Arroyo Ups Ante on Repression
July 13, 2007
By Val G. Abelgas
Despite protests and concerns raised by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), among others, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo insisted on implementing the controversial Human Security Act of 2007, otherwise known as the anti-terrorism law, last July 15 even without the required implementing rules and regulations.
The anti-terror law was passed in haste, with Arroyo calling back the already-adjourned Congress to a special session and while the congressmen and senators were already focused on the campaign for the recent May elections. It is no surprise then that its implementation is now also being done in haste, despite the fact that there is really no imminent threat of terrorist acts that would be considered “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand,” and the military is not even in full alert, except the police around Mendiola, where Malacanang is cringing in fear behind barbed wires and parked dump trucks from angry protesters.
The No. 1 leftist-hater National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, who can’t distinguish between a legitimate protester and an armed NPA guerilla, insists that the law is “self-implementing” – whatever he means by that – and therefore does not need to have implementing rules and regulations. Even the United States, which had just lost more than 3,000 lives in the World Trade Center attack and is constantly under threat of terrorist acts, did not implement the Patriot Act until the Department of Homeland Security had issued implementing rules and regulations.
The implementation of the anti-terror law comes at a time when the Arroyo administration is under heavy fire from all over the world for various human rights violations, including the close to 900 unsolved extra-judicial murders, disappearance of several militant activists and church lay leaders, warrant-less arrests, illegal detentions, political repressions, and other illegal acts.
But Arroyo seemed not bothered by the criticisms because the extra-judicial killings remain unsolved and unabated, and political repression continues. And now, she wants to up the ante by working behind a highly dubious and obviously unconstitutional law.
The CBCP expressed concern that the broad and vague provisions of the law may be used “to legalize objectionable methods of fighting and quelling opposition to the obtaining government." The bishops said the definition of terrorism under Sec. 3 of the HSA (RA 9372) is "broad and dangerous" and could "serve and create a condition of widespread panic." Sec. 26, it said, "allows house arrest despite the posting of bail, prohibits the right to travel and to communicate with others."
“Provisions for seizure of assets in Section 39 and surveillance or wiretapping of suspects in Sec. 7, investigation of bank deposits and other assets in Section 28 – raise many eyebrows of lawyers and others," the CBCP said.
Former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, on the other hand, said: “This is worse than martial law, one that is legalized and on paper. Supposedly, it's a Human Security Act, but it's actually Human Degradation Act. A group of church leaders, human rights activists and civil libertarians added: “We believe that this law will exacerbate the human rights crisis in the country. We expect that this will result in more gross and systematic violations of human rights and political persecution of progressive groups and active critics of government under the guise of a counter-terrorism program."
Among other things, the bill would allow authorities to detain suspects for three days without court warrant or the filing of formal charges.
The bill also defined a terrorist act as “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.” The bill, however, does not qualify what constitutes “a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic." An anti-terrorism council, to be composed mostly of Cabinet members, would be tasked to identify these acts and the organizations that would be tagged as terrorist organizations.
For a government that has not shown respect for democratic rights and institutions, the granting of such vague powers can be dangerous. For Cabinet members – like Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales -- who have openly labeled legitimate and legal militant organizations and party lists as either communists or terrorists, to make this determination is even more dangerous.
While the intent of the bill is to prevent “a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce government in to an unlawful demand,” the proposed law could impose the same “extraordinary fear” on the public and thereby suppress legitimate dissent and curtail other freedoms. With the presence of fear of being branded a terrorist, of being arrested without warrant or filing of charges, of being the subject of wiretap or surveillance, the people would be a virtual victim of state terrorism.
I reiterate that there are enough laws to fight terrorism, without having to force the people to give up basic rights that are provided by the Constitution. What the country needs are more laws to protect the people from an increasingly abusive, repressive and oppressive government.
Arroyo’s zealousness to please his American benefactors can only be interpreted as another assault on democracy and freedom. How can the country afford to entrust extraordinary powers to an administration and military that equate dissent to sedition, militancy to insurgency, and insurgency to terrorism?
