USAPING MIGRANTE: Anti-terror law targets Filipino migrants

USAPING MIGRANTE: Anti-terror law targets Filipino migrants

Take a moment or two, and consider this story line: Two overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) living in Downtown Toronto who decided to “withhold remittances” from bank channels in remitting home part of their earnings in protest against Philippine government inability to address the issue of political killings are charged with economic sabotage and commiting a terrorist act. How does that sound?

This might happen – sooner or later – with the existence of the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007 or Republic Act No. 9372, or Anti-Terror Law. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed the law on March 6, and it took effect July 15 of this year.

To be fair, the intention of the law, which was enacted by Congress, is quite fine: “… to protect life, liberty and property from acts of terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country… and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of nations.”

The intention might sound good, but many provisions of the law – out of 62 sections – provide a chilling indication about the terrible reality of martial law. For instance, section 4 of the HSA defines terrorism as an act of “sowing and creating 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.” This is a very broad and vague definition. How do you measure “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic”? When does this exist? What exactly is a “populace”? What is unlawful demand?

With this vague definition, the HSA is susceptible to misinterpretation and abuse by law enforcement officers. The story line above is not a remote possibility. It may be interpreted as a terrorist act, therefore those two individuals who committed the “crime” are punishable under this law, regardless of the fact that they were “physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines”.

Section 58 of the HSA sets the extraterritorial application of the act. By and large, it means Filipinos (and non-Filipinos alike) found committing the crimes mentioned in this law may be charged with terrorism, or conspiracy to commit terrorism, defined in Section 4 as “when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism… and decide to commit the same.
Migrante-International, an alliance of Filipino migrant organizations, described this “extra-territorial” section as a “double-whammy” for Filipino migrants. Migrante mentioned as backdrop the current marginalized status of many Filipinos outside the country and the “terrorist labeling” of migrants and people of colour, and on the frontline, the existence of this dangerous HSA. Certainly, this awful situation brings to the fore another restriction on the already limited civil and democratic rights accorded to Filipino migrants.

It is reasonable enough for Migrante to say that this repressive law is the latest “export product” of the Philippines. It essentially places all Filipinos overseas under its draconian rule through the “extraterritorial application” of the HSA.

Moreover, the HSA authorizes preventive detention, warrantless arrests, and it allows for unchecked invasion of privacy such as electronic surveillance or wiretapping. A person merely suspected of engaging in terrorism may be arrested without warrant and detained without charges. S/he may be placed under house arrest with prohibition to use any means of communications. S/he may also be subjected to sequestration and freezing of bank deposits and other assets. Remember that this may happen to anyone on mere suspicion that s/he is a member of “terrorist organization.” Remember that this may happen to any Filipino migrant – like you and me.

Section 17 of the HSA sets the provision for Proscription of Terrorist Organizations, Association, or Group of Persons. It basically gives the police or other law enforcement officers the power to brand individuals as terrorists, and punishes them on the basis of “guilt by association.” It is clear this provision is intended for people or organizations critical of the current Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration.

Following the passing of the Patriot Act of the United States, the HSA on the pretext of “war on terror” is short on human security but full of possibilities to trample on “civic, political, economic and democratic rights – in the Philippines and overseas.”

Martin Scheinin, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said in a statement “I am concerned that many provisions of the Human Security Act are not in accordance with international human rights standards.”