"The fight against terrorism will be easier and more effective with a cooperative public that is on the side of government."
"The fight against terrorism will be easier and more effective with a cooperative public that is on the side of government."
The 2020 Anti-Terrorism Bill has now been sent to the President and is just awaiting his signature. We can therefore say that it is good as approved. Maybe Congress should have waited a little to allow for more discussions to satisfy the critics of the bill but apparently decided against it. With the House of Representatives adapting the Senate version in its entirety, what good would a delay really do?
The withdrawal of support from a number of representatives, however, shows that there are legitimate concerns. This development should have been enough reason to allow for more discussions but this did not happen. It is also good public relations.
In many interviews, Senator Panfilo Lacson, who is the sponsor of the bill, has time and again assured the public that there are enough safeguards in the law to prevent abuses by law enforcement authorities and ensure that human rights and civil liberties are protected. I do not doubt his sincerity on this.
When I browsed over the law, what struck me was the thoroughness of Senator Lacson in covering every conceivable aspect of terrorism. This is not surprising. After all, he was a former police officer and investigator. The penalties are also quite severe—mandating life sentences without the possibility of parole for several broadly defined offenses like “possessing objects or making documents connected to terrorism” which is a scary provision.
The law does away with the concept of second chances. It is what one might call a dream law for law enforcers because it makes their jobs so much easier.
Unfortunately, it is also a recipe for abuse.
Remember R.A. 10591 or the Illegal Possession of Firearm Law? There is a provision in that law that punishes anyone who is in possession of just a single bullet. And as we all know, this provision (which the good senator labored to include in the law) has caused a lot of misery to travelers in the hands of abusive airport and other law enforcement personnel.
I can see this happening to the Anti-Terrorism Law, notwithstanding the interpretation to the contrary of Senator Ping Lacson and the assurances coming from the military and police that the law will not be abused.
Look at what happened to the seven demonstrators in Cebu who were arrested and detained. Yes, the police said that the detention was for quarantine violation—but who would believe that? If the police is already appearing to suppress dissent this early, it will be hard for people to believe the assurances of the police.
There is no denying that terrorism has become a serious worldwide problem and we need to have the tools to fight it effectively. In crafting a law, however, we must see to it that we come up with a good law whose provisions cannot be interpreted so broadly. We need a law that would at least not worsen the problem. We should also remember that the fight against terrorism will be a lot easier and more effective with a cooperative public that is on the side of government.
* * *
Due to the pandemic, our transportation authorities have now the opportunity to reform the chaotic road based public transport system in the Metro area. The Department of Transportation for instance can go ahead with their jeepney modernization program. More bus routes can now also be created which will in effect lessen the number of buses along EDSA. Bus and jeepneys routes can be designated by the numbers and can stop to pick and discharge passengers only in designated numbered bus or jeepney stops.
All these, however, will have to be planned thoroughly because route diversification and planning is not so simple. Fewer buses along EDSA will undoubtedly increase the load of the thoroughfare which right now has no uniform figure. What really is the road capacity of the 10-lane EDSA? The width of a standard one-lane road is 3.6 meters. If one stands beside that road and count the number of vehicles passing that spot, the maximum number of vehicles that can pass that point per hour is 1,900. This is according to the Royal Australian Road Board. Why Australian? We do not have our own DPWH standards and the region seems to follow Australian Road Board publications.
In 24 hours, 32,600 vehicles can theoretically use a single lane of road. Multiply that by the 10 lanes of EDSA and we get 326,000 vehicles as the maximum load capacity of EDSA. I do not know what MMDA is using to compute for the capacity of EDSA, but it looks like it is using a different standard since their estimated load capacity of EDSA is less than 326,000.