THREATS
(Statement of Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. at the Senate on October 9, 2006)

May I place on record three threats that I am told have been leveled against my person in the last few days.

The first threat was reportedly aired by a fellow senator who did not like our stand opposing his motion to end the period of interpellation in the anti-terrorism bill.

The threat’s content had to do with his purported intent to slap me and presumably Sen. Jamby Madrigal for her insistence that she should be allowed to interpolate the sponsor of the bill. To make certain that we understand what the sponsor of the anti-terrorism bill threatened to do, let me put on record that our people ordinarily understand the word "slap" to mean hitting the face of a person with an open palm.

Duels

In the olden days, slapping another would be a prelude to a duel whereby the protagonists are supposed to prove their manhood by wounding or slaying one another. That manner of settling disputes, happily, is a thing of the past. In fact, dueling is now deemed a criminal offense in the revised penal code.

Thus, slapping another person nowadays is no longer the way to prove a point. Since civilization has now defined what constitutes good manners and right conduct, people are no longer supposed to prove the validity of their advocacies by clubbing those who hold different views as the prehistoric cavemen did or by piercing them with rapiers. One famous sword duel in France took place on 23 February 1870 between Édouard Manet, the famous painter, and Louis Edmond Duranty, an art critic. In the US, probably the most famous duel of honor involved the use of pistols. I speak of the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr in July of 1804.

Social mores, refined

In any event, I suggest that the refinement of societal mores or conduct in the world brought about by modern civilization has replaced the need to resort to physical violence when ideas clash. Courts of law are there to thresh out divergences of views when these are no longer remediable by extra-judicial negotiations. And naturally, in the halls of the legislature, legislators are expected to settle their conflicting outlooks by rational debate, not by slugging it out in the manner that Manny Pacquiao resolves supremacy in the ring against all challengers with the power of his mitts.

There should, therefore, no justification for threats to use violence and much less for the actual resort to physical combat by the legislators of the land to settle disagreements on matters under discussion in the Senate or in the House.

By submitting ourselves to the restraining influence of civil discourse and debate, we reign in our baser instincts and we are, thereby, enabled to contribute to a more rational, sane and responsible discussion of issues that affect the welfare of our people.

Protecting basic liberties

That said, I would now like to explain the opposition stand against curtailing the right of the senators to ask questions of the sponsor of the anti-terrorism. The stand is based on nothing else but on our desire to ensure that the fundamental rights of our people are upheld and their basic liberties, protected even as we craft a law on terrorism.

In other words, the opposition is not against the enactment of a law that would set out the country’s response to the threat of terrorism. We are not against stamping out the menace of terrorism. We are not against fighting terrorists.

Invalid thesis of advocates

What are we against is the facile excuse being peddled by the advocates of antiterrorist legislations that to do so, we must sacrifice our civil liberties and our human rights. In brief, the simplistic thesis of the proponents of the antiterrorist laws is that it is necessary to desecrate the basic tenets of our democratic institutions just so we can fight the perils of terrorism.

I deny the validity of that view. I believe, for instance, that the bill on terrorism as worded is not at all needed to combat the hazards of terrorism. In fact, as worded, it is more a threat to the lives and liberties of our people than a beneficent legislation that will safeguard the values of freedom, justice and peace that our democratic experiment upholds.

Must menacing bill

The opposition submits, Mr. President, that this bill is arguably the most menacing of all the bills that we have had the privilege of discussing. No other bill emasculates the protective provisions of the constitutional bill of rights. No other bill menaces the poor, the oppressed, the unconnected, the voiceless and the powerless more than the bill in question. No other bill has the potential for abuse by the unscrupulous leaders of the country than the bill that we are considering.

That is why we do not accept the facile argument that we should do away with the period of interpellation because anyway we will have the chance to ask questions during the period of amendments. Such an argument is not even remotely a rational response to the anxieties that we speak of.

People’s questions

We need to ask the questions that our people would like to ask but do have the chance to do so for the simple reason that they are not members of this chamber.

We need to ask the questions as to why we have to subject our people to the possibility of being punished for the crime of terrorism for acts that are already penalized in the revised penal code?

The mass or single killing of people, the bombing of buses, trains, airplanes, water depots and power systems, for instance, are already penalized in the revised penal code. If the penalty for those heinous deeds is considered inadequate, all we have to do is raise the penalty wherever the Constitution allows such a course of action.

Unnecessary option

There is no need to enact another law that would give an option to the powerful to choose which legal device to use in prosecuting suspects of the horrible acts now attributed to terrorists. Because once the option is given, there is reason to believe that the powerful – especially the unscrupulous ones – would use the more potent of the options to attain their ends.

In my opinion, given the choice whether to prosecute suspects based on the same set of facts under the revised penal code or under the antiterrorist legislation, the latter would be the easy option. For example, if an electric power system is burned down, the prosecutor could, if he wants to, prosecute suspects under the revised penal code or, once approved, under the proposed anti-terror legislation.

