Tool of terrorism

By Artchil B. Fernandez

 

Brushing aside strong public opposition, Du30 this week signed the new anti-terrorism bill into law. A new weapon is added to Du30’s authoritarian arsenal.

The new anti-terror law gives authorities the power to arrest and detain people whom they suspect as terrorists or they think plan to commit terrorism for 24 days. The definition of terrorism in the new law is so vague and broad that any word or deed deemed by authorities as terrorism can be penalized. Authorities are not required to provide even a semblance of evidence under the new law. Their suspicion is more than enough to take anyone or brand anybody as terrorists.

Security officials are quick to point out that the basic rights of the people are not affected by the new anti-terror law since rallies, demonstrations, strikes, mass actions and gatherings are not considered terroristic acts under it. True, the new law says a peaceful assembly is not considered by the new anti-terror law as terrorism but there is nothing that prevents authorities from considering these peaceful actions as potential source of terrorism or can be used for terroristic activities.

For example, a group stages a protest action as part of their right to peaceably assemble for the redress of grievances. While this is not a terroristic act under the new anti-terror law, security forces can still prevent the group from exercising this basic political right by telling them there is intelligence report that terrorists will sabotage or infiltrate the peaceful protest action. The new anti-terrorism does not prevent authorities from invoking the threat of terrorism as an alibi to prevent the group from exercising their right guaranteed by the Constitution.

New anti-terrorism law does not directly infringe on the Constitutional rights of Filipinos, but it can be used to prevent them from exercising these rights in the name of national security. The new law is a convenient excuse for authorities to suppress dissent by simply invoking terrorism or threat of terrorism. Activism is not terrorism, but what will stop authorities from saying activists are planning to commit terrorist acts? Again, take note, law enforcers need not provide proof under the new anti-terrorism law.

What happened to the four army intelligence officers in Sulu recently is a clear illustration of how deadly suspicion can be. According to the version of the Philippine Army, the four officers were stopped at a police checkpoint and they identified themselves. They were instructed to go to the nearby police station for verification and they complied. Upon arrival, they were fired upon and killed in cold blood. Initially, the police said it was a “mis-encounter” but later admitted otherwise. On the basis of suspicion, the four army intelligence officers were murdered.

Suspicion should not be the basis of action but verified information. Giving authorities the power to act on the basis of suspicion is dangerous as the killing of the four army intelligence shows. The new anti-terror law gives legal shield to authorities to act on their suspicion.

Detaining people for 24 days on the basis of suspicion is clear transgression Section 1, Article III of the Constitution which clearly states that “no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” It is a fundamental principle of due process that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The new anti-terror law blatantly violates this principle since the suspected person is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Instead of arresting authorities proving the guilt of the accused, it is the accused now that has to prove his/her innocence. This is a complete bastardization of the due process of law

Security officials claim that they wanted to prescribe a longer period of detention for suspected terrorists since they need time to build the case against the suspect. They cited many instances in the past that arrested suspected terrorists were released due to insufficient evidence. This is absurd and a clear overreach on their part. If they do not have sufficient evidence why should they move against the suspected person? Isn’t it required that before they arrest or detain the suspect, they have already obtained enough evidence that will stand in court?

Arrest first and build a case later is a sign of laziness and incompetence of security authorities. They wanted legal cover and justification for their inability to do their job.  Since they are sloppy and inept, they wanted a law that will shield them from taking responsibility for their mistakes.

Catching terrorists and prevent terrorism require meticulous and painstaking work. It seems security authorities do not want to go through the rigor of investigation. The new anti-terrorism law can conceal and hide their inadequacy since it allows them to act on mere suspicion without the need to produce evidence against suspected terrorists. It also gives them sufficient time (24 days) to scout if not manufacture evidence.

The scary and terrifying aspect of the new anti-terrorism law are the abuses that it will spawn and the innocent Filipinos it will victimize. Thousands of alleged drug addicts/pushers were slaughtered on the basis of suspicion in the “war on drugs.” No question, the new anti-terrorism law will be deployed to suppress legitimate dissent in the country.  Du30 has already weaponized the courts, Congress and the bureaucracy against his critics and perceived enemies.

The new anti-terrorism law is not designed to prevent terrorism. Its primary purpose is to preserve Du30’s authoritarian rule by giving him a powerful tool to crack down hard on dissent, silence his critics, sow fear and terrorize the disenchanted populace. In short, the new anti-terror law is a tool of terrorism – state terrorism to be exact.