Bayan Muna warns: Don’t fall for Anti-Terror Law’s IRR, it’s still unconstitutional
MANILA, Philippines — Party-list group Bayan Muna has warned the public that the Anti-Terrorism Law remains unconstitutional even if its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) supposedly placed safeguards to avoid possible abuse of the law.
According to Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate, people should not fall for the belief that the IRR will cure the supposed vagueness of provisions within Republic Act No. 11479, which amended the Human Security Act of 2007.
“Some have previously entertained hopes that the IRR will cure the ‘constitutional’ defects in the terror law, or at least, alleviate the harsh provisions therein. The IRR was not the cure and in fact only worsened the problem because it seeks to provide an illusion that will make RA 11479 palatable to the people,” Zarate said in a statement on Monday.
“People should not fall for such false assurances that seeks to diffuse the opposition to the terror law. The IRR cannot cure a law that is unconstitutional on its face and inherently evil,” he added.
Instead of safeguarding rights, party chairperson Neri Colmenares believes that Rule 4.3 (b) of the IRR contains similarly vague terms that may be used by President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration to implicate critics and silence legitimate dissent.
“Rule 4.3 (b) of the IRR adds in element of a ‘purpose’ for an act to qualify as terrorist such as, that the ‘purpose’ of an act is to ‘seriously destabilize the fundamental political structure’ which is amorphous at best, and worse, dangerous to dissenters, as President Duterte always sees destabilization efforts from critics, activists and the opposition,” Colmenares added.
“The filing of trumped up cases against activists, bishops and opposition is proof that the President Duterte considers dissent and criticism as ‘serious destabilization’ of his government,” he claimed.
Over the weekend, supporters and critics alike of the Anti-Terror Law have renewed hopes that the said measure — which was heavily criticized — may be implemented differently with the IRR, which was released last Saturday.
READ: DOJ releases IRR of anti-terror law
The IRR clarified using Rule 4.4, that advocacies, protests, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, creative and artistic expressions, and other similar exercise of civil rights are not considered acts of terrorism.
Senator Panfilo Lacson, a supporter of the law even before when it was still being crafted, praised the Department of Justice and other government agencies who took part in forming the IRR.
But Zarate noted that the IRR’s provisions on supposedly “creating and atmosphere of fear” did not openly specify what would be included in such activities — raising speculations that rallies and other legal progressive moves may be included.
“The other purpose mentioned by the IRR that an act whose ‘purpose is to create an atmosphere of fear’ is an element of terrorism is similarly dangerous to dissent,” Zarate explained.
“Because what matters under the IRR is not whether an act, such as large rallies, actually created an ‘atmosphere of fear’, but that the police imputes that the rallyists purpose is to ‘create an atmosphere of fear’,” he added.
As with other groups critical of the Anti-Terror Law, Bayan Muna insisted that the IRR and the law itself would face several obstacles as the provisions supposedly preventing abuse depends on the judgment of a government.
“This safeguard is solely dependent on the government who can withhold this safeguard by merely imputing that the ‘protest, dissent, or creative and artistic expression’ is intended to ‘endanger a person’s life,’” Zarate said, referring to entailing provisions to Rule 4.4.
“The exercise of our freedoms are, therefore, left to the judgement of a government who cannot tolerate dissent and criticism, whether such criticism is against government human rights policies or the wasting government funds in dolomite beautification projects,” he added.
READ: Implementing rules of anti-terrorism law may face legal challenges – IBP