Unscrupulous option

It is true that the under the latter legislation, the matter of the intent of the perpetrators “to sow panic, terror, etc”, may qualify the act into a terrorist offense.

Thus, while a prosecutor may choose to sue them under the revised penal code, still it is possible that he may – if pressured by his superiors or for some other base motives - choose to investigate them for an act of terrorism. Then, he can get them arrested without a warrant, put them in detention for 15 days, and after 15 days, ask for an extension of time to detain the suspects perhaps on the ground that he needs to gather more evidence against them, and on what would appear to be valid reasons, cause the extended detention of the suspects.

In that manner, the suspects without being convicted by the courts of law would already have been deprived of their liberty for a long period. The horrifying scenario does not end there for the innocent victims of over zealous guardians of our liberties. The prosecutor could sue them in court for being terrorists and there would be no end to their travails in prison until the case is terminated for the simple reason that the case would not be bailable.

To repeat, all the acts that are now defined as crimes committed by terrorists are already embraced in the revised penal code. It is only the addition of words and phrases such as "to sow widespread fear, anxiety and panic among the populace" and to coerce the government to give in to a "given demand" etcetera that stretches the scope and intent of the criminalized acts in the bill to become offenses of terrorists.

Intimidating the citizen

I fear, Mr. President, that the intended legislation may in the end be used to intimidate the citizenry into becoming docile lambs ready to do their bidding. For if the citizen can be investigated on suspicion that he is a terrorist, under the bill, he may be deprived of his basic liberties in the guise of the need to ensure the safety of the citizenry and the security of the State.

Thus, we need to ask why must the armed elements of the government be empowered to pick up Juan, Jose or Pedro surreptitiously or before the eyes of his family without a judicial warrant, detain him for several days simply because in their opinion he is a terrorist or maybe an accomplice of a terrorist?

We need to ask why the nipa hut of Juan or Jose or Pedro or the sophisticated office or home of Paul or Ernest or Frank should no longer be considered his palace so that none is allowed to enter but upon his bidding? In the guise of searching for terrorist materials without a judicial order, the nipa hut or palatial home or the elaborate office of suspects are no longer sacred as mandated by the constitution.

We need to ask why should anyone’s telephone be tapped by the police or the military indefinitely or his or her emails and correspondences be scrutinized because a paranoid government functionary is suspicious that he or she has ties with terrorists?

Indeed, there may be valid reasons to do so but that is precisely why we want to ask questions of the sponsor so that he will tell us the reasons why the anti-terror bill would be worded in the manner he is proposing it to be worded.

Right to question

For the record, all that I wanted to do when I opposed the sponsor’s move to abbreviate the period of interpellation on the anti-terrorism bill was to enable our colleagues who wanted their turn to ask questions of the sponsor. And when they are through, I also would have wanted to have my turn to ask him questions.

In short, the reason why we wanted to avail of the period of interpellation is to discover from the sponsor, himself, the scope, the intent, the rationale, the necessity, the wisdom, the efficacy etc of the proposed legislation. And in the process, probably suggest that certain safeguards against abuses be instituted in the bill.

Why the rush?

But the majority wanted the bill rushed.

In this connection, I wonder why there is a need to rush the enactment of the bill?

It may be admitted that the modern world needs protection from the acts of terrorists.

Still, as the US experience has shown – when they rushed the Patriot Act, the original anti-terrorism bill – the legislators now found out that there is a need for a more thorough debate and judicious discussion of the bill in question.

2nd Threat

I will have other points to raise on this issue the next time around but for the moment, let me proceed to the second threat that was reportedly leveled against me.

I understand that MegaPacific lawyers have threatened to sue me in the courts of law because I continue to raise questions over its deal with the Comelec that resulted in the questionable acquisition of the automated counting machines.

The lawyers are well advised that I raise the questions on what I consider as an anomalous deal that prejudices the people to the tune of over a billion pesos not only as a citizen but as a senator.

I do not intend to be cowed by their threats. I recognize their right to sue any person including myself on this issue. But they are not going to prevent me from speaking on it until we get the redress that our people deserve from the anomalous Comelec-MegaPacific contract.

In fact, we are going to the Supreme Court as soon as my lawyers are ready with our petition. There we will argue until they are blue in the face why we have the right to raise the issues we have made for the benefit of the people.

3rd Threat, no response needed

And finally, another threat of a different kind has been directed at me. I will not honor this threat because it is inherently evil and does not deserve our dignifying it with a detailed reply. One thing is certain: that I won't slacken my efforts to see to it that our people's expectation of the role of the Opposition is done to the hilt. There will be no favors extended or expected in the discharge of our duty as Senators of the land. No amount of threats from any source will prevent us from doing our job: that is to protect the rights of our people to the best of our ability.