Mabini Hall - Access to Justice

We are what we perceive. The past few weeks we have all been inundated with news and discussions on the antiterrorism law officially known as the Human Security Act. For militants, it is yet a specter of martial law and the ultimate vehicle for human-rights abuses. For law enforcers, it is a toothless law that severely constricts its implementation and is of limited use to the campaign against terror. For academics and lawyers, it is vague and poorly written. With all these, no wonder that the man on the street is confused and afraid for our tendency is to so react and feel.

First, the first antiterror bill was filed way back in 1995 during the time of President Ramos. Only after 12 years and many violent incidents after did we get to pass the present law. Is it necessary? We know terrorism when we see it. We may not know its definition but surely, the bombing of buses, malls, LRT and cell sites are terrorist acts. Without a special law for terrorism, policemen end up using other penal laws to go after the bad guys which is bad policy. The new law punishing terrorism then is an expression of the legislative intent that we, as a society, do not approve of the use of violence and condemn the Machiavellian idea that the ends justifying the means.

But aren’t the acts of terrorism already punishable under the Revised Penal Code and similar laws? Yes and no. Indeed when a terrorist sets off a bomb at the airport and kills ten people, he is guilty of the crime of murder. Under the existing regime, state authorities come into the crime scene after the completion of the attacks. The crime of terrorism is precisely done to spread panic and to terrorize the population. It is accompanied by mass destruction and wanton mayhem. It randomly and directly attacks civilian areas and public infrastructure. Do we wait until an airplane is blown out of the sky before filing multiple murder cases? We cannot use the traditional approach because the methods are now different. The new law hopes to prevent and disrupt the terrorist plan before it is carried out.

Isn’t it dangerous then for people to be labeled as terrorists and be arrested on mere suspicion? The answer is a no. There is no automatic listing or tagging as a terrorist. Rather, if Juan murders Maria then Juan is a murderer. If Juan rapes Maria, Juan is a rapist. If Juan commits an act of terrorism, then Juan is a terrorist. In all these situations, court intervention is essential to observe due process and to protect civil liberties. It is also the courts who will make sure that there is at least some probable cause to hold the suspect.

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Who is a terrorist then and how can our law define terrorism? Well, the law dare not define terrorism because it is specific to the national setting and local circumstances. For example, Bonifacio and Ninoy could have been terrorists in the eyes of those in power. What the law does is to define the crime of terrorism. This means that if a person commits certain acts of violence that meet the characterization in the law, then he can be proceeded against like a criminal. In legal circles, this is called the criminal law approach. We do not talk about beliefs, ideology or parameters of free speech; we focus on the acts done and we draw the line when violence is used. There is just no place for brutality or carnage.

With this law, can we now stop terrorism? The passage of a law is the beginning of the problem, the start for putting in place measures to bring peace of mind. If the law was the final solution, then we would have no more crime since the passage of the Revised Penal Code in 1932. The task as citizens is to read the law and try to understand it. Simple or tough, relevant or foolish—we judge accordingly. We are what we perceive. Our human security depends on dispelling our oh-so-human insecurities.