My thoughts on the Anti-Terrorism Bill

I tried my best to read up about the bill. I read summaries and I acquired an online copy of the bill itself.

Here is a link The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

Just to make it clear, I am not a law graduate nor a law student. This is how I understand and interpret what was written. If I do get anything wrong, or misinterpret anything, I am very much open to talk about it. What I write here are informal so you may see remarks that can be inappropriate or sometimes juvenile.

On my initial reading, I tried to see the bill from the standpoint of a defense officer who is tasked to defend the country, regardless of who is president. Just the notion that I have to defend the country (Generala Gabriela?).

I have to admit that on initial reading, the bill does try to “protect” the people. It attempts to prevent the act of terrorism, tries to make safeguards for the general public, shows what government agencies are involved, and it shows also show the “ideal” process on how everything will supposedly work.

Note that I used quotation marks and the words “attempt” and “try”.

Upon reading it again, this time, I took into account the country’s current status. Yes, the bill does sound like it is attacking the government critics. The definition of terrorism in this bill, despite the attempt to make it “specific”, has made it more broad to the point that anybody who has a say against the government can immediately be called a terrorist (See Section 4 of the bill).

• It is stated in this bill that a person or group is identified as a terrorist based on the list of international security agencies like the United Nations Security Counsel (see Section 3b), but it is also stated that the Anti-Terrorism Council may also designate who are terrorists “upon providing a probable cause.” (see Sec 25 par. 3) It would make sense that a council would have this kind of power in an ideal world, but in our current situation, any critic can be found probable cause just based on the definition on terrorism in this bill. And knowing about the great skills of our government, it’s not impossible that they will make-up a probable cause just to fixate on a critic or group. Admit it people, it has and is happening right now.

• In this bill, if a person in suspected of terrorist act, s/he may be followed, wiretapped without once knowledge, and detained for 14 days, and even be extended if the counsel or the person of authority deem that s/he is still a threat to the public. From a standpoint of someone in-charge of the security of the country (most probably a victim of PTSD, highly anxious, had his/her own time in the battlefield) this is reasonable. It is also stated in this bill that the person, even when detained still has rights to legal counsel, rights to a doctor, rights against torture and even visiting rights from the family.

It sounds good on paper no? The sponsors attempt to create safeguards and rules to uphold human rights. If only this a perfect, law-abiding and honest government, maybe this would work? The effort is there but the way our country is run right now, I doubt these rights will even be allowed to the suspected person.

Suspected person. Please let that sink in, the person has not gone into trial yet, only suspected and his/her privacy and freedom is compromised.

The bill did mention and even assigned specific tasks for the Commission of Human Rights (see Section 47), which is supposed to be another safeguard. Unfortunately, seeing how the government treats CHR, I doubt those in power will give heed to them.

• The Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) which will be the governing body once the bill is passed (see Sec 45), is made up of the President’s Cabinet Officials. The agencies involved makes sense right? Except, these secretaries in position in the said agencies have been dubious, notorious, questionable and scandalous from the very start of this administration. Personally, the level of trust in this council is an all-time zero. I am trying my best to be civil here and avoid using derogatory terms. The cabinet members in question have been greatly criticized by the public and I believe the fear of most of those against the bill is that they use their position to “get-back” to their critics. I would say this is not an impossible scenario as some government officials have recently admitted that they subjectively decide on the laws and issues that are being tackled in the Congress. Oh wait, I slipped... Oh well... 😏😏😏 They said it publicly so I not making up this statement right?

• Lastly, is this really a priority bill in the middle of the pandemic? This is also one of the main concerns why everyone, including yours truly is against the bill. The senate, the congress, and even the president is pushing for the bill to be passed as soon as possible... In the middle of a pandemic? Now? When most of the citizens, specifically the ones in the metro are in need of help - medically, socially, physiologically, and psychologically - but the government seems to have decided to just pass the responsibility of “caring” for the citizens to the private sector. 😒😒😒 I am generalizing all the public service officials, for there are public officials who are going out of their way to help their constituents. I am referring to those in public office high up in the ranking system - congress, senate, cabinet members and even the president.

It’s quite clear in my statements and comments above that I am not satisfied with the movements and decisions of the current administration. Other would say that I am “Dilawan”, no, I also criticized the previous administrations and their constituents, but this current administration has really been disappointing and disheartening.

From what I understand, one of the main factors that this bill in being questioned is because of the people who are currently in power, who can use this bill to their advantage and abuse their power.

Everyone is feeling agitated and uneasy because of the pandemic, it does not help that the government is suddenly pushing for a bill that will magnify this fear. People are thinking about their health and how to support the needs of their family, and now, they also have to worry about their own security.

If people are pushed to the limits, I would not be surprised if there would be a civil unrest. Oh wait, maybe that is why the president is trying to push the bill forward? In case there is a civil unrest, the bill can be used to “defend” the public? 😱😱😱

Just a thought.

Now, here are other thoughts that came to mind:

• “If the bill was passed during a different administration (previous administrations or possible future administrations) would there still be the same amount of people who are against the bill?

• If there was no pandemic, would it really be a big deal if this bill was passed?

• If there was current high threat, would people accept the bill?”

• Like I mentioned earlier, on paper it looks tangible and justifiable. Yes there would still be critics, but will the people be as opposed to it like now?

I don’t think anybody will actually read this. I just wanted to write my thoughts about the bill, so in the future I can look back and check if there have been positive or negative changes since this whole fiasco has happened.

See ya~