2. Violation of rights
Suspects of terrorism will be denied their right to due process and presumption of innocence. As mentioned, the Anti-Terror Act provides for the easy proscription or illegalization of organizations and individuals. Detention beyond 48 hours is easily justified and legalized, more than enough time to torture and even murder a detainee. Other violations made easy include indefinite detention on the non-bailable charge of terrorism, the freezing and confiscation of financial assets, the easy incrimination of so-called accomplices and accessories, the unlimited intrusions of surveillance into privacy and family life, the oppressive restraints even on those released on bail, extraordinary rendition and so on.
Under Sec. 19, in the event of actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may be detained for 48 hours without warrant. With the proven track record of Philippine governments, starting with the Marcos Dictatorship all the way to the current US-Arroyo regime, to manufacture scenarios that would justify a police crackdown or the mobilization of military troops to quell any form of civil disturbance, it would not be difficult for the government to manufacture an actual or imminent terrorist attack.
Also, (m)unicipal, city, provincial or regional human rights commission officials are authorized to order the detention of suspected terrorists beyond 48 hours. This is a clear violation of the Sec. 18, Article VII of the Constitution which provides, During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released. Not even the Commission on Human Rights on any level, can circumvent this constitutionally guaranteed safeguard.
Section 26 states: Restriction on the Right to TravelIn cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged is granted… bail, the court shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he resides. He or she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court While under house arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cell phones, emails, computers, the internet or other means of communications with people outside his residence until otherwise ordered by the court. Thus, even in cases where the evidence is weak and bail is allowed, suspects are still faced with the prospect of being held incommunicado while under house arrest.
The new law can violate a persons right to privacy. Section 7 legalizes the surveillance of terror suspects. Authorities may intercept and record all communications of suspected terrorists and their alleged conspirators. Wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance need only the approval of any competent Regional Trial Court. The power to eavesdrop is easily subject to abuse. We only have the Hello Garci scandal to remind us of how wiretapping has been abused by the military in the past.
Under Sec. 27, bank deposits, accounts and records of suspected terrorists and their alleged conspirators may be examined by authorities. The key concept here is that even mere suspects can be subjected to bank examinations. All pertinent information involving a suspected account, including transactions with other accounts, can also be examined by the authorities. .
Section 57 of the law says that it bans extraordinary rendition but actually authorizes it under certain conditions. The practice of extraordinary rendition allows terror suspects or vital witnesses to be rendered or transferred to a foreign government as part of investigations into terrorism. Under the new law, a person may be extraordinarily rendered to a foreign country if his or her testimony is vital in a terror-related police probe or in other legal proceedings. The Philippine government will merely require an official assurance that the rights of the terror suspect will be respected by the requesting country.
In the worst practices of extraordinary rendition, people can be snatched and brought to a foreign land and charged with the crime of terrorism or be forced to take part in other legal proceedings. This extrajudicial process has often been accompanied by torture. Extraordinary rendition has been a well-documented practice employed by the US Central Intelligence Agency against suspected terrorists.
3. Anti-Terrorism Council
The anti-terror law will give rise to a fascist council tasked with overseeing the implementation of the law. Section 53 provides for the creation of the Anti-Terrorism Council composed of the executive secretary, secretaries of justice, interior and local government, national defense, foreign affairs, finance and the national security adviser. The National Intelligence Coordinating Agency serves as the council’s secretariat.
Most of the members of the Anti-Terrorism Council are already part of the notorious Cabinet Oversight Committee for Internal Security (COC-IS). Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales are the masterminds of repressive policies and measures such as the Oplan Bantay Laya, Proclamation 1017, Calibrated Preemptive Response policy and Executive Order 464. The three are now joined by newly appointed Defense Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane, a retired general linked to the Garcillano scandal. The Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo on the other hand has proven to be a staunch supporter of United States foreign policy even if these are inimical to the interests of the Filipino people.
The Councils functions include: directing the arrest of suspected terrorists, recommending the proscription of suspected terrorist organizations, speedy investigation and prosecution of all persons accused or detained for the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism; freezing bank accounts and funds of suspected terrorists; and establishing and maintaining a database on terrorism.
Terrorism
