The Anti-Terrorism Bill of the Philippines (ironically called as the Terror Bill)

In the Philippines, a new Anti-Terrorism Act endangers rights, a special Council would usurp court powers. I agree that the Philippines' anti-terror bill is poised to cause more terror, given the abuse of power we are already witnessing.

Now let this be clear, I am even considered pretty conservative on my political views here in the U.S.A. and I am 100% against terrorism and communist insurgencies. I want it to end too in all ways possible, but the fear is that this Philippine bill can also be used to anyone who is critical of the Philippine government (especially the Duterte administration now) is a legitimate concern. Given that the administration is already consolidating so much power from all three branches of the government. Duterte's minions are holding the majority in Congress and Senate (Legislative) and Supreme Court (Judiciary). They tried to bully anyone who is against them, especially those on the oppositions like the removal of previous Chief Justice Sereno, jailing Senator de Lima, belittling Vice President Robredo who works harder during this COVID pandemic than him, making fun/chilidsh personal attack to Diokno  and more. Even ordinary citizens, inside and outside the country. Like the Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) in Taiwan, our own government tried to deport her for sharing in social media her critical opinions toward the Duterte administration. How ironic and disappointing, Taiwan protected our own citizen from the bullying of our own government. Taiwan refuses to deport caregiver who ‘insulted’ Philippine president on Facebook.

People in our country who posted satirical jokes, disappointments, and frustrations about Duterte and his administration were also arrested without a warrant. A teacher, son arrested without warrant in GenSan over Facebook post. The reason behind their post? Hunger (or fear of hunger) during the enforced COVID quarantine. Also, the warrantless arrest of a teacher over tweet threatening Duterte was considered invalid and the court junks case vs teacher who offered bounty to kill Duterte. All these teachers are charged for citing sedition. I do not condone what they did but even Duterte himself always joke about killing (or seriously, to be honest we don't know anymore, it depends on his mood).

Living in a country where a MAN CAN BE SHOT FOR NOT WEARNING A FACE MASK OR NOT FOLLOWING SIMPLE QUARANTINE RULES, even if he is a retired soldier suffering post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is something to really WORRY about, what more when they passed a law where someone who bought a knife or anything that can be used as a weapon can already be a suspected terrorist (or anyone decided by their chosen Council). It is more ridiculous now for me cause I live in a country where the right of the people to own a gun is even protected by their Constitution, called the Second Amendment. It is not even a gun you need to own in the Philippines to be a suspected terrorist, a knife will do. LOL.

I support the good intentions behind this Anti-Terrorism Bill, everyone who care about their country and is against terrorism will support this bill, as long as it is modified to make sure that it won't be abused. It is a given that any law can be abuse, but with the Executive branch already abusing its power now and them executing this new law later on. We need an assurance that the final form of this law is clear and the best form it can be to avoid or to be sure that it has the tiniest possibility of being abuse. And that is their job as lawmakers to make sure of that. To find the holes and fix it.

So given these circumstances and what is happening now in the country, these are 5 Things to know about the Philippines' Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (these are not my words, from Nikkei Asian Review) :

1. What exactly does this bill say and do?

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 amends the Human Security Act of 2007. It expands the definition of terrorism to include acts intended to cause "death or serious bodily injury to any person," "extensive damage and destruction" to a government facility, private property or critical infrastructure and when the purpose of those acts is to "intimidate [the] general public," "create an atmosphere or message of fear," or "seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic and social structures of the country." Those found guilty face life sentences without the chance of parole.

The act also criminalizes the "threat, planning, training, facilitating of" and "proposal" and "inciting" to terrorist activities by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, banners and emblems. It also subjects suspects to surveillance, warrantless arrest and detention for up to 24 days. In addition, it removes compensation for the suspect in the event of acquittal and boosts the Anti-Terrorism Council, the implementer of the law, whose members are appointed by the president.

2. Why is the government pushing it?

Backers of the bill say the legislation seeks to end terrorism in the country, which is still battling decadeslong communist and Islamic insurgencies. In 2017, Islamic State-aligned militants laid siege to the southern city of Marawi; last year the southern region was rocked by suicide bombings.

Even the lockdown did not stop terror, according to presidential spokesperson Harry Roque, who cited the communist rebels' attacks on soldiers securing the distribution of financial aid and attacks by Islamic militants in late May that led to an evacuation in the country's south that uprooted over 6,000 people.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson, a former police chief and proponent of the bill, said the Human Security Act of 2007 "has proved to fail in terms of its efficacy as an anti-terrorism measure," partly because it's lenient for offenders and restrictive for enforcers.

"Under the current Human Security Act, there are only four instances for terrorists to be prosecuted under the law," Lacson said last year. "On the other hand, there are a total of 20 instances where law enforcers can be charged and penalized for violations of the Human Security Act."

3. Why is it being opposed?

The Philippines' Commission on Human Rights said the broad definition of "terrorism" in the bill "paves the road for possible abuse."

"By this broad definition, starting a fight in a bar could technically be classified as an act of terrorism," said Human Rights Watch, which called the act "a human rights disaster in the making."

