The trouble with terrrorism

I don’t know if the rest of the world knows, but an anti-terror law, the first in the country, has just taken effect in the Philippines. Hooray, right? No, actually, it does not spell any rejoicing, at least as far as human rights groups in the country are concerned, and not until the controversy over it is officially repelled by the High Court.

Republic Act 9372, titled as “An Act To Secure The State and Protect Our People From Terrorism,” took effect on July 15, 2007. Its enaction was prompted not only by global accounts of terrorism, but more importantly, by growing acts of terrorism committed within the country by terrorist groups whose cruel intolerance and inhumane disregard for others’ lives -or deaths (as these persons mutilate dead bodies for reasons only the devil can understand) they disgustingly justify as sacred mandate from their god.

Human rights groups insist, apparently without comprehending the whole text of the law, that the law endangers certain rights of the citizens. The law does no such thing; on the contrary, it provides numerous safeguards from abuse on the part of government officers responsible for the surveillance, arrest, detention, delivery, etc. of persons accused of, charged with, or suspected of terrorism. Such government officers are more likely to be punished with imprisonment than terrorists being captured at all, for if I were an officer, I would hesitate, nay, I would be afraid to even suggest someone to be a terrorist lest I be stripped of my uniform and be sent to jail. The law also provides for a Php500,000 indemnity for persons who are maliciously or wrongly accused of the crime of terrorism. Again, if I were an officer, I would think a million times before I even hint that so-and-so is a terrorist. I would quiver in fear. I would forget about capturing the bad guys because, hell, there is no reward for capturing the bad guys, only a whole lot of trouble for what could have been a simple mistake.

No, I do not agree with the arguments of these biased (where were their loud voices when our soldiers were beheaded?) so-called human rights groups. And I do not agree with the lawyer-journalists who invoke constitutionality as basis for a decalration of nullity.

Even if, hypothetically and for purposes of discussion, there were rights by the citizens trampled upon by this new law, doesn’t the very nature of the crime sought to be prevented call for such trampling upon of rights? The crime of terrorism is a crime against national security (RA 9372, in its declaration of policy, calls terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of nations), to which the State gives the highest regard. In crimes against national security, the very existence of the State is endangered, thus, certain rights of the citizens must yield to the right of the State to prevent itself -and the people -from being annihilated, from being destroyed. The police power, inherent as it is, allows the State to regulate the rights of its subjects in everyday situations, and when the crime is as heinous as terrorism, the State must enforce a stricter regulation. We do not have to be Constitutional Law students to get this. It is simple logic. It is bare necessity.

The law defines terrorism as an act, using as means to commit it the crimes of piracy, rebellion, coup d’etat, etc., that sows and creates a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand. The noisy, cocky people out to sabotage the country say it is a very subjective definition, but let us not forget that terrorism is a subjective term. It is submitted that the law has defined the act as best as it probably could, taking into consideration the fact that terror -panic and fear -is the aim of terrorism (hence the name, doofus). Lawyers who keep fussing about the definition seem to conveniently ignore the fact that so many other laws have more serious and substantive flaws to the point of ridicule. How do they want terrorism to be defined? How many more acts of terrorism do they want to go unpunished, screaming as they do to have the law declared null and void by the Supreme Court?

If there’s anyone who might be caused injustice by this law, it is us, good citizens, and the government itself. The law appears to undermine itself as it overflows with relenting safeguards that might prove to promote the crime and render the law toothless.

If the Supreme Court does decide to have the law abolished, my only hope is that the legislature will choose to make a stronger law, a law that will urge the police, instead of hindering them, to fight our nation’s adversaries, a law that, ultimately, will not be afraid of the crime it seeks to prevent and/or punish. My only hope is that we will win the war against terrorism, and that we will win it soon enough.