Metro Infanta Foundation

By Rudy Arizala*

I. Introduction
There is no doubt in the light of present peace and order situation when thousands are being killed all over the world due to terrorist acts, there is an urgent need for vigilance that the rule of law predominates by enacting legislation to effectively prevent or eradicate terrorism. There is a clamor for more teeth to local laws to combat terrorism. Some even opined that in this globalized world we should not talk more about how much freedom we have but if antiterrorism law is necessary.

There are those, however, who expressed the view that fighting terrorism should be balanced with respect for human rights and the Bill of Rights guaranteed under democratic Constitutions. As our Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Lauro L. Baja, Jr. said before the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the 60th General Assembly on 11 October 2005:

"We also believe that it is important to win the hearts and minds of peoples in support of any measure designed to combat terrorism. Protecting liberties and safeguarding fundamental human rights will ensure that such measures will not have the unintended consequence of playing into the aims and methods of terrorism." (DFA Press Release SFA-AGR-743- 11 October 2005, RP Urges UN: "Walk the Talk Against Terrorism.")

II. Proposed RP Bill, Analyzed
Now let us examine the proposed "antiterrorism Act of 2005" as presently worded. Itt defines terrorism as "the premeditated, threatened and actual use of violence or force or by any other means of destruction perpetrated against persons, properties, or the environment, with the intention of creating or sowing a state of danger, panic, fear, or chaos in the general public, group of persons, or segment thereof, or coercing or intimidating the government to do or abstain from doing an act."

Under the bill, acts of terrorism include: "threatening, or causing, serious unlawful interference with or serious unlawful disruption of an essential service, facility or system; hijacking any kind of aircraft or any means of mass transportation; threatening to kidnap or deprive a person of his liberty."

The bill likewise contains clauses on conspiracy to commit terrorism. It says: "There is conspiracy to commit terrorism when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit any act of terrorism as defined herein. There is a proposal to commit terrorism when any person who had decided to commit an act of terrorism proposes its execution to some other person or persons."

Acts that aid terrorism under the bill include: "harboring or concealing any person whom one has reasonable ground to believe has committed an act of terrorism," and "failure to disclose acts of terrorism." Which is when "any person who having personal knowledge or information of any acts of terrorism conceals or does not make known the same."

From the foregoing, it could be seen that under the proposed bill, the following are punishable acts:

1. Premeditated, threatened and actual use of violence or force against persons, properties or the environment with the intent to create state of danger, panic, fear or chaos;
2. Or coercing the government to do or abstain from doing an act;
3. Threatening or causing serious unlawful interference with or disruption of an essential service, facility or system;
4. Hijacking any kind of mass transport;
5. Threatening to kidnap or deprive a person of his liberty;
6. Coming to an agreement to commit any act of terrorism;
7. Proposing the execution of act of terrorism to another person or persons;
8. Harboring or concealing any person whom one has reasonable ground to believe has committed terrorism; and
9. Failure to disclose acts of terrorism.
The key word in the Antiterrorism bill is "FEAR" And mere intent, threat, concealment or failure to disclose act of terrorism as defined above are punishable. Acts of terrorism could not only be committed against person or persons but also against properties, environment provided it create or tend to create "state of danger, panic, fear or chaos".

Under the bill, a person caught in possession of explosives or dynamite which he intends to use in catching fish, is likely now to be prosecuted not for "illegal possession of explosives" or for using dynamite in fishing but for "Terrorism." A person or group of persons who hijacked a passenger bus to rob its passengers would not now be charged with "highway robbery or robbery in band" but with act of "terrorism." And if a bystander fail to report or disclose that an act of terrorism has been committed could now also be prosecuted for terrorism.

The definition of terrorism under the bill is an "all-embracing definition" which covers practically everything. To catch a shark, it appears the government has decided under the bill to use a "lambat" or big net which will catch all marine species, big or small. Or using dynamite which will kill all marine species at a given area.

In other words, to fight terrorism, it appears we are also using terror or fear. Terror versus terror.

It is, therefore, relevant to ask if the following Bill of Rights are likely to be affected or amended by the Antiterrorism Bill , and if so, to what extent:

1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (Section 1, Article III of the Constitution),
2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Section 2, Article III, Ibid.)
3. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible. (Section 3, Article III, Ibid.)
4. Right of person under investigation to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. (Para 1, Section 12, Article III, Ibid.)
5. No threat, intimidation or other means which vitiate free will of person shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (Para 2, Section 12, Article III, Ibid.)
6. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (Para 3, Section 12, Article III, Ibid.)
7. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (Para 1, Section 14, Article III, Ibid.)
8. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until contrary is proved; to have speedy, impartial trial. (Para 2, Section 14, Article III, Ibid.)
9. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Section 17, Article III, Ibid.)
10. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. (Section 18, Article III, Ibid.)
Likewise, if also the following provisions of the Philippine Revised Penal Code are likely to be affected or amended, and if so, to what extent:

1. Title Three &endash; Crimes Against Public Order
2. Title Nine &endash; Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security
3. Title Ten &endash; Crimes Against Property, Chapter Two &endash; Brigandage.
4. New Anti-Subversion Law (P.D. No. 885).
5. Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law (P.D. No. 532)

III. Conclusion
In drafting a law on antiterrorism, there should be not a "balance of terror", but a balance between "Security and Liberty". To quote again our Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York Ambassador Lauro L. Baja, Jr., "We believe that it is important to win the hearts and minds of peoples in support of any measure to combat terrorism." And this could be done, according to him, by: "protecting liberties and safeguarding fundamental human rights."

In conclusion, while national security is essential in the maintenance and protection of freedom, it is equally essential that in so doing, the rights of the citizens should be held inviolable. As eloquently stated in the dissenting opinion of U.S. Justice Black in the Wilkinson case:

"True Americanism is to be protected not by committees that prosecute unorthodox minorities, but by strict adherence to basic principles of freedom that are responsible for this nation´s greatness." [Wilkison v. U.S. 365 U.S. 399 (1960)].