The overreach, according to CHR, could also be used "to limit substantial freedoms, including expression of dissent, while [with] the vague and overly broad definition, authorities could wantonly tag [the] exercise of rights as terrorist expressions."

Fears are also on the rise due to the Duterte's administration's history of cracking down on political opposition and the recent arrest of government critics during the lockdown. "It's not about going after terrorists," human rights lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno said, "but critics of this administration."

4. What do businesses and the international community have to say about the bill?

At least 16 Philippine business groups have jointly voiced strong opposition, calling the bill "highly divisive because it poses clear and present danger to human rights enshrined in our Constitution at a time [of pandemic] when our nation needs to come together as one."

Meanwhile, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said the bill "dilutes human rights safeguards, broadens the definition of terrorism and expands the period of detention without a warrant from three to 14 days, extendible by another 10 days. The vague definitions in the Anti-Terrorism Act may violate the principle of legality."

5. What are the chances that it will become law?

Duterte's office received the bill on June 9, giving him 30 days to act on it.

Amid crumbling support for the act -- some lawmakers have withdrawn their backing -- and mounting opposition from businesses, universities and the Catholic Church, the Department of Justice said it will review the bill regarding its potential to violate constitutional rights.

With the bill now on his desk, Duterte can sign or veto it anytime to reflect the executive branch's amendments. If no action is taken on it, the bill automatically becomes law in 30 days.

But given the growing opposition to the proposed law, a legal challenge in the Supreme Court is a possibility.

Once passed, this New Anti-Terrorism Law Would Enhance Duterte’s Power. Here is also an explainer comparing dangers in old law and anti-terror bill. 

To those who will say that anyone against this bill is afraid because they are terrorists, this article answer it: 

[OPINION] Who’s afraid of the new anti-terrorism law? The author was suspected as a rebel at  3 years old. LOL right? But not really. It is not funny anymore when you are the one or someone you love experience it. And with the new law saying you can't complain or sue them (the council and the government) if they commit a mistake of suspecting or identifying you as a terrorist, ruining your reputation, putting you in torture without enough evidence and no need for a warrant. You can't do that here in the U.S.A., I wish the same for the Philippines where individual rights are put on top, protected the most by their Constitution, the government fearing its people and not the people fearing their government (I wish they appreciate it as much as I do as an immigrant, but that would be another topic and post to discuss about 😅 ).

To those who need more and can't analyze enough by themselves (oops sorry! but not really sorry), these are interesting reads:

[ANALYSIS] The Anti-Terrorism Act: Duterte will have all dissenters’ necks

[ANALYSIS] On the Anti-Terror Bill: Beyond constitutionality

What can we do once Duterte signed it into a law or either way it becomes a law? Support the petition that Carpio and the others will file against it! Watch the Supreme Court and pray they will do their jobs and interpret it the way it is, unconstitutional! Let our representatives hear us and let them revised it to the best form it can be, once proven that this law is really needed and the old law is not enough after smart deliberation that we all know. Unlike what happened that they passed it during the COVID pandemic when all of us are busy focusing on COVID issues and more (like China's bullying and militarization in our islands and thanks to Duterte's support and selling us off which again is another topic and post to discuss about 😅).

References:
House Bill No. 3413
Senate No. 1083

2nd Analysis: Song

Can't Take That Away From Me by Mariah Carey

They can say anything they want to say.
Try to bring me down,

but I will not allow anyone to succeed hanging clouds over me.
And they can try hard to make me feel that I don't matter at all,

but I refuse to falter in what I believe or lose faith in my dreams.

Cause there’s, there's a light in me that shines brightly.
They can try but they can't take that away from me.
From me...

No nonooo...
Oh they, they can do anything they want to you.
If you let them in but they won't ever win,

if you cling to your pride and just push them aside.
See I, I have learned, there's an inner peace I own. 
Something in my soul that they cannot possess.
So I won't be afraid and the darkness will fade.

Cause there's, there's a light in me that shines brightly.

Yes, they can try, but they can't take that away from me.

No oh oh...
They can't take this precious love I'll always have inside me. 
Certainly, the Lord will guide me where I need to go.

Woah, woah...
They can say anything they want to say.
Try to bring me down but I won't face the ground. 
I will rise steadily, sailing out of their reach. 
Oh Lord they do try hard to make me feel that I don't matter at all

but I refuse to falter in what I believe or lose faith in my dreams.

Cause there's a light in me that shines brightly

Yes, they can try but they can't take that away from me
From me...
No nono...

2^nd Analysis: Song

                Simple words were used in the song. The song is full of verbs. Positive words composed of adjectives and nouns like “inner peace” and “precious love” contributed to the inspiring mode of the song. It is also composed of compound and complex sentences. As a literary piece, there are words with rhyming sounds in the end like afraid and fade. These words gave a good audio impact to the listeners.

