PinoyAbrod.net

“The advancement of broad, vague and overly abrasive definition and legislation relating to terrorism can have the opposite of the intended effect which is that by silencing voices, by cracking down on civil society, by weakening the due process and protections offered by the criminal justice system that doesn’t strengthen the States by rather weakening the due process protections offered by the criminal justice system — that doesn’t strengthen the States but rather weakens it in the long run.”

By ANNE MARXZE D. UMIL
Bulatlat.com

MANILA – A United Nations expert expressed concern on anti-terrorism bill, which now awaits President Duterte’s signature.

In a webinar on June 26 organized by Ecumenical Voice for Peace and Human Rights in the Philippines and other international human rights groups, Fionnuala D. Ni Aolain, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism expressed concern on the proposed law and cited specific provisions that she said go beyond the ambit of international law.

The Philippines is a signatory to the international laws protecting human rights such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among others.

Aolain finds it concerning that an anti-terrorism legislation has emerged in the Philippines amid the present health crisis when, she said, “the regular process, oversight engagement, scrutiny and accountability are often limited and the capacity of the people to engage with the making of the legislation that have serious human rights implications is obviously limited.”

Aolain said globally, there is what she called as an “epidemic” of counter terrorism measures. These measures that are supposed to counter terrorism, she said, have been abused by many governments.

“My mandate has made clear that terrorism is a real and a challenging problem for many States. But advancing and responding to terrorism cannot be done in a way which is not human rights compliant because neither is efficient nor effective in the long run,” she said.

“Security and human rights are not at odds with each other. In fact they are bound together and only when we fully observed human rights will we be capable of fully making society secure in a way that respects the inherent dignity of each single person,” she added.

‘Definition of terrorism is broad’

Aolain cited her concerns on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 which, only two weeks from now, will lapse into law should Duterte not decide on it anytime soon.

She said that specifically the bill is a concern for civil society and civil society actors, for humanitarian action and humanitarian actors, for privacy and freedom of expression and assembly.

For Aolain, the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is “broad vague, lacks legal certainty and precision creating a challenge for individuals to understand precisely what kinds of actions would be designated as terrorism.”

She added that it is susceptible to abuse and compromise a number of fundamental rights under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

She also found it concerning that the law will be implemented by the Anti-Terrorism Council which consists of members of the Cabinet appointed by the President, will be given the authority to enforce, arrest and designation of individuals as terrorist without the judicial warrant. “This is a fundamental encroachment on the most primordial of due process rights,” she said.

“It is also clear that persons who will be designated and arrested under the bill may face lengthy period of time in detention without due process. Such arrest gives rise to the concerns of arbitrary detention,” she added.

She also specifically mentioned Sections 12 and 13  which she said will affect the people’s access to humanitarian assistance, “which is an indispensable mechanism to protect other fundamental rights including social, economic and political rights.”

Section 12 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 states that “Any person who provides material support to any terrorist individuals or terrorist organization, association or group of persons committing any the acts under Section 4, hereof, or knowing that such individual or organization, association or group of persons is committing or planning to commit such acts, shall be liable as principal to any and all terrorist activities committed by said individuals or organizations, in addition to other criminal liabilities he/she or they may have incurred in relation thereto.

“There are grave concerns about the breadth and the scope of the terms ‘terrorism,’ ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorist activities’ as used in the legislation. They are certainly broader than the model definition of terrorism that has been advanced by my mandate through my predecessors over almost 20 years. The definition also seem inconsistent with UN Security Council resolution 1566 which provides a narrow and degrade definition of terrorism,” Aolain said.

Aolain also cited Section 9 of the proposed law, which punishes a person with 12 years imprisonment, even without taking any direct part of the supposed terrorism. She said the acts under this section which prohibit inciting others to commit terrorism by means of speeches, proclamations, writing, emblems, banners or other representations will have an implication on the freedom of expression.

Aolain stressed that this has nothing to do with the exhortation of terrorism.

“May I remind the government that the HRC has made clear that prohibitions on things like encouragement, praising and glorification have to adhere to the requirements of Article 19.3 of the ICCPR. I am concerned that provisions in this law go far beyond that and will have a negative effect on freedom of expression in the Philippines,” she said.

