Cong Tony Cuenco: The Fight against Terror (sponsorship speech on the Anti-Terrorism Bill, delivered on November 29, 2005) - Part 1

Cuenco, a seasoned legislator, authored the passage of numerous laws in the country among them: the Local Government Code (partnered in the Senate by his classmate and ally, Senator Pimentel), the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and the Philippine Baseline Law. He also sponsored the passage of the country’s first anti-terror law then called as the Human Security Act of 2007. He championed its passage parrying opposition by his peers in Congress. CEBUpedia is reproducing his sponsorship, as even up to now it answers the questions of the critics of the new law, The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020:

The Fight against Terror

By: Rep. Antonio V. Cuenco

(November 29, 2005)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sponsor the Anti-Terrorism Bill.

I shall not waste your time, nor exhaust my energy, nor test the equanimity of our Colleagues, by talking about what terrorism is, what it can do, and what in fact it is doing to our nation and the world.

For each one of us here in this Chamber already knows what today’s terrorism is and what it is all about.

But I shall certainly seek to engage our colleagues in thinking about our response to international terrorism—this nameless, faceless, shapeless horror that has engrossed and imperiled our nation in this dark new age for mankind.

I shall certainly talk about how to protect our people from this pitiless abomination that is unparalleled in scale and wickedness.

I shall certainly talk about how to cope with this situation where, for us, it seems there is no victory in attack nor safety in retreat nor good sense in merely standing still.

Mr. Speaker, we all know what terrorism is, but there is some difficulty in making a clear verbal definition of it.

This bill defines terrorism. But I must appeal to our colleagues not to criticize this definition for the sake of nitpicking, for if terrorism is hard to fight, it is even harder to define formally in words.

If we cannot define terrorism to everybody’s satisfaction, neither can anyone. It is easier to define globalization, for example, or federalism, or the impeachment process, than to define terrorism. Terrorism, unlike impeachment, does not need 79 votes before it can be done.

What is important is that we come up with the structures of defense and retribution, and maybe even preemption, in the struggle against the terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, some ten days ago, Judge Marical Marissa Guillen, sentenced to death three terrorists responsible for the Valentine’s Day bombing only this year.

We commend Judge Guillen for the speedy trial and for giving the sentence of death. But today, I wish to highlight the need not merely to punish the terrorists but to prevent them from committing their heinous deed. (To be continued)