Revisions should have been made

So with his signature, President Rodrigo Duterte has signed Senate Bill 1083, also known as the Anti-Terror Bill, into law the other day.

While we agree that terror is a big threat to national security and that any law that helps the country go after terrorists is welcome, we have to say that this bill needed a lot of revision and finetuning before it should have been signed into law.

In a previous editorial we highlighted some provisions that were too vague and sweeping when it comes defining who can be called a terrorist and what can be considered as terroristic activities.

Do we have to bring them up again? Here they are.

Under Section 3(l) a terrorist “shall refer to any natural person who commits any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act.”

As for terroristic activities:

Under Section 4(a) “acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life.”

Under (c) “acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure.”

Under (e) those who “seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country, or create a public emergency.”

Those concerns, as observed by laymen, as well as the other concerns of those with even deeper knowledge of law and engage in its practice, should have been addressed before the bill was signed into law.

The mere fact that many deans and practitioners of law were opposed to some of the wordings should have been enough to convince Duterte and the lawmakers that there were some parts of it that needed to be refined, revised, and fine-tuned.

We foresee that this law will cause so much trouble because of its vague and sweeping definitions. Policemen and figures of authority will literally have a wide interpretation of who is a terrorist. Lawyers will constantly challenge the same vague and sweeping definitions in court.

The mantra that “you should not fear the antiterror bill if you are not a terrorist” will not hold water, because under certain circumstance anyone can be labeled a terrorist.

Again, the reasoning behind the bill is sound, but some parts of it should have been scrutinized more closely before it was signed into law.