|
THE
Senate has passed its version of an antiterrorism bill,
which has been an Arroyo regime priority since 2002.
Like every bill of its kind passed in other countries,
many of its provisions are outstanding for their
retrogressive character, among them restrictions on the
media, and the legalization of wiretapping and
government examination of bank accounts.
But as
outstanding was the silence of practically all the
oppositionists and/or human rights advocates in the
Senate during deliberations on it. It was a silence
followed by overwhelming approval, the vote being 16 to
2, with only Sens. Ana Consuelo (“Jamby”) Madrigal and
Manuel Roxas II voting against it.
Sen.
Aquilino Pimentel Jr. voted for it, apparently because
he was satisfied over the “safeguards” against abuse
that the bill’s proponent, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, had
agreed to. Only Pimentel and Madrigal had been actively
proposing amendments to the bill to prevent its use
against the media, the opposition and dissent.
The
relative silence of Joker Arroyo, whom many Filipinos
regard as a human-rights defender because of his defense
of political prisoners during the Marcos dictatorship,
and of oppositionists like the mother and son Estrada
tandem and former Senate President Franklin Drilon at
one level suggests popular, although misinformed,
acceptance of the assumptions of the Arroyo regime’s
antiterrorism policy.
These
personalities are presumably aware of the public’s fear
of terrorism and its consequent support for anything
that will curb it. For this well-founded fear we have
Abu Sayyaf depredations to thank, as well as those of
their counterparts and possible partners in such
countries as Indonesia.
Since it
began its kidnapping spree in 2002 and followed that
with bombings in Mindanao and elsewhere, terrorism has
been synonymous with the Abu Sayyaf in the public eye.
So outrageous has Abu Sayyaf terrorism been—and so
unremitting the media coverage—that it has provoked the
same impulse toward doing anything to stop it that has
spread in much of the world.
“Doing
anything to stop terrorism” has in most cases meant
curtailing those rights and liberties that many now
think have allowed terrorists to strike in open
societies. Such governments as that of George W. Bush in
the US and George Howard of Australia have in fact
explicitly cited the “openness” of their societies as
critical factors in such terrorist attacks as those of
September 11, 2001, in the US, and the two Bali bombings
in Indonesia, the first of which killed a number of
Australian tourists.
Antiterrorism has reversed a global trend toward
liberalization before September 11. The attacks on the
World Trade Center
inaugurated a new era in which terrorism, while real
enough, became a convenient excuse, especially among
poor countries with chronic problems of political
instability, to suppress dissent and to curtail
political and civil rights.
Crucial
to these attacks was the way “terrorism” was being
defined. In many instances “terrorism” was intentionally
identified with dissent as well as with armed movements,
the better for existing governments to suppress dissent
and/or to deny whatever armed groups they may be
fighting with whatever claims to legitimate grievances
these may have.
The
Arroyo regime thus sought and obtained the listing of
the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New
People’s Army on the US list of foreign terrorist
organizations. The Arroyo regime’s working definition of
terrorism has been nebulous, but has tended to equate
terrorism with the Abu Sayyaf.
This is
only the public perception, however. The Arroyo regime
has practically declared the Abu Sayyaf dead, with the
capture or death of many of leaders. On the other hand,
the military has declared the CPP-NPA as the main threat
to regime security. From this it follows that whatever
antiterrorism bill will emerge from Congress (the Senate
bill will have to be reconciled with the House bill)
will be primarily directed against the CPP-NPA.
“The
CPP-NPA,” however, is a concept that in the Arroyo
regime includes a host of “front organizations” that
include not only the left-wing party-list groups (Bayan
Muna, Gabriela, Anak Pawis, etc.), but also media and
civil society organizations like the National Union of
Journalists of the Philippines and even video production
houses.
In
addition to naming these groups, and in effect
legitimizing the attacks on their memberships that have
escalated since 2003, the Arroyo regime will have
another weapon at its disposal in the form of the
antiterrorism bill in meeting “the CPP-NPA threat.”
And yet
the armed groups have the least to fear from any law,
they being outside the pale. The antiterrorism bill as
it has been taking form since 2002 is more easily used
against a broad range of dissenters and oppositionists.
Despite amendments initiated by Senators Pimentel and
Madrigal precisely meant to prevent abuse, the Senate
bill will not be the final version of the bill. It is
also likely that most, if not all of the
Madrigal-Pimentel amendments, will be deleted during the
bicameral discussions.
For
example, the limitation on the detention of terrorism
suspects to three days, and the exemption of doctors and
media people from provisions in the Senate bill that
penalize “profiting from” or “concealing” the
participants in any “conspiracy to commit terrorism”
even if they did not participate in it, are likely to be
restored in the final version of the bill.
The
Senate bill, amendments and all, is bad enough, but the
final version is likely to be worse. The antiterrorism
bill could unleash a wave of state terrorism in the name
of fighting terrorism. The worst part is that much of
the public, in its concern over terrorism, may not be
aware that it’s been sold a bill of goods it didn’t
bargain for.
***
Comments? Contact the author at teodoro@ info.com.ph.
For other columns and comments: www.luisteodoro.com. |