She said that freedom of expression in a democracy is one of the most substantial and meaningful of rights. “It is what distinguishes the democracy from all other forms of governments allowing people to speak even speech that we may disagree with,” she added.

Aolain also underscored the detention without judicial warrant as against the requirements of Article 9 of the ICCPR which, for one, states that “everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”

Under Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, a person who is only suspected of committing terrorist act will be detained up to a maximum of 24 days.

She emphasized that the “advancement of broad, vague and overly abrasive definition and legislation relating to terrorism can have the opposite of the intended effect which is that by silencing voices, by cracking down on civil society, by weakening the due process and protections offered by the criminal justice system that doesn’t strengthen the States by rather weakening the due process protections offered by the criminal justice system — that doesn’t strengthen the States but rather weakens it in the long run.”

Aolain pointed out that people are not more secure and more free with coming up with a legislation which impinges human rights in the name of countering terrorism. She said that governments should advance human rights and ensure that any security legislation is “consistent with the States’ obligations on international law and seek to do the best to promote those values rather than undermine them.” 

The post UN expert expresses concern on anti-terror bill appeared first on Bulatlat.

“Whether they like it or not, the government is responsible for human rights. Not the UN Special Rapporteurs, the civil society. This is the responsibility that they all (States) have signed.”

By ANNE MARXZE D. UMIL
Bulatlat.com

MANILA – The Philippine government has an obligation to protect and uphold the human rights of its citizen, the United Nations experts on Friday, June 26.

Mary Lawlor, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, and Clement Voule, Special Rapporteur on freedom of assembly and association underscored that the Philippines as a signatory to treaties protecting human rights, is obliged to abide by these treaties.

In webinar organized by the Ecumenical Voice for Peace and Human Rights in the Philippines (EcuVoice) and other international rights groups, both Lawlor and Voule dismissed Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque’s accusation that the UN experts are biased against President Duterte’s government.

Roque made the statement after the 31 UN independent experts issued their call for member States of the Human Rights Council (HRC) to sanction the Philippine government officials who “committed, incited, or failed to prevent human rights abuses.”

Voule said that part of their job as Special Rapporteur is to inform the HRC of their findings on the ground and to ensure that the State is aware of it.

He said that the government can better use their expertise if they would only invite these experts in the country to see and implement some of the recommendations that they are putting forward.

“I don’t think the situation will improve in the context where all we are seeing is completely rejected without the proper investigation from the government to know what is going on on the ground, he said.

The Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the by the United Nations Human Rights Council with the “mandate to monitor, advise and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries and on human rights violations worldwide.”

Several Special Rapporteurs have conducted country visits to the Philippines to gather information about the human rights situation in the country. Then Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston visited the Philippines and looked into the human rights abuses under the administration of then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

The recent comprehensive report of the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights has found serious rights abuses committed with “near impunity.” Part of its recommendation is to conduct “prompt, impartial, thorough, transparent investigations into all killings, and into alleged violations of international humanitarian law.”

For Lawlor, the role of the Special Rapporteurs as well as the civil society actors and human rights defenders is to “try to let not the government not to get away (from accountability).”

“Whether they like it or not, the government is responsible for human rights. Not the UN Special Rapporteurs, the civil society. This is the responsibility that they all (States) have signed,” she said.

Voule also said that the Philippines, as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has responsibility to protect its citizens, to guarantee and uphold their rights.

He said that while it is true the UN has no enforcement mechanism, the Philippines as part of the international body is bound to implement the treaties it signed.

“It is also important the any State show their willingness to uphold the principle and value that the international community protects,” he said.

The comprehensive report of the OHCHR will be presented on the UNHRC on its 44th regular session this June 30 to July 20 in Geneva, Switzerland.

Meanwhile, Lawlor encouraged the civil society groups like Karapatan to continue advancing human rights and engaging the international community. She also commended Karapatan’s long history of protecting human rights of the Filipinos.

“You have a right to do this work. It is legitimate. It’s in the interest of building civil and just society,” said Lawlor.

Cristina Palabay, secretary general of Karapatan, vowed that they will remain vigilant and will continue to maximize all platforms to seek justice and accountability.

The post UN experts remind Duterte administration of responsibility in upholding human rights appeared first on Bulatlat.