Philippines: Anti-terror law enforced amid protests

As the Philippines' new and controversial anti-terrorism law took effect this week there were calls by politicians, church leaders, other concerned groups and a United Nations special rapporteur for a deferment. Those opposed to the Human Security Act, 2007 expressed fears it might lead to more human rights abuses and be used against leftist opponents of the government. The left-leaning Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) or New Patriotic Alliance said it was "a new dark age for human rights and civil liberties" and called the law "a recipe for undeclared martial law." Government officials were quick to counter that the law was intended to protect the nation and the economy from terror attacks. "HSA is about defending our way of life," President Gloria Arroyo said, days before the law was implemented. She assured her political opponents that the law will not be used against them. "Only terrorists have reasons to be threatened," said defense undersecretary Ric Blancaflor. He said the act has enough safeguards to prevent abuses, including a provision that imposes a penalty of 500,000 Philippine pesos (US$10,900) on government agents who wrongfully detain a terror suspect. The measure took effect even without Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) that normally supplement a law, causing further concern to some legal experts. Senator Manuel Roxas II, who voted against the measure, said it was "like constructing a building without the architectural, electrical and mechanical plans being approved." He said "the line between national security imperatives and human freedom may not be clear to every law enforcer." But Ignacio Bunye, Arroyo's spokesman, said any delay in the implementation would only embolden terrorists. Instead of an IRR, government will just issue a primer. The police meanwhile said their officers have already attended seminars about the law. Bunye said the act could be used against anybody who would resort to terrorism, including communist rebels, religious extremists and rogue policemen and soldiers. "The law's message is clear: if you are armed and kill civilians, you will be prosecuted," he said. Based on statements of government officials, among the first to be directly affected by the new law are not only al-Qaida-linked groups in southern Philippines like the Abu Sayyaf, but also the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arm the New People's Army (NPA). This is causing concern to several left-leaning organizations like Bayan because they have previously been accused by the military of serving as fronts to the CPP and NPA. After holding a rally against the act on the day it was implemented, Bayan said it was planning more mass demonstrations and will file a case before the Supreme Court to stop its implementation. The act defines a terrorist as someone who commits an act punishable under Philippine laws on piracy and mutiny in the high seas, rebellion or insurrection, coup d'etat, murder, kidnapping, crimes involving destruction, arson, toxic substances and hazardous and nuclear waste, hijacking, highway robbery and illegal possession and manufacture of firearms and explosives. These acts are considered acts of terrorism if they sow "widespread and extraordinary fear and panic" among the public "to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand." Those found guilty are meted 40 years imprisonment. The act also penalizes accomplices and accessories to terrorism and allows the detention of suspected terrorists for three days without charges. Martin Scheinin, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said the long prison term was one of the law's shortcomings. In a statement on Mar. 12, he said "the strict application of a penalty of 40 years' imprisonment undermines judicial discretion in individual cases and may result in a disproportionate punishment due to the broad definition of terrorist acts." He called on Congress to reconsider the anti-terror law, saying many provisions were "not in accordance with international human rights standards." Scheinin also said that while there were "some positive aspects" of the definition of terrorist acts, "the end result is an overly broad definition which is seen to be at variance with the principle of legality and thus incompatible with Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." Bayan said the law makes terrorism "a catch-all crime that is too vague and too broad." What makes things worse, the group said, was that the term "terrorism" and who is a "terrorist" will eventually be determined by a still-to-convene Anti-Terrorism Council composed mainly of "right-wingers" in the cabinet. It pointed out that several of the council's members were behind "repressive policies and measures" such as the Oplan Bantay Laya (Operation Plan Freedom Watch) which sought to neutralize suspected communist front organizations, the declaration of a state of national emergency in February 2006 and the executive order requiring government officials in the executive department to secure an approval from the president before they can appear before congressional inquiries. The members of the council are the executive secretary, the secretaries of justice, defense, interior and local government, foreign affairs and finance, and the national security adviser. "With this kind of definition and the people that will determine its application, Arroyo can use the law as an instrument to quell legitimate expressions of political dissent and social protest," Bayan said. "Mass actions calling for the ouster of Arroyo are already labeled as…'destabilization plots' and 'conspiracies to commit rebellion'; thus, it would be easy for the government to classify them as 'coercing the government to give in to an unlawful demand.'" The Act authorizes law enforcement officials to engage in wiretapping and use other types of surveillance and tracking devices provided that there is a written order from the Court of Appeals. It prohibits the surveillance and interception of communications between lawyers and their clients, doctors and their patients, and journalists and their sources. But, the National Union of Journalists in the Philippines (NUJP) has pointed out that the justice secretary himself had said that government could wiretap journalists "if they are being suspected of co-mingling with terror suspects". The NUJP said the secretary's statement was "vague and as fraught with danger as many of the… law's provisions, especially those that supposedly define what terrorism is and who terrorists are, provisions so open-ended they could actually lead to anyone and everyone who government deems fit being tagged a terrorist." Meanwhile, the Communist Party of the Philippines, in a "primer" posted on its website, said the new law would pose "a major and serious legal obstacle" to the advancement of the current peace talks it is holding with government representatives. "It further diminishes, if not renders impossible altogether the possibility of moving the talks forward," the CPP said, adding that the New People's Army, in response to the implementation of the law, will intensify "tactical offensives" against the government.