Philippines: Anti-terror Act Endangers Human Rights
19 February 2007 6:00 pm

The Philippine Congress has enacted yesterday the controversial "Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from Terrorism" otherwise referred to as the "Human Security Act of 2007".

FORUM-ASIA is alarmed that the passage of the Act amounts to a deliberate reversal of the Philippines' commitment to international human rights. Furthermore, by calling the measure "Human Security Act", the new law poses a direct affront and manipulative misuse of the term "human security" , which has been put forward as an alternative to the traditional concept of national security.The Philippine Congress has enacted yesterday the controversial "Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from Terrorism" otherwise referred to as the "Human Security Act of 2007".

FORUM-ASIA is alarmed that the passage of the Act amounts to a deliberate reversal of the Philippines' commitment to international human rights. Furthermore, by calling the measure "Human Security Act", the new law poses a direct affront and manipulative misuse of the term "human security"^[1] , which has been put forward as an alternative to the traditional concept of national security.

Clearly, the anti-terrorism act prioritizes the protection of national security by emphasizing the political aspect of already-existing criminal acts. The redundancy of imposing stiffer punishment for acts already covered by the existing laws, including the Penal Code, places higher importance on protecting the state from subversive acts, instead of focusing on the roots of ongoing social conflict that threaten security of Filipino citizens.

With such a measure, the Philippine government is given a new tool to crack down on its opponents, including the legitimate political opposition and civil society. And herein lies the real anti-human rights nature of the Act. Its justification for measures against anyone suspected of "terrorism"—through prolonged detention, surveillance, freezing of bank accounts and preventing travel, among others—can be, and have repeatedly been conveniently abused by state authorities given the vague definition of acts considered as "terrorism" under the new law.

FORUM-ASIA regrets that the passage of the Anti-terrorism Act ironically occurs during the visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Mr. Philip Alston. It betrays the government's unwillingness to resolve the ongoing human rights tragedy, which has seen over 200 victims within the term of President Glora Macapagal-Arroyo. Such a death toll has been unprecedented since the Martial Law era. The present wave of killings that escalated in 2005 represents the return of a militaristic counter-insurgency policy of the Arroyo government, which is facing a prolonged crisis of legitimacy stemming from allegations of election fraud in 2004.

In such context the claim of the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Act is an "international commitment" of the Philippines is contradictory. For instead of contributing to the cessation of the unabated killings, which has drawn international criticism, the Act can be used as an additional license for intensifying extrajudicial executions. Already, political and social activists comprise the main bulk of the victims of these executions, which even official investigative bodies have attributed to the military or militia-type vigilante groups.

Moreover it is deeply disturbing that the special session to pass the law was made possible through the release of "pork barrel" funds to legislators who are mostly preparing for the national elections in May 2007. Such tactics by the President and House Speaker's ruling party to convene a quorum of the House of Representatives reveal the transactional character of lawmaking in the Philippines. It is unfortunate that this time the main output of what is essentially a financial transaction between the President and her party mates threatens to further erode the country's prospects for peace and the democratic way of life of its people.

In view of the Philippines' commitments to international human rights law, FORUM-ASIA calls on the President to withdraw her support for the new law. We reiterate the international consensus that solutions to the problem of terrorism should strictly follow human rights norms. There are enough laws to punish crimes in the new anti-terrorism act, if only one had better law enforcement and police work to effectively stop persons or groups from committing so-called "terrorist acts".

In the context of the ongoing insurgencies in the Philippines, FORUM-ASIA asserts that protection of civilians from so-called "terrorist acts" can better be insured with strict compliance with international humanitarian law governing armed conflict. This should begin with educating and disciplining the government's own armed and police forces on these norms in the conduct of their work to ensure security of the people.

Finally we call on the government commit to pursuing the peace processes in order to exact from insurgent groups a higher level of commitment and compliance to human rights and humanitarian law, and to earnestly address the roots of conflict.

Indeed the ominous state of affairs in the Philippines attests to the urgent need for a universal review of its human rights performance by the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which the Philippines sits as inaugural member. The Philippines has made big human rights commitments before the international body, much of which is suffering now from big reversals as evidenced by the new anti-terrorism law.

^[1] Instead of focusing on the protection of the state and its territory, the concept of human security seeks to address threats to the sources of insecurity of the people by promoting "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want".