elements of the offense. It therefore violates the right of the accused to know the cause and nature of his case so that he can put up a proper defense.

The definition clarifies one thing, though: the Anti-Terrorism Act is aimed at labeling any action that carries a political message as "terrorism" and the proponent as "terrorist." Because of its obvious bias against political groups and critics, the House committee later omitted the phrase "political purposes" in the succeeding drafts.

The revised draft's definition, however, still points to political groups in identifying terrorists. It classifies as "terrorist" any individual or group acting "to coerce or intimidate the public or the government into granting (an organization's) demands or to undermine the confidence of the public in the government". This definition may very well include any protester or striking worker exercising his freedom of speech and assembly.

Moreover, the definition classifies as terrorist those acts that destroy civilian or government property and interfere with important service, facility or system. PILC lawyer Edre Olalia raises the question, "If legitimate protests or stoppage of work result in damage to property, are they considered acts of terrorism?"

Olalia adds that the very vague definition of terrorism can cause danger and confusion among ordinary citizens exercising their civil and political rights.

"In addressing terrorism, the bill may wrongly include recognized forms of speech, expression and redress of grievances, as well as legal acts of protests, peaceful assemblies, and lawful dissent," Olalia notes.

Aside from the questionable definition, all "terrorist acts" under this bill are already covered by present criminal laws. Some of these are murder, kidnapping, assassination, arson, and carnapping.

Unlike ordinary criminal laws, though, the Anti-Terrorism Act gives law enforcers more latitude for surveillance and tactical interrogation. The proposed draft states that law enforcers should share with other law officials any obtained information from "the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication or through computer."

It further attacks a person's right to privacy by authorizing law enforcers to probe and freeze bank deposits if a court finds "probable cause" that these are related to terrorist activity. The bill also allows the detention of a suspected terrorist up to 72 hours without charges being filed.

The mere act of planning “terrorist attacks, harboring terrorists or financially assisting a terrorist activity” is also automatically considered unlawful.

Furthermore, the proposed bill opens a floodgate for other repressive laws through the creation of an anti- terrorist action council (ATAC). Among other powers, ATAC is authorized to formulate policies and procedures outside of the Act's provisions that are deemed necessary to prevent terrorism.

All these provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act loom as threats to people's democratic rights and paint a chilling picture of authoritarianism. To fight what it perceives as terrorism, the Arroyo administration plans to implement a bill that will terrorize people from even expressing their political beliefs.

This situation, critics say, is comparable to the dark years of Martial Law.

"Strong Republic"
The present Anti-Terrorism Act is not the first of its kind to be filed in Congress. Anti-terrorism bills were also proposed under the Ramos administration, including Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile's Senate Bill 1353, Sen. Orlando Mercado's SB 264, and the controversial AO 308 or the National ID System.

These bills, however, were aborted after the public perceived them as part of Ramos' tactics to restore authoritarian rule. The proposals, which also allowed electronic surveillance, wire and cable tapping, and the probe of bank deposits, met widespread protests that eventually forced the administration to drop the bills.

People's groups, therefore, see President Arroyo's endorsement of the present anti-terrorism bill as another attempt to restore authoritarian rule. According to Maza, the Anti-Terrorism Act actually caps what she calls the president’s formula for a "strong republic." She cites the lifting of the “maximum tolerance policy,” the intensified militarization in provinces such as Mindoro and Basilan, "red-baiting," and now, the creation of the Anti-Terrorism Act as indications of Arroyo's iron-fist tactics to attain a republic reminiscent of Marcos' "new society."

However, with the "war hysteria" brought about by the 9-11 terrorist attacks and the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings, architects and supporters of the proposed bill may have all the more reason to have it approved by Congress without the people being aware of its implications on civil liberties. Like US President George W. Bush, Arroyo overplayed the 9-11 event to justify the crafting of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which is nearly a carbon copy of the US Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act, which the US Congress hurriedly passed after September 11 amid protests from civil libertarians, labels as terrorism any activity intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence government policy. The law is so encompassing that even animal rights and environmentalist groups in the United States are singled out as terrorists.

