Consumers Domain
Anti-terror bill, for whom?
“If you are a terror to many, then beware of many.”
—Ausonius
A draft Anti-Terror Bill is now being deliberated in Congress. What makes this author wonder and be suspicious of is the apparent rush to speed up its passage.The timing is just too beautiful to be ignored.
First is the implementation of the repressive Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) against anti-Gloria protest demonstrations. Then there was Executive Order 464 that attempts to clip the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Then comes the statement of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales, indirectly seconded by Malacañang, insinuating a possible declaration of a state of emergency.
Notice that all those are targeted or can be used to silence the critics of Gloria Arroyo.These moves by a dubious President are clearly aimed at suppressing dissent against a sham government and its anomalous transactions.
Now, the bill defines terrorism as the “premeditated, threatened, actual use of violence, or force or against persons, or force or by any other means of destruction perpetuated against person/s, property/ies, or the environment, with the intention of creating or sowing a state of danger, panic, fear, or chaos to the general public, group of persons or segment thereof or of coercing or intimidating the government to do so or abstain from doing an act."
Furthermore, Section 4 of the same draft states the following:
“Terrorism is committed by any person or group of persons, whether natural or juridical, who, with intent to create or sow danger, panic, fear or chaos to the general public or a group of persons or segment thereof, or to coerce or intimidate the government to do or to abstain from doing an act through premeditated, threatened, or actual use of force, violence or other means of destruction, commits any of the following acts:
- (1) x x x
- (2) x x x
- (3) x x x
- (4) Causing serious or unlawful interference with or serious unlawful disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private.
x x x”
These are such broad definitions that can in fact encompass the definitions of many crimes already penalized under the Revised Penal Code. What is worse is that even legitimate people’s actions to seek redress against the government can fall under it.
Using the definitions above, for example, can make a peaceful people’s protest rally a terrorist act.Isn’t it that massive protests actions can be viewed as an act “of coercing or intimidating the government to do so or abstain from doing an act"?When a big people’s mobilization calls for the ouster or resignation of Gloria, it is in fact “coercing” the government to heed the clamor of the people.
Further, let’s say for example that such a massive rally grew such that the traffic were blocked and also causing some government offices to close. Isn’t it that this constitutes “serious or unlawful interference with or serious unlawful disruption of an essential service, facility or system”?We all know that the roads and transportation are an essential service and facility. And if one of the offices that closed because of such a mobilization was that of the DOH or a hospital for example, then it will be another case where another essential service is disrupted.
Tsk tsk, this government seems hell bent on crushing its opponents – by simply tagging them as terrorists.Now you see what I mean about the suspicious timing of the move to fast track the passage of this bill.
The ability of this bill once enacted into a law to curb real terrorist activities remains doubtful. But a simple look into it can tell us that it can easily be used against the opponents of the administration – an administration headed by a President who has shown her eagerness to sacrifice everything so she can hold on to power.
(For comments and reactions send SMS to 0919-348-6337 or email to ianseruelo@yahoo.com.)