The better option

After the Supreme Court recently affirmed its constitutionality, the Department of Justice said there seems to be no more impediment to the implementation of the controversial Anti-Terror Law.

In previous editorials we agreed with some critics who pointed out gray areas and some provisions that can be open to not just interpretations but grave misinterpretations as well.

A “wide” description of terrorist acts still includes causing damage to critical infrastructure, or destabilizing the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country. While a terrorist includes someone who intends “to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life.”

With the statement that there seems to be no more roadblocks, Justice Undersecretary Adrian Sugay also said that certain provisions in the law can still be questioned even if the Supreme Court already declared its constitutionality.

“There are enough safeguards. So, if something is seen as not right in the law’s implementation, that can be questioned --before the prosecutor, during preliminary investigation and in court if a case has been filed,” he was reported as saying.

That’s all well and good. But by the time someone sees the safeguards or brings an issue to question about this particular law --before a prosecutor as Undersecretary Sugay says-damage could have already been unduly done to an individual. His or her assets may have already been frozen and his or her name besmirched.

Not to mention the money and resources that may have been spent trying to prove something, considering a case has been filed against him or her. Someone can get his or her day in court just because a law was vague on something.

Don’t get us wrong, we are not against the Anti-terror law per se. We believe terrorists --those real and not imagined-- should be found, arrested, charged prosecuted, and jailed.

However, we believe there are still some provisions that need to be fine-tuned before it sees implementation, as many of its sweeping descriptions about terrorism and terrorists can be used by some people to target or harass others.

If we can avoid taking someone to the prosecutor or the court because of some vague provisions in the law, certainly that would be the better option.