Case Study: CPR
The Rush for An Anti-Terror LawUsing the Calibrated Preemptive Response and Executive Order 464, the government crackdown on groups and individuals challenging the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo presidency is in full gear. A people’s lawyer said martial rule will be in full circle once another fascist weapon, the Anti-Terrorism Bill, is signed into law.BY DABET CASTAÑEDABulatlatForcing another controversial vote, the House Committee on Justice approved the final draft of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB) on Oct. 4, in an executive session attended by 31 of its 56 members. This is the same committee that killed the impeachment case against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Sept. 6.Since the voting happened in an executive session, media coverage was not allowed. But a reliable source from the House interviewed by Bulatlat said the committee was deliberating Section 4 (Terrorism; How Committed) of the bill when Rep. Marcelino Libanan (lone district, Eastern Samar) moved that the committee instead vote for or against the Sept. 28 draft.During the last public hearing on the ATB on Sept. 20, the committee deliberated on Sections 3 (on definition) and 4 for about three hours but could not agree on the issue. At that point, one of the bill's authors, Rep. Imee Marcos (second district, Ilocos Norte), moved that the Technical Working Group (TWG) meet to discuss the matter.A check with the committee secretariat showed that the TWG met twice, on Sept. 22 and 28. It came up with the final draft that was voted on by the committee on Oct. 4.The bill is expected to reach the Senate for deliberations this coming week if the majority once again prevails and the ATB is immediately approved during the next House plenary session. Once the Senate approves its own version, a bicameral committee will convene to enact it into law.On Oct. 5, the president certified the bill as urgent following reports of another suicide bombing incident in Indonesia, and persistent military intelligence reports that suicide bombers are now headed for Manila.By rushing the proceedings, the country may find itself with an Anti-Terror Law in the next two weeks.Why the rush?Coupled with the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy that practically bans street protests and freedom of expression and the controversial Executive Order 464 that prohibits public officials (including police and military personnel) to attend congressional investigations, the passage of an ATB makes martial rule in effect, public lawyers said."With this scenario," said Neri Colmenares, convenor of the Counsels for the Defense of Liberties (CODAL), "the president need not declare martial law but would have the same effect as such."Dean Pacifico Agabin of the Lyceum College of Law on the other hand said a formal martial law declaration would push people to go to the streets to defy it. "The president could be wise enough not to declare martial law so the people may still have the impression that we are under a democratic system even if we are not," he said in an interview with Bulatlat this weekend."In other words, the people are deceived into conformity. If martial law remains undeclared, it could preempt people power," he added. "She could rule in a military way without declaring it."Moreover, former Senate president and martial law prisoner Jovito Salonga said the president would not be capable of declaring Martial Law for two reasons: one, because the military is divided, and two, it is toothless under Section 7, Article 18 of the 1987 constitution that states, in part: "In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, (the President) may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President."Interviewed by Bulatlat, Salonga said the 1987 Constitution was drafted against the proclamation of martial law.WorseAgabin also said the ATB pending in Congress is even worse than the U.S. Patriot Act (PA) where it was supposed to be patterned.
He said while the Patriot Act is a law that authorizes electronic surveillance or outlaws money laundering for terrorists, "the proposed ATB will outlaw some forms of people power like we know it."
He said the ATB prevents rallies and demonstrations in public areas and streets - it penalizes any act that would endanger public utility, facility or transport system. The final draft also would consider transport and factory strikes which may become "violent" as "terror acts."For Colmenares, the most dangerous provision in the bill are Sections 8 (Proscription of Organization) and 9 (Membership in a Terrorist Organization). "These provisions are a recipe for frame-up and its purpose is to attack legal organizations," he told Bulatlat.He said these provisions violate the basic criminal principle of "you do the crime, you do the time" which means the criminal responsibility is not with the class but with the individual.Colmenares explains: For example a certain Pedro who is a member of an organization goes out in public and says he committed a terrorist act (that may not even be true), other members of the organization may go to jail for six years even if was Pedro who committed a crime. Thus, a person may go to jail for the acts of another person."And since there's immunity for witnesses, the person who squeals remains safe. This bill has a very loose way of implicating people and has a very nice way of immunizing the implicator," Colmenares said.Attack on oppositionRep. Roilo Golez (second district, Parañaque), one of the bill's principal authors, withdrew his authorship last week and has denounced the bill because it may be meant to be used against opposition lawmakers."This bill must be stopped. It's a draconian measure against the legal opposition," he said.The lawmaker, who also resigned from the president's political party at the onset of the congressional investigation on the "Garci tapes," said this bill would prevent Congress and Senate from investigating anomalies and scandals of the Macapagal-Arroyo administration.He added it is meant to augment EO 464 that is now under petition in the Supreme Court.The bill could also be used to curtail press freedom, Golez said. In Section 7 (Acts that Facilitate, Contribute to or Promote Terrorism), any media outfit that covers a congressional investigation can be part of the destabilization process against the government and will therefore be liable for a "terrorist act".Constitutional crisisThe current hostility between the Executive and the Legislative branches of government due to the CPR, EO 464 and the ATB could lead to a constitutional crisis, Salonga also said.A constitutional crisis, which Salonga said is a crucial moment or a very tense situation due to a breakdown in the relations of the two political departments of government, could arise once one of the two bodies insist on going over the other.Agabin however said this has been defused due the petition filed by the House Independent Block (that includes Bayan Muna, Anakpawis and Gabriela Women's Party) and other civil libertarians to the Supreme Court (SC)."The SC would have the final say on this and both branches of government are bound to follow its ruling," he said.A higher stage of constitutional crisis would however arise if one party does not abide by the SC ruling, he said. Bulatlat
© 2005 Bulatlat ■ Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
http://www.bulatlat.com/news/5-35/5-35-atb_printer.html
This story was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).Vol. V, No. 38, October 30-November 5,, 2005
ANALYSIS
The Enemy Within
The call for a snap election is a sure sign of desperation, not among the opposition but among Mrs. Arroyo’s own allies, many of whom are beginning to realize how incorrigibly focused she is on staying in power, even if it be to the entire nation’s detriment.