            Cohesion was achieved through lexical and grammatical meanings. Like other songs, some stanzas and words are repeated. The word “they” was mentioned 16 times while the title and the line “cause there’s a light in me that shines brightly” were repeated thrice. This repetition contributes in conveying the song’s message to the listener.Identical words like light-shines, believe-faith, succeed-win, own-possess, down-ground also helps to emphasized the “never give up” theme of the song. There was also a sense relation in the words Lord-faith-soul that stressed God’s guidance. This song is also rich in opposites (cling-push, pride-peace, rise-down, win-lose, faith-afraid, hanging-sailing, light-darkness) which highlighted the composer’s own experiences in life.

            In terms of grammatical cohesion, forward reference can be seen in the first stanza. The word “they” refers to anyone which was mentioned in the following sentence. In the second stanza, “that” refers to light which means the hope inside us. In some stanzas, something is left unsaid in the line “they can try”, it could be “they can try to bring me down” or “they can try to get it”. Simple conjunctions like “and” and “but” were used to connect ideas.

            The first stanza is in present tense except for the line “but I will not allow...”showing the composer’s determination not to give up despite what others say or do to her. The following stanzas are parallel in tenses except for some shifting in the lines beginning in “I” like “I have learned..” and “I will rise...”.

            Through lexical and grammatical cohesion, the song achieved its purpose in inspiring the listeners. Everyone who feels down can relate to the song. Figurative words like light and darkness are also comprehensible even for those who are not that good in English comprehension.

3rd Analysis: Weather Forecast

            In form, this text is full of nouns and adjectives. These nouns are the locations that were specified for public awareness. The adjectives were used to provide visual explanation to the public as well. It is also rich in compound sentences, showing the need to complete all the necessary information.

            In terms of lexical and grammatical meaning, cohesion was achieved through the following ways. First is through repetition, the word country was mentioned twice and since this is a weather forecast from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) we can all assume that the country refers to the Philippines. “Moderate” and “region” were also repeated twice to emphasize the description of the weather and the location involved. Second is through the use of semi-identical words like strong-rough and weather-temperature. Third is the sense of relation in the words “country-region-province”. Fourth is through opposite words such as east–northeast, whole-isolated which was translated in Filipino as “buo” and “pulo-pulo” and the adjectives moderate-rough which refers to the condition of our coastal waters. Last is the association to each other of the words “rainshowers-thunderstorms” and “winds-cloudy”. In addition to grammatical cohesion, the conjunction “and” was used to connect words and ideas in this forecast.

            The whole text is in the future tense since this is a forecast for the whole day that is yet to happen. Compared to the weather news in the newspaper, radio and television there is no entertaining dialogues nor any side comments and suggestion. It is expected to be direct to the point since it is a formal report intended for the general public.

            

1st Analysis: The Limits of Equality by Dr. Cordelia Fine

            In the first sentence of this article, the phrase “Australia’s first female prime minister” immediately catches my attention.  The form of possessive is /Əz/ which indicates possession and is used to highlight the country where Julia Gillard became the first minister. Since Australia is a well-known country, this is a better introductory sentence to catch the reader’s attention rather than just saying that another woman became a prime minister.

Another observation was for the phrase “there are always people who think”, which the author used instead of “there are people who always think”. The first one emphasized the “existence or the number” of these people while the latter stressed the “intensity or way of thinking” of these people. I could only think that the author would like to convey the first message rather than the second. However, it could mean differently based on the reader’s perception. In addition, compound and complex sentences can be seen in the whole article which showed the perspective of the author about limits of equality in relation to her field of expertise.

            This article is a celebration of women’s empowerment and other topics related to gender equality. The use of words in this article helped to convey these messages. Lexical cohesion was achieved through the following ways. First was through the repetition of the words “female” and “women” which showed the main theme of the article. Second, through the use of identical words like fecklessly, ill-advised and ill-equipped which were used to described women’s rights and capabilities before. Third was through inclusion among the terms like prime minister-politics-voting and research-experiments-discovered-evaluated. Fourth was through opposites like heavy-light and people-objects. Last was the association of words like book and sheet that can be seen in the last paragraph of the article where the author sort of advertised her new book.

            For grammatical cohesion, backward reference can be seen in the second sentence of the first paragraph. The word “this” refers to Julia Gillard’s accomplishment. Another two anaphora are the words “they” and “those” of the fourth sentence in the third paragraph. The first refers to the photographed women and the latter refers to the participants mentioned in the preceding sentence. However, CV (curriculum vitae) doesn’t have any reference in the preceding or following text and there is a possibility that some readers may not be aware of its meaning. For conjunction, the phrase “in light of this” in the first paragraph was used to relate the second sentence to the first one. The author also used the interjection “alas” to introduce a research about women’s clothing in the third paragraph.

            In terms of tenses, the first paragraph is in the past tense from the beginning until the end. However, through linguistic clues like “a few months ago” and “a century ago” the time difference of the first, second and third sentence was clarified. On the other hand, the tense of the following paragraphs shifted from one point to another depending on the change of topic by the author. She ended her fourth paragraph using present progressive, this is when she mentioned her new book.

            Since this magazine is more on psychology and the writer herself is a psychologist, all the information provided in this article are all related to science and research. However, to cater the general public, simple words were used instead of highfaluting psychological terms. In sum, this article conforms to the definition of a text since it has a unified whole in terms of register and cohesion.