The Gift

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

The Gift
Sunday, 10 05, 2003

High on the agenda of Congress is the Anti-Terrorism Bill, which everyone expects to be passed well before US Presidential George W. Bush addresses Congress in joint session on Oct. 18. Malacañang has certified the bill for immediate enactment, and that should already portend the rush with which both the Senate and House of Representatives will act on the bill upon the resumption of sessions tomorrow. After all, it is supposed to be a gift of Mr. Bush’s ally on this side of the world against terrorism, proof of her undying commitment to the cause of peace.

But before Congress acts hastily on the bill, and compromise our basic constitutional rights just to bolster our role as Asia’s greatest fort against terrorism, never mind if we cannot even hold on to the slippery self-confessed terrorist al-Ghozi, it would do well to consider the many reasons that oppositors to the bill have been putting forward.

The crime of terrorism id defined in the bill as one “committed by the use or threatened use of serious violence, force or means of destruction perpetrated against civilians or non-combatants, or against properties with the intention of instilling a state of common danger, panic or fear, or of coercing or intimidating the public or government.”

My friend Chit Asis of the Gathering for Peace asks the question: What is exactly meant by “state of common danger, panic or fear?” She then cites the case when a person or group of persons explode a bomb in the Light Rail Transit, which is definitely an act of terrorism, and compares it to a situation where a person or group of persons rob a bank with the use of firearms and grenades.

To the latter situation, there is no doubt it is robbery, but then it also satisfies the definition of terrorism, since there was force perpetrated against civilians and, definitely, those inside the bank experienced a “state of common danger, panic or fear.” This illustrates the vagueness of the definition, which could put many in danger of undeserved indictment for the crime of terrorism.

Chit goes on to ask these questions: How can one’s intent of instilling a state of common danger, panic or fear be determined? What clear acts would determine intent? Who will determine if such intent exists?

The section of the bill enumerating the acts constitutive of terrorism is a mere restatement of existing provisions of the Revised Penal Code or by special penal laws, which is a clear argument against the enactment of a law against terrorism. Existing laws already consider as crimes the acts of terrorism set forth in the bill. A case in point in the act of terrorism cited as “causing damage to property, the environment and the national patrimony.”

Even without the bill, this act is already punished as the crime of malicious mischief under the Revised Penal Code or Arson under Presidential Decree 1613, and also punishable under the Clean Air Act, the Fisheries Code, the Mining Act, and the national Integrated Protected Areas System Act.

Or even the act of terrorism cited as “causing serious interference with, or serious disruption of an essential service, vital facility, critical infrastructure, other than as a result of advocacy, grievance, protest, dissent, strike or armed conflict, provided the same is in accord with international humanitarian law.”

One need not go beyond the Revised Penal Code to find out that these acts are already adequately covered by, and punished under the Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations and those on the Crimes Against Public Order. Clear redundancy, if there ever is one.

One very frightening provision, which could provide the opportunity or environment for more torture and forced confessions, is the proposed 15-day period of inquest after the warrantless arrest. Under the Revised Penal Code, a person arrested without a warrant may only be detained for a maximum of 36 hours without being formally charged in court, otherwise the public officer who refuses to release such arrested person will be liable for “delay in the delivery” of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities.

Chit cites the rationale for a time limit: It is to give time to the law enforcer and the prosecutor to file the necessary charges in court. The extended time for detention without the proper charges being filed in court would only allow the law enforcer to conduct a “fishing expedition” in gathering evidence, through forced confessions for one.

The bill is vague in so many areas, citing certain acts as tainted with terrorism without as much as providing the proper standard with which to make such a conclusive judgment. How, for instance, can one establish “indirectly commit” any act of terrorism, or how can any one be very sure that a person is “likely to carry out a terrorist activity?”

The bill need not be rushed into enactment just to please President Bush. He will not need it anyway to strengthen his hand against terrorism. Our puny response or token help against terrorism should not be compounded by sacrificing our constitutional rights, or even exposing our lack of intelligence to know the cosmetic. Let us do away with the gift.

Before the political season puts the legislative mill at a slatmill, would it not be a more fitting gift to the millions of Kris Aquinos for Congress to enact the bill protecting women against another form of terrorism?


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2003