4 minute read
Denial of public interest
ILLUSTRATION BY ASHLEY HERNANDEZ COVID-19 Special Issue Volume 40, Issue 4
commentaries
Advertisement
Denial of public interest
Phoebe Stacey ALMARIO
“The country must
No matter how loud the cries of common people may be towards flaws possessed by an administration, there will always be those who try to silence it. As the country continues to drag along countless of burdens, implementing a law that favors and secures everyone is commendable. However, the recently signed Anti-Terror Law presents vague decrees and guidelines which causes in it dressing up as fear rather than security.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, also known as Republic Act No. 11479, is an “act to prevent, prohibit, and penalize terrorism, thereby repealing RA No. 9372, otherwise known as the ‘Human Security Act of 2007’.” Under Section 2, it defines how the State aims to protect every person’s life, liberty, and property from terrorism. Indeed, it may sound appealing and vital for everyone’s well-being, until it is to be comprehensively read and understood. On the contrary, current administration’s President Rodrigo Duterte honored and signed the proposed bill into law, last July 3, 2020.
Still under the state of shock from the current Coronavirus pandemic, it is questionable to promulgate such law during an untimely crisis. With an economic turmoil, wherein inflation rates are greatly increasing together with the country’s unemployment rate getting worse, and has not even gotten better, Anti-Terror Law does not contribute any solution for the mentioned circumstances. In addition to this, the outcries of public health “frontliners” for financial and resources aid are still yet to be addressed after months of this gruesome battle. Furthermore, the uproar of the public is justified by the administration’s negligence to demonstrate obvious and proper handling of the pandemic, such as lack of mass testing, lack of facilities and resources, even though emergency powers and funds have been granted to the president.
The loopholes in between the vague points of the law make it nothing but a blur. Found under Section 3 which is the definition of terms, “designated person” or a terrorist is broadly described, alongside the acts that are considered to be terrorism, that equate to a lifetime imprisonment. In addition to this, under Sections 4 to 12, are specific acts of violence such as damage to property, causes or intentions of death, usage of weapons, and the like. It is clearly stated that advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person or to cause serious risk to public safety, are not determined nor defined as terrorism. Relating it to the recent arrests during protests by various groups that did not show any violent acts, such as the police crackdown at an LGBT Pride event that protests peacefully for the then Anti-Terrorism Bill in Manila last June 26, the ways of the men in uniform are the opposite of what are stated in the Anti-Terror Law. Hence, educating those who will exercise such law is a must before red-tagging certain personalities. Adding up to the loopholes of the supposed national security law, is found under Section 29, which is the Detention without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. It may be possible to do so if the act done is under Section 4, however if it falls under Section 9, which pertains to banners, speeches, and writings, it sounds more of a violation to one’s rights than an act of terrorism.
Such inadequately described decrees are to blame for this law to be considered as the most scrutinized by analysts, groups, and media during these recent times. It also serves fear to the public opinion which is supposed to voice out its needs to the administration. For the said law allows anyone to silence any critics or dissenters along its way. Similarly, the same administration who runs the inhumane war against drugs may now easily label progressive activist groups, even those led by students, as “terrorists,” given the currentaffairs involving such groups and journalists alike.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, or the Bill of Rights, explains one’s civil and political rights, the limits of freedom of speech, of expression, or press, and the requisites for an issuance of a warrant of arrest, at the same time, the situations that allow arrests without such warrants, which apparently were neglected by the principal authors for the modification of RA 9372. Not only does it make the Anti-Terror Law unconstitutional, but also abridges the fact that the republic is under democracy but the current administration fails to prove so.
The current administration has surprisingly shown its capabilities of not knowing how to handle such crisis very well. While other countries are battling with the unseen enemy, the Philippines disregards public health and focuses on shutting down a media giant, arresting journalists and common people, sending threats to dissenters, changing the name of an airport, and allowing foreigners to degrade Filipino people. Regards the pandemic, the daily number of COVID-19 cases alone makes it to the headlines.
Instead of promulgating fear disguised as a national security law, the administration may consider focusing on how to build confidence within its people that such implementations do not threaten nor violate constitutional rights. The country must be a safe place for dissent that advocates the good of public interest. The Anti-Terror Law is the last thing the nation needs right now.
