Junk the Anti-Terror Bill

I know that at this point it almost seems like a foregone conclusion, but I am still holding onto hope that the President might yet veto the controversial Anti-Terror Bill awaiting his signature. Perhaps he will listen to the voices of the many Filipinos who oppose the bill’s loose and generic terms and opt instead for more research and thought to create a more clear and cohesive version of the bill with better-defined terms and stricter guidelines for implementation. If he did, it would mean he truly considers the concerns of the public and wants to help alleviate them and not just pass a bill for passing the bill’s sake.

Ever since it was first released, the Anti-Terror Bill has been a source of concern for people who were fearful that the law would be applied wantonly and not just go after terrorists and actual threats to the country’s security, but also for people voicing dissent or differing opinions from those in power. That has been and remains the main concern most have when it comes to passing this bill. Will this law just give those in power a legal means to silence those that do not agree with them?

I must admit I worry about that as well, which isn’t to say that I haven’t looked at the merits of the proposed bill or that I don’t understand why something drastic might be necessary. I’ve tried to open my mind to all the possibilities as well. After all, you can’t form an opinion about something without trying to understand it first. In this case, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 will essentially amend the Human Security Act of 2007. It will redefine and broaden the definition of terrorism. Included in this definition are acts of “extensive damage and destruction” where the purpose is to “intimidate the general public or create an atmosphere of fear.”

The law will also criminalize “threat, planning, training, facilitating of, and proposing/inciting terrorist activities” by means of speeches, writings, proclamations, etc. If someone is suspect they can be put under surveillance, arrested without a warrant, and held in detention for up to 24 days. Lastly, the law seeks to boost the Anti-Terrorism Council, the body that will implement the law, and whose members will be appointed by the President.

Those are just some of the main points in the bill. If you haven’t yet, I highly recommend you read it so you can have a snapshot of the whole picture. Backers of the Anti-Terrorism Act say this is necessary to end terrorism in the country and to help put an end to communist and Islamic insurgencies. They say that this bill will help stop these insurgencies, suicide bombings, and other terrorist problems plaguing the southern region.

I can appreciate where they are coming from. I wrote about terrorism in previous columns and likened it to the mythical hydra beast. Once you cut off one head, several more grow in its place. I hardly believe one bill is going to change that. If anything, it’s going to inspire the terrorists to become more creative and more covert in their dealings. Terrorism is a real problem and it’s something you have to pull out by the roots, if you can. It’s not something that will be scared off by new laws or words on paper. After all, if terrorists have shown us anything, it’s that they aren’t afraid to break the law.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who oppose the Anti-Terror Bill because the fast and loose wording of the bill essentially paves the way for abuse. That doesn’t mean abuse by this administration only, but any administration that comes after it. By providing such broad and general definitions in the bill any act of aggression could be classified as an act of terrorism. People can use it against each other in regular daily scuffles and it could easily be used against people voicing dissent against the actions of the government – a right that is granted to them in the Constitution.

This encompassing and liberal use of the word terrorism could limit freedoms like freedom of speech and the expression of dissent or even protesting against legitimate concerns and grievances. People could be arrested for simply marching with a placard or posting a status on social media. Without clearly defined parameters, who is to say the law won’t be abused by those in power. It’s a trust situation and people, in general, are lacking in trust these days. I can’t blame them. After all, with this bill, it doesn’t take much to be labeled a “terrorist”.

So due to rising concerns, several Filipinos are taking to the streets again. In safe and socially distant gatherings (both in-person and online), people who oppose the bill are letting their voices be heard. Alongside rallies that have reached Baguio, Cebu, and other provinces, concerned citizens are signing petitions and emailing their representatives to withdraw their support for the bill. For a while, it seemed that these efforts were paying off. Some members of Congress changed their votes, while others came out to say their votes were properly recorded.

However, in the end, the bill was sent to the President who can sign it into law or let it simply lapse the 30 days and become one automatically. I hope he gives it more thought. There is still time to create a bill like this, but this is not the bill and this is not the time. If the President is truly concerned over terrorist threats, there are several other steps he can take while the bill is being reviewed more thoroughly. It still needs some big adjustments and more clear cut definitions before regular citizens can be comfortable and assured that this won’t infringe on the rights provided to them in the Constitution.