Terrified and petrified

THE violent dispersal of the peaceful protest at University of the Philippines (UP) Cebu on June 5, 2020 stirs up a national debate on the anti-terror bill. Anybody can be a victim, even supporters of the ruling party once there’s an administration change. Clement Corominas, a passerby, was arrested along with Jaime Paglinawan of Bayan Central Visayas, Joahanna Veloso of National Union of Students of the Philippines, UP alumnus Al Ingking, Bern Cañedo of Yanat Cebu, Dyan Gumanao of Kabataan party-list, Nar Porlas of Anakbayan Cebu, and Janry Ubal of Food Not Bombs Cebu.

Once the bill becomes a law, it will wreak havoc incarcerating citizens up to 24 days without charges [Section 29] due to suspicion [Section 3(c), 16, 17(b), 18(a), 29, 30, 32, 33, 45(b), 46(f), 48, 51] and without holding the arresting officer accountable. If the bill is really intended for harmful elements, does the bill terrify the terrorists? Though supporters of the bill are banking on the annex of Section 4(e), it’s public knowledge that advocates, protesters, dissenters, unionists and progressives are red-tagged — branded terrorists. History and current news back up the fury of the people. Why do supporters take this part as gospel truth? The protesters may have been convinced if the state denounced the red-tagging of the people identified in Section 4€, or if the authors of the bill had provided a crystal-clear definition of what a “terrorist” is. A terrorist “shall refer to any natural person who commits any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of this Act,”Section 3(l) says, but interpretations are left hanging — swinging back and forth like a pendulum — dependent on who’s in power after every six years.