MANILA (UCAN): “This government is criminalising dissent, further suppressing criticism, while at the same time evading accountability in the guise of combating terrorism,” Bishop Gerardo Alminaza of San Carlos, in Negros Occidental, told reporters after Philippine lawmakers overwhelmingly passed the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
UCAN reported that the bishop said the bill’s vague provisions are dangerously open to abuse by a despotic government to terrorise its critics.
The new legislation, which was passed by the Senate in February, and passed by the House of Representatives on June 3, hands the president, Rodrigo Duterte, wider powers enabling authorities to jail suspected terrorists without trial or an arrest warrant.
“The bill fails to establish concrete acts that constitute terrorism. A criminal offense (such as terrorism) should be defined sufficiently so that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what action is prohibited by the law,” said Howard Calleja, a professor at the Ateneo de Manila Law School, the Philippines.
Calleja said the broad definition posed grave danger to anyone, particularly government opponents, who Duterte can easily call “terrorists” for being critical of his policies such as extrajudicial killings, UCAN reported.
Many have raised concerns over the bill’s definition of terrorism, noting that it is vague and open to a capricious and whimsical application of the law and could violate citizens’ right to due process.
Section 4 lists actions that would constitute terrorism, regardless of the stage of execution, punishing mere dissent and mass action and the exercising of other civil and political rights.
Section 9 of the bill also introduced a new offense called “incitement to commit terrorism,” which can punish any person without the accused taking any direct part in the commission of a crime or any of the acts listed under Section 4.
Duterte is also granted powers usually reserved for courts, such as the personal determination of probable cause by a judge. Without the court’s determination, authorities could detain people for at up to 24 days without arrest warrants.
As we celebrate the 500 years of Christianity in the Philippines. The Chaplaincy to Filipino Migrants organises an on-line talk every Tuesday at 9.00pm. You can join us at:
https://www.Facebook.com/CFM-Gifted-to-give-101039001847033
The Philippine constitution states that: “no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon probable cause to be determined personally by a judge.”
Calleja noted, “Here, the executive is the one who determines if an individual is probably guilty of a crime (terrorism). It takes away that power from the courts.”
Bishop Arturo Bastes, the retired bishop of Sorsogon, also noted the bill gives Duterte “dictatorial powers” similar to those of late, Martial Law-era president, Ferdinand Marcos.
The bishop said lawmakers should be enacting laws focusing on the Covid-19 coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, which was more urgent.
“Congress should enact laws that give life and hope, not laws that inject terror and more suffering,” UCAN reported him as saying.
The Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines also released a statement questioning the necessity of the bill.
“Terrorism is not the concern of the people. People’s health, safety and well-being should be first on our agenda,” the statement said.
However, presidential spokesperson, Harry Roque, reminded critics that the bill still needs to be signed off by Duterte.
“The bill is still subject to a final review by the president to ensure all provisions are compliant with our constitution before he signs it,” Roque said.
Ravina Shamdasani of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Office was quoted by the New York Times as saying the legislation defines terrorism broadly and allows officials to designate people as terrorists in provisions that “may violate the principle of legality under international law.”
Shamdasani said in an online news conference, “You add to this the context in the Philippines where a lot of human rights organisations are routinely labelled as terrorists, this is very worrying.”
A new UN Human Rights Office report about threats to human rights in the Philippines said the legislation was among proposed new laws and amendments “with the stated aim of strengthening public order and countering terrorism,” but “which risk eroding constitutional and other legal protections.”
Philippine vice president, Leni Robredo, said the legislation sparked fears that it could be used to muzzle free expression, especially “in the hands of people who have no qualms about using disinformation, inventing evidence, or finding the smallest of pretexts to silence its critics.”
“This power is very dangerous,” the New York Times quoted Robredo as saying.