Beyond similarities in provision and scope, both the US Patriot Act and the local bill on terrorism are more importantly aimed at quelling resistance from sectors of society that are critical of the government's perceived anti-people policies. In the guise of carrying out the "war on terrorism" and at the expense of suppressing human rights, the Bush and Arroyo administrations arrogantly create a harsh and autocratic environment against dissidents.

Borderless war
Although the House Committee on Justice uses Marcos' proposal in drafting a substitute bill, three other congressmen—Representatives Barbers, Durano and Syjuco—have also filed their own versions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The proposed Act also has a Senate counterpart filed by Senators Robert Barbers and Panfilo Lacson.

Except for Lacson's Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, which was filed after the Sipadan kidnapping, all the other drafts used the 9-11 terrorist attacks as basis for introducing the bills. But like anti-terrorism laws that other nations drafted after the 9-11 incident, the bills filed in Congress are not just meant to show unity after the United States declared a borderless war on terrorism.

In truth, the United States may have an active hand in the passage of anti-terrorism laws in many nations. Gripped with a prolonged recession, the United States needs to create a stable political order that will ensure its economic influence around the world. Through local anti-terrorism laws, groups that resist US hegemony can be easily crushed.

In Asia, the American pressure can be seen in Washington's blatant call to remove certain sections of the anti-terrorism treaty of the ASEAN. These sections contain provisions that respect the principles of sovereignty, equal treatment, and territorial integrity. In exchange, the Washington promised technical and financial aid to help the region fight terrorism.

Recently, the US Departments of State and Justice sponsored a seminar on anti-terrorism legislation that was attended by representatives from Southeast Asian countries, including the Philippines. The unmistakable agenda to push for the ratification of anti-terrorism laws made Congresswoman Maza to call the US-sponsored seminar a "clear indication of US intervention in the legislation of anti-terrorism measures in the region."

Probably the most significant and blatant US intervention as far as passing the anti-terrorism bill is concerned, however, is the inclusion of local armed groups in the US list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTO). Recently, the US State Department announced that it has classified the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed component, the New People's Army (NPA) in its list of FTOs. (Both CPP and NPA had been actually in the FTO list periodically.)

With a "terrorist group" in our midst, the United States puts further pressure on the administration to pass the Anti-Terrorism Act. And because it brings the war on terrorism closer to home, it will most likely influence the uninformed public to welcome the bill's passage.

This brings the issue of the Anti-Terrorism Act to the heart of the matter. More than indirectly classifying legitimate people's organizations as terrorists, the proposed bill's real motive is to crush revolutionary groups like the CPP-NPA and short-cut a solution to the internal armed conflict.

As Bayan Muna Rep. Satur Ocampo says, the bill is meant to go after revolutionary forces. According to him, the government wants the bill passed to provide basis for charging revolutionary groups with terrorism.

"There is no law yet that defines terrorism as a crime,” Ocampo says. “Under the Revised Penal Code, revolutionary groups like the CPP-NPA may only be charged with rebellion." Under the proposed bill, a penalty of life imprisonment to death may be imposed on a convicted terrorist.

Ocampo reminds the Arroyo administration that although the anti-terrorism bill has yet to be passed, it had already blindly followed the Bush government’s move to classify the CPP-NPA as a foreign terrorist organization. This early, the government has escalated its military operations in the countryside, especially in areas where NPA guerrillas are active.

"The US' classification should be disregarded because the US law does not apply in our territorial jurisdiction," the Bayan Muna congressman says. "That is an abuse of the government. There is no bill yet, but there is already a mode of action."

With this, Ocampo and other cause-oriented groups and individuals call on human rights advocates to oppose the pending bill on terrorism. The only way to fight terrorism, they say, is by addressing poverty and injustice in society.

As Congresswoman Maza says, "Terrorizing the people through a draconian law will not eradicate, but only fuel terrorism." (PMC Reports/Reposted by Bulatlat.com)

http://www.bulatlat.com/news/2-31/2-31-pmc.html

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