House hearing tackles, clarifies antiterror bill

MANILA, Philippines — Would university students discussing Karl Marx’s or Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas be considered a threat to the state under the controversial antiterror bill?

The question, raised by Quezon City Rep. Jose Christopher Belmonte, was at the center of a hearing Tuesday on the amendments to the Human Security Act of 2007, which rights groups said might be used to quell legitimate protest in the guise of crushing terrorism.

But proponents of the measure said otherwise.

“It’s not the intention [of the bill] to suppress political ideology. As an author, that is not our intention. We believe in freedom of thought… and we should be tolerant of individual beliefs,” said Muntinlupa Rep. Ruffy Biazon, vice chair of the defense panel during the hearing by the joint House panel on public order and national security.

At the same time, Biazon said the state should also recognize the need to “crack down on the activities of terrorists whose purpose is to ruin our everyday lives.”

‘Threats’

Belmonte had asked the unnumbered bill’s authors to clarify the extent to which the measure defined “threats” to national security.

Human rights advocates, progressives, nongovernmental organizations and religious leaders have warned that the House bill may be weaponized against legitimate protest and civil liberties in the guise of combating terrorism.

Former Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, chair of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, criticized as unconstitutional a section in the bill that would give law enforcers up to a month to deliver a suspect to court — a potential violation of provisions against warrantless arrests under the 1987 Constitution.

In February, the Senate passed its version of the bill that seeks to impose tougher penalties, including life imprisonment, on anyone who will participate in, conspire with, or incite others in the planning or facilitation of a terrorist attack.

The measure is still pending at the committee level in the House.

‘Pursuit of political ideology’

At Tuesday’s hearing, Biazon said the “pursuit of political ideology” did not count as a terrorist act, “unless these certain acts [identified in the bill] are committed.”

But Belmonte said the phrasing of certain sections in the bill was too ambiguous, adding that a line describing actions meant to dismantle “fundamental political, economic and social structures,” was one that the state might consider dangerous.

The Quezon City representative warned that some provisions in the bill could be “interpreted very loosely,” such as the definition of “threat to commit any terrorist act.”

“Any member, a student who wants to join a political organization, who wants to discuss Marxism, Leninism, Friedrich Nietzsche, and his concept of Übermensch, or the superman, is suspect,” he said.

But Biazon cautioned Belmonte about “cherry-picking” certain phrases in the bill without considering the full context.

“We must draw the line,” he said. “I’m all for political ideology but when the method to pursue such political ideology is by attacking and causing death, that’s a different matter.”