THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE ANTI-TERROR LAW

 

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE ANTI-TERROR LAW

With the prevalence of terrorism around the world, wherein the Philippines is not exempted, there is a necessity for the state to defend its citizens from the claws of the dangers of terrorism, thus the passage of the ANTI-TERROR LAW by the Philippine Congress is very commendable. Terrorism is like wildfire spreading in all of the four corners of the world, ergo it must be stopped. To stifle the possibility of another RIZAL DAY BOMBING, ZAMBOANGA SIEGE and/or MARAWI SIEGE, the government must take any measure to get rid of terrorism, and we must be very thankful that the ANTI-TERROR LAW was passed by the Philippine legislature in due time to address the national problem of terrorism.

As can be gleaned from the developments in the countryside, terrorist groups are now sprouting in the country as much as the same are mushrooming around the world, and such terrorist groups are wreaking havoc not just in the Philippines but all over the world. The Abu Sayyaf has long been rampaging in Mindanao and a new terrorist group called BIFF or the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters is/are also destroying any effort of the Philippine government for lasting peace in Mindanao. The New People’s Army which was declared by international authorities as a terrorist group has been pestering the Philippine government and these security problems need to be stalled if not be minimized by way of the ANTI-TERROR LAW.

The terrorist groups in the Philippines especially the Abu Sayyaf are funded also by international terrorist groups like Jemaah Islamiya, and must be counteracted upon, otherwise, the damage it is causing against the people would be greater, in connection to this the provision of the ANTI TERROR LAW which provides powers to the Anti Money Laundering Council is but proper so that the suspects funding the terrorists existing in the Philippines be checked, if not be arrested and also as to weaken the local terrorists of the Philippines for it may defund the same.

As can be seen from the Declaration of Policy of the ANTI TERROR LAW, the purpose of the law is very noble for it aims to do the following a.) To protect life, liberty, and property from terrorism; b.) To condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and c.) To make any form of terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the Law of Nations.

The ANTI TERRORISM LAW provides for the punishment of the acts of terrorism, and any steps of anyone who supports the same which punishment may somehow slow down, negate if not destroy terrorism and the damages it may do for the Philippines and its people.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ANTI-TERROR LAW

The ANTI TERROR LAW is a very dangerous law because it includes broad offenses like “engaging in acts intended to endanger a person’s life” and “acts intended to cause damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place or private property” and such “overly broad offenses” are punishable by life imprisonment. The over broadness of the offenses can make legal acts within the ambit of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and other constitutional freedoms punishable. What is very sad with this is … the legal acts of one which become illegal because of the over broadness of the law is punishable by life imprisonment;

The ANTI TERROR LAW does not respect one’s privacy because it provides for wiretapping as one of the ways of gathering pieces of evidence against would-be suspects, hence one’s constitutional right to privacy cannot be invoked in this respect;

Section 29 of the ANTI TERROR LAW provides that in cases where suspects are arrested without warrant of arrest, the arresting agents or officers cannot be held liable for the delay of the delivery of suspects in court or before the judicial authorities as can be found under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code. This provision can be easily abused by the authorities because the agents or arresting officers may deliver the suspects to the judicial authorities within 14 days from arrest without a benefit of a warrant of arrest and can even be extended for another 10 days without filing cases in court;

Under Section 35 of the ANTI TERROR LAW, the Anti Money Laundering Council Authority is given the power to investigate, inquire into and examine the bank accounts of suspected terrorists or their supporters without or in the absence of Court orders. This clearly violates the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the Philippine Constitution, since the power to investigate, inquire into or examine the bank accounts of suspected terrorists does not follow hearing and notice processes of the courts;

The time within which to conduct surveillance against the suspects, as granted by the court (Court of Appeals) is too long, which is 60 days, and can even be extended for another 30 days. This leeway given to the authorities is too long and too much to gather evidence against the suspects, and may even be subjected to abuse on the part of the government agents or authorities.