The anti-terror law and state terrorism: Two sides of the same coin?

BY DABET CASTAÑEDA
Bulatlat

The recent abductions of United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) Pastor Berlin Guerrero (link to Berlin’s statement) on May 27 in Biñan, Laguna and Bayan Muna-South Cotabato provincial head Gilbert Cardiño on June 6 in Koronadal City show how state agents could be ruthless to civilians accused of being members of the underground movement.

Guerrero was arrested without warrant and subjected to physical and psychological torture for more than a day. His warrant was presented to him only when he was subsequently brought to the police headquarters in Imus, Cavite. Cardiño, who surfaced June 9, is still in a state of shock after being kept in a safe house for three days.

In his sworn statement, Guerrero accused special units of state intelligence agents as responsible for his torment. But instead of obtaining justice, the UCCP pastor is now in jail facing murder and subversion charges which, Guerrero insists, are all fabricated.

The cases of Guerrero and Cardiño are what human rights advocates consider as vivid illustrations of “state-sponsored terrorism.” Cases such as these, similar to the more than 800 incidence of extra judicial killings and almost 200 cases of enforced disappearances documented by the human rights group Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of Peoples’ Rights), lay basis to the fear that the Philippine’s new anti-terror law – the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007 – will only legitimize the mechanisms of state-sponsored terrorism, Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) lawyer Jose “Chel” Diokno said.

Definition

The HSA lists 11 crimes punishable with terrorism: piracy, rebellion or insurrection, coup d’etat, murder,
kidnapping and serious illegal detention, arson, hijacking, highway robbery, illegal possession of
firearms, violations of the Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990 and
Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968.

These acts are already punishable under the Revised Penal Code; but as defined by the HSA, these acts will be considered “terrorism” if it sows and creates a “condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give into an unlawful demand.”

A person may be convicted of terrorism if these three elements - it constitutes a crime listed as terrorism, the crime caused widespread fear and panic among the populace, and it is meant to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand – are present. Penalty for terrorism is 40 years imprisonment without the benefit of parole.

The definition is vague and very hard to prove, Diokno said.

“First, when is a demand unlawful?” Diokno asked. “That question is debatable up to the Supreme Court and I do not know how the court is going to decide on that,” he said.

Second, Diokno said there is no objective mandate to determine whether an action “creates widespread fear and panic.”

“Is it a question of public opinion? Will there be a poll to determine that? How many witnesses do you need?” Diokno further asked.

Diokno said another relevant question is, “Is the crime defined by the result?”

“This means one element of the crime, the result, is beyond the control of the perpetrator. This makes things more complicated because the three elements of the crime should be answered before the court could convict any offender,” the human rights lawyer added.