"It has several controversial features."
"It has several controversial features."
Is it really necessary for our lawmakers to keep expanding the definition of terrorism and the scope of alleged terrorist activities?
Is the bill recently passed by the House of Representatives and earlier by the Senate really aimed at protecting the State from terrorist groups such as Abu Sayyaf or the Islamic State?
Or is it being amended to target critics of the government and send chills down their spines so that they stop speaking against the current political dispensation?
If this bill will effectively stop the real terrorist groups such as the Islamic State from inflicting death and destruction, then the citizenry will definitely support it.
But if its real intent is to also criminalize legitimate dissent and criticism of corrupt and incompetent public officials, then it should be opposed as a brazen perversion of our democracy.
Last week, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the House Committees on Public Order and Safety and on National Defense and Security adopted Senate Bill 1083 that seeks to repeal the Human Security Act of 2007.
The proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 approved by both chambers of Congress has several controversial features.
First, it seeks to extend the number of days suspected terrorists can be detained without a warrant of arrest – from three days under the current law to up to 14 days, extendable by another 10 days.
Second, it imposes a stiffer penalty of 12 years in prison on any person who shall threaten to commit any act of terrorism, propose any terroristic acts or incite others to commit terrorism.
Third, it allows the police and military to conduct a 60-day surveillance on suspected terrorists and to compel telcos to disclose their calls and messages.
And fourth, it also removes the provision under the Human Security Act that directs the payment of P500,000 in damages for each day that a person wrongfully accused of terrorism is detained.
The sponsor of the bill in the Senate has defended it as providing "a strong legal structure that deals with terrorism to exact accountability, liability, and responsibility. Those who have committed, are about to commit, or are supporting those who commit terroristic acts should be prosecuted and penalized accordingly."
But two opposition senators were unconvinced by this rationale as they raised concerns over key provisions that they said "may be used against critics and opposition leaders."
Sen. Kiko Pangilinan said that the measure's definition of terrorism is "vague," making it open to abuses as common crimes can be framed by erring law enforcers. He added that the length of detention is an infringement on rights and liberty.
For her part, Sen. Risa Hontiveros said: "I fear that certain provisions of the bill, specifically those allowing the preliminary proscription of suspected terrorist organizations prior to their being given an opportunity to be heard as well as those lowering the standard for warrantless arrest and detention, go too far and might lead to a number of pernicious consequences."
At the House, Kabataan party-list Rep. Sarah Elago said the anti-terrorism bill "has no safeguards for the protection of human rights, redress of grievances. This can be weaponized to silence critics, suppress dissent."
The Karapatan human rights group slammed the amendments to the Anti-Terrorism law as proof of "Duterte’s brutal campaign of State terrorism" in a bid to "establish a full-blown fascist dictatorship and de facto martial law."
Labor weighed in as well, with the Nagkaisa Labor Coalition saying that the "extremely broad definitions of terrorism" in the proposed measure, "would virtually criminalize almost all forms of dissent."
"Another equally appalling provision would be the warrantless arrests and detention of suspects, which basically overturns every Filipino’s right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise," it said.
Netizens likewise slammed Congress for its hasty passage of the bill, citing amendments that authorize basic human rights violations in the country. The hashtag #JunkTerrorBill was trending on Twitter after news of the approval of the bill came out.
Another netizen pointed out: "Activism is not terrorism."
Still another said: "Our heroes spent decades fighting for this country's democracy yet this government is removing the right of freedom of speech (and) criminalizing criticism. This is not what we need during this pandemic."
I share all these sentiments against the bill. But it's almost certain that it would be signed by Duterte once it reaches his desk. When that happens, it's one step closer to eliminating the breathing space that human rights and anti-corruption advocates, as well good governance adherents, badly need to continue to do their work. And it's also another step closer to out-and-out authoritarian rule that we can very well do without.
