A law that breeds terror
I was planning to write something uplifting for this week. I figured that all the deplorable provisions of the anti-terrorism bill would have been exposed by this time, and there would be nothing fresh for me to write about on this highly controversial legislation.
True enough, a wide range of sectoral groups has come out denouncing the proposed law. Business groups, religious institutions, a United Nations official, lawyers, students, sports celebrities, and movie stars have come out condemning it. Even a congressman who was an original author of the bill, but who could not stomach the final version, ended up denouncing it.
I got so curious at the broad range of opposition and was prompted to examine the bill’s full text carefully. What I found out now compels me to add my voice of condemnation against this criminal legislation. Congress and the ruling administration deserve all the flak for two shameful reasons—for their cheap regard for life and constitutional liberties as shown by their reckless approval of this bill, and for their utter insensitivity to the people’s suffering, by giving more importance to this enactment instead of fighting the twin monsters “terrorizing” the whole country: the health and economic crises caused by the pandemic.
The anti-terrorism law imposes the “penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole” not just once but 10 times. That’s how sweeping it is. Not since the 1932 passage of our Revised Penal Code—two thick books defining “womb to tomb” criminal acts in our country—has there been a single criminal law passed of this enormity in terms of imposing the stiffest penalty of life imprisonment in a wholesale manner. By this mere fact alone, legislators should have carefully examined each word and addressed every loophole of potential abuse.
The proposed law penalizes five terrorism acts committed with the intention of creating public fear or intimidation of government. But in addition, a bunch of other acts with imputed links to terrorism are criminalized. These are as follows: “facilitating,” “conspiracy (in),” “threatening,” and “inciting” the commission of terrorism; “providing material support to terrorism,” “membership in a terrorist organization,” and; “possessing objects” or “making documents” connected to terrorism.
Most of these expanded crimes are so broad and vague. At the precinct level when a person is charged under this law, Sen. Vicente Sotto III or Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano will not be there to explain their understanding of the law. Instead, a cunning policeman will force his interpretation of the broadness of the law as giving him blanket authority to indiscriminately charge anyone critical of the government for inciting, conspiracy, or threat to commit terrorism. This is not to mention the real risk of planted evidence to make it appear that a person is “providing material support,” “possessing objects,” and “making documents” in furtherance of terrorism. With the blink of an eye, you can be condemned to rot in jail with a nonbailable offense.
Then there’s the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), which is virtually given judicial powers to order the detention of anyone for 24 days merely on “suspicion” of involvement in terrorism. Eight of the nine ATC members are Cabinet secretaries and, therefore, alter egos of the president. Even without this law, we have seen how criminal laws have been abused by presidents to oppress and harass detractors. Members of Congress are from another planet if they think that this anti-terrorism law will be immune from abuse.
A law that imposes multiple counts of capital punishment like the anti-terrorism bill should be designed like a fishing rod, restricted in its power to catch only those who perpetrate evil acts of terror. It should not amount to a huge fishing net that can be cast by wicked hands to sow damnation in the lives of those who serve as our sentinels against abuses in government.
Comments to [email protected]
