Defense of Anti-Terrorism bill

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy      

There must be a solid justification for the speedy approval by the Senate and the House of Anti-Terrorism bill that is now waiting for the approval of the President. Let us listen to the defense against the bill as reported in various national media. I commented just to keep our thoughts focused.

Rebutting the criticisms, Senator Panfilo Lacson who authored the Senate version hit on radio dzBB what he called “attempts at disinformation on the anti-terrorism bill that has enough safeguards against abuses and more tools to use against extremists.”

Lacson said “if critics would read the measure carefully, they would find that its provisions remain protective of human rights as enshrined in the Constitution, and less draconian compared with those of other countries in the region. We followed the Bill of Rights, Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution, and not only that – we defined terrorism, qualified that its intent and purpose is clear. It also stated in the definition that advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, mass action or other similar exercises of civil and political rights are not included.”

The senator lamented that students, millennials as well as persons with influence had a “head start” in criticizing the bill. “Truth vs. disinformation”, he said “should be an easy competition. The irony here is that we criticize and criticize, and one day, we find out that we need this (bill),” as he pointed out the criticisms against the national ID system that has now been generally accepted.

On the provision of detention of terror suspects for fourteen days without having charges immediately filed, Lacson said among the safeguards is that the arresting officers will have to immediately inform in writing the concerned court, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and the would-be created Anti-Terrorism Council.

How much time is “immediately”? The term is elastic. Does it count the holidays and weekends? He did not say, but the arresting officer had time to look for evidence and inform the court about it.

Lacson compared the law in Australia where the fourteen days could be extended to by another ten days. In Indonesia, suspects could be held for up to 120 days, in Singapore 730 days, in Malaysia, from 59 days to two years.

Lacson however, did not compare the kind of law enforcers in those countries and ours and the environment in which they operate. He did not also cite other countries where the detention time are shorter.

He said that the thirty-six hours of detention under the present Human Security Act was not enough based on the experience of our enforcement agencies.

Not enough for what? Is it because the enforcers could not produce the evidence to back up their suspicion? He did cite the experience of Senator Ronald de la Rosa whose Operation Tokhang did not need detention. Dead men tell no tales.

Senator Lacson also cited cases where terror suspects were freed because authorities could not complete the evidence require in the courts, only to see on television the same perpetrators killing hostages.

I think this situation arises when the enforcers worked on “suspicion” rather than on solid evidence prior to the arrest. And that is our problem – suspect, arrest and then prove the case and while the government is trying to prove the case the suspect languishes in jail.

On the other hand, the arrest already gave due notice that the suspects are not entirely free and could be dissuaded from pursuing their intentions granting they really were into it. Exposure is a good deterrent.

I believe that it is better for a guilty to be roaming free than an innocent man behind bars. The free suspect can be re-arrested when evidence is completed.

On his part, Senate President Vicente Sotto III said terrorism as defined in the bill adheres to the definition of the United Nations Security Council.

“Most of the apprehensions being mentioned are absent in the bill; some are, but there are safeguards. Most of all, terrorism is defined in the bill as defined by the UN. There is no other definition in the bill,” Sotto said. “The UN definition does not include advocacy, protests, dissent, stoppage of work and other exercise of civil rights.”

The UN definitions are always altruistic and general, like the present Anti-Terrorism bill, thus commonly violated.

Continued tomorrow.