By Val G. Abelgas
Despite protests and concerns raised by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), among others, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo insisted on implementing the controversial Human Security Act of 2007, otherwise known as the anti-terrorism law, last July 15 even without the required implementing rules and regulations.
The anti-terror law was passed in haste, with Arroyo calling back the already-adjourned Congress to a special session and while the congressmen and senators were already focused on the campaign for the recent May elections. It is no surprise then that its implementation is now also being done in haste, despite the fact that there is really no imminent threat of terrorist acts that would be considered “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand,” and the military is not even in full alert, except the police around Mendiola, where Malacanang is cringing in fear behind barbed wires and parked dump trucks from angry protesters.
The No. 1 leftist-hater National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, who can’t distinguish between a legitimate protester and an armed NPA guerilla, insists that the law is “self-implementing” – whatever he means by that – and therefore does not need to have implementing rules and regulations. Even the United States, which had just lost more than 3,000 lives in the World Trade Center attack and is constantly under threat of terrorist acts, did not implement the Patriot Act until the Department of Homeland Security had issued implementing rules and regulations.
The implementation of the anti-terror law comes at a time when the Arroyo administration is under heavy fire from all over the world for various human rights violations, including the close to 900 unsolved extra-judicial murders, disappearance of several militant activists and church lay leaders, warrant-less arrests, illegal detentions, political repressions, and other illegal acts.
But Arroyo seemed not bothered by the criticisms because the extra-judicial killings remain unsolved and unabated, and political repression continues. And now, she wants to up the ante by working behind a highly dubious and obviously unconstitutional law.
The CBCP expressed concern that the broad and vague provisions of the law may be used “to legalize objectionable methods of fighting and quelling opposition to the obtaining government." The bishops said the definition of terrorism under Sec. 3 of the HSA (RA 9372) is "broad and dangerous" and could "serve and create a condition of widespread panic." Sec. 26, it said, "allows house arrest despite the posting of bail, prohibits the right to travel and to communicate with others."
“Provisions for seizure of assets in Section 39 and surveillance or wiretapping of suspects in Sec. 7, investigation of bank deposits and other assets in Section 28 – raise many eyebrows of lawyers and others," the CBCP said.
Former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, on the other hand, said: “This is worse than martial law, one that is legalized and on paper. Supposedly, it's a Human Security Act, but it's actually Human Degradation Act. A group of church leaders, human rights activists and civil libertarians added: “We believe that this law will exacerbate the human rights crisis in the country. We expect that this will result in more gross and systematic violations of human rights and political persecution of progressive groups and active critics of government under the guise of a counter-terrorism program."
Among other things, the bill would allow authorities to detain suspects for three days without court warrant or the filing of formal charges.
The bill also defined a terrorist act as “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.” The bill, however, does not qualify what constitutes “a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic." An anti-terrorism council, to be composed mostly of Cabinet members, would be tasked to identify these acts and the organizations that would be tagged as terrorist organizations.
For a government that has not shown respect for democratic rights and institutions, the granting of such vague powers can be dangerous. For Cabinet members – like Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales -- who have openly labeled legitimate and legal militant organizations and party lists as either communists or terrorists, to make this determination is even more dangerous.
While the intent of the bill is to prevent “a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce government in to an unlawful demand,” the proposed law could impose the same “extraordinary fear” on the public and thereby suppress legitimate dissent and curtail other freedoms. With the presence of fear of being branded a terrorist, of being arrested without warrant or filing of charges, of being the subject of wiretap or surveillance, the people would be a virtual victim of state terrorism.
I reiterate that there are enough laws to fight terrorism, without having to force the people to give up basic rights that are provided by the Constitution. What the country needs are more laws to protect the people from an increasingly abusive, repressive and oppressive government.
Arroyo’s zealousness to please his American benefactors can only be interpreted as another assault on democracy and freedom. How can the country afford to entrust extraordinary powers to an administration and military that equate dissent to sedition, militancy to insurgency, and insurgency to terrorism?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home