Senate’s war on terror: Bill goes unquestioned by the media

ANOTHER MEASURE broadening the scope of state action to fight terrorism is on the horizon. But the proposed legislation, which was approved on its third and final reading this week, seems to have gone under the radar of media attention.

Senate Bill 1083 seeks to repeal the existing Human Security Act. Two public officials with strong background in law enforcement had complained about this law being inadequate in addressing terror threats. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana described it as “toothless.” Senator Panfilo Lacson, the bill’s principal author, had said that the current law has literally more restrictions on law enforcers than measures that will bring terrorists to justice. 

The Senate’s press release listed provisions for military surveillance, warrantless arrests, extension of detention period and harsher penalties for suspected terrorists. Nineteen senators voted in favor of the bill. Only two senators, Risa Hontiveros and Francis Pangilinan, dissented.

Should the public be alarmed? Or assured of greater protection against terror?  

The high number of deaths under investigation involving police anti-drug operations holds back confidence about the application of yet another law and order campaign. The implementation of such a law raises the specter of human rights violations and the overreach of state power in most of its efforts to enhance national security. Various groups expressed alarm over these issues even before the passage of the Human Security Act in 2007.

Surprisingly, the strong approval given by the Senate happened without much attention from the media. Coverage of the issue barely scratched the surface of the development. Primetime newscasts did not report the bill’s approval at all. In print, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, The Manila Times and Manila Standard published stories, but only echoed the key points in the press release. They also quoted the dissenting statements of Hontiveros and Pangilinan, as well as Lacson’s assurances that the bill provides enough safeguards against abuse.

Online reports largely followed the same formula in their coverage. Only Inquirer.net and Philstar.com sought the side of human rights groups that took exceptions to the provisions of the bill. There was no reference to the lapses in implementation of the first anti-terror act and there was no discussion of whether the country needed a stronger law.

Meanwhile, Sunstar Cebu‘s February 27 editorial noted the context that the passage of the bill comes at a time when “government holds the most expensive intelligence work there is as far as budget goes, at a whopping P4.9 billion.”

With little scrutiny of this development in the Senate, media should follow the counterpart bill in the House which is still pending at committee level. Without media attention, government will not slow down in its apparent plan to track and control the activities of ordinary citizens under the guise of security, and possibly infringe on human rights with impunity.