Republic Act 9372, The Human Security Act,
which the Anti-Terrorism Bill sought to amend, was also draconian. Nevertheless, certain judicial safeguards which
could deter the commission of abuses, thus ensuring protection for those suspected
of acts punished under the law, are secured under the law. For one, the definition
of terrorism was less vague under the said law. Also, courts have the only
authority in determining whether an organization maybe declared as terrorist and
whether the detention of a suspect could last beyond 3 days, or 5 days, as the
case maybe, without charges being filed in court. In other words, Republic Act
9372 ensured that nobody could exercise unbridled discretion because the courts
are mandated to perform its roles as the keeper of the Constitution and the protector
of the rule of law.
Proponents may have been moved by good
intention for seeking to amend the Human Security Act. Unfortunately, the
unintended consequences of the grant of arbitrary powers to executive agencies under
the new law may prove to be worse evil than the one it is intending to cure.
Without stringent safeguards, the Anti-Terror Law can stifle some of the
fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. People fear that the
Anti-Terror Bill (SB 1083 and HB6875) would do more harm than good.
For instance, the definition of terrorism is unnecessarily
broad under the proposed amendments. It implicitly confers discretion to the
police or military to impute “intent to cause physical harm” from an exercise
of political rights by individuals or organized groups; thereby, reckless
officials may make such exercise as a cause for arrests of any critic or
dissenter. Consequently, it would be easier for creative state operatives to justify
classification of any criticism or act of dissent as acts connected with
terrorism. And for this, the aphorism “with great powers comes great abuses” may
prove to be true once more.
Moreover, the power of the court, especially in
ensuring the right to security of persons, the right against arbitrary
detention and the freedom from torture, would be rendered ineffective by the Anti-Terrorism
Bill. Under the bill, the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) may order the arrest of
any person suspected of acts connected with terrorism, and thus, it allows the
ATC to usurp the power to issue a warrant of arrest which the fundamental law
entrusted only to the courts under Section 2, Article 3, of the Constitution. Persons
may also be arrested on account of “mere suspicion” by reckless enforcers who do
not know the distinction between probable cause and suspicion. Lastly, the bill
allows the detention of suspects 14 days or longer without charges in court.
Imagine the danger to anyone innocent but suspected of the heinous crime of terrorism
and the fear and anxiety that his family and friends have to bear during the prolonged
detention outside the court’s authority.
These are my primary concerns for saying NO to
the bill. I would not indulge in the politics of the day by saying that this
measure along with other reported abuses are manifestations of an authoritarian
regime. People are better judges on this matter. As a citizen, however, my fear
is on the unintended consequences of such an arbitrary exercise of State’s authority.
The fact that some government officials fail to inspire credibility in the promotion
of the rule of law confounds my worries.
I only hope that the people, especially the
young, will continue to strengthen the fiber of our society and work for the
strengthening of our democratic institutions.
May we never tire in asking our officials to recognize
our right to be taken seriously.