By the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG)Posted by Bulatlat
It would be too costly and too time-consuming. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo won’t consent to it. The Constitution doesn’t sanction it. And it probably won’t settle anything.
The call for a snap election is a sure sign of desperation, not among the opposition but among Mrs. Arroyo’s own allies, many of whom are beginning to realize how incorrigibly focused she is on staying in power, even if it be to the entire nation’s detriment.
Two of Mrs. Arroyo’s allies in the religious sector—one is tempted to describe them as among her “staunchest”—Cebu’s Ricardo Cardinal Vidal and the El Shaddai’s Mike Velarde, are said to favor an amendment to the Constitution that would allow snap elections which, depending on how fast Congress can convene into a Constituent Assembly and do its work, could presumably be done within a few months.
When confronted by the media, Cardinal Vidal displayed the kind of moral agnosticism for which some bishops of the Catholic Church are now well-known by refusing to say if he thought Mrs. Arroyo should step down. But he did say when asked what he thought of holding a snap election that an amendment was necessary for it to take place—which of course doesn’t answer the question but evades it.
El Shaddai’s Mike Velarde was not as evasive. Velarde, who expressed his distress a week ago over the unprovoked water-hosing of a group of participants in the October 14 prayer rally that tried to march to Mendiola, did not deny Senator Senator Sergio Osmena III’s claim that he and Vidal favor a snap election to resolve the political crisis.
Velarde’s, and probably Vidal’s, favoring a snap election is in the same category of desperation as former President Fidel Ramos’ advice to Mrs. Arroyo last week that she should cut her term short.
A snap election --if honest and fair-- would very likely confirm the results of several surveys which uniformly show Mrs. Arroyo’s approval rating to have hit subterranean levels. (An Ibon Foundation poll covering September and the first week of October this year, for example, found that her approval rating had fallen to negative 74.7 percent)
Such a result – assuming the election is honest and fair – would lead to the exact same thing Ramos wants: Mrs. Arroyo will have to cut her term short.
The only difference between the Velarde-Vidal proposal and Ramos’ is that Ramos is asking that Mrs. Arroyo voluntarily cut her term short. The Velarde-Vidal proposal would force Mrs. Arroyo, once the results of an honest snap election are in, to step down. The first would be a form of resignation; the second an ouster via an electoral process.
As expected, Malacañang has rejected both proposals and has instead proposed a plebiscite, in the apparent belief that a plebiscite would be easier for Mrs. Arroyo to win.
A plebiscite, in the first place, would have to convince the citizenry to go to the polls merely to answer a question with either a “yes” or a “no.” A snap election would be far more I interesting for them in that they could vote for the candidate of their choice—for either Mrs. Arroyo, or the alternative to her that Ramos said last week was not available.
The question in a plebiscite could be something like “Are you in favor of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s serving the rest of her term until 2010?” but it could very well also be phrased in such a way as to make a “no” practically impossible.
For example, the Commission on Elections that Mrs. Arroyo has in her pocket could frame the question into something like “Are you in favor of (Mrs. Arroyo’s) serving the rest of her term until 2010 as legally mandated by the results of the May 2004 elections and the Constitution?”
Beyond these possibilities, there is also the fact that any “solution” to the crisis that would involve the Comelec would be suspect, that body being in the first place central to the probability that Mrs. Arroyo and company manipulated the May 2004 elections.
In the end, a plebiscite or a snap election, unless the Comelec membership is radically changed and Malacañang is somehow forced not to intervene, would be no solution at all, and can even result in Mrs. Arroyo’s getting one more dubious mandate to add to her 2004 one.
The Ramos proposal Malacañang knows for what it has always been: a disguised call for Mrs. Arroyo to resign. But Mrs. Arroyo did say last July 8 that the package of which resignation later is an important part—Ramos’ declaration of support on the condition that she initiate Constitutional amendments—was acceptable.
It could not have been lost on her that what Ramos was actually saying was that she should resign—though at a later date rather than last July, specifically in the middle of 2006 once a new Constitution is in place and parliamentary elections are held.
That these proposals—all in effect saying that Mrs. Arroyo should step down, if not now, then later—are being made by some of her most important allies suggests that in their heart of hearts even these allies doubt Mrs. Arroyo’s mandate, and worse, that they doubt even more her capacity to surmount this crisis through, among other ruthless but eventually self destructive means, the suppression of free expression and assembly.
Of particular interest is the fact that the Commission on Human Rights itself has stated that it saw no legal basis for the CPR policy and the declaration of Mendiola as a no-rally zone, and that both are violative of human rights. This effectively undermines the regime’s claims that it is on solid legal grounds—in the context of a gathering “second wind” of the Oust Arroyo Movement.
And yet what other alternative does the Arroyo regime have except to withdraw into Fortress Malacañang, given its fear that the whole truth about what actually happened last May 2004 may finally come to light? Unfortunately, it is besieged not only from outside. There are mounting indications that its own allies are beginning to realize that the regime is simply incapable of rationally and effectively defending itself, quite simply because it is in the wrong. The enemy is now within. Bulatlat
© 2005 Bulatlat ■ Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
posted by jef_eleven @ 10:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home