Andrew Wood, Pitt Law '08, files from Manila:

As governments around the world work hard to implement legislation to aid in fighting terrorism, some common effects of such legislation are predictable and even inevitable; it is the nature of any anti-terrorism measure to both empower the executive branch and detract from civil rights. People are often willing to sacrifice some of their freedoms if they believe that it is necessary to achieve peace. But for many Filipinos, the Human Security Act of 2007 shares a concern common to much of the country's legislation: the threat of abuse by the executive power. The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and civil rights groups have called for the government to revisit the legislation, and address potential areas of abuse.

The Philippine government has responded to the criticism by preparing to launch public campaigns supporting the anti-terrorism measure to raise awareness of the benefits it will yield. The Arroyo administration has chosen to forego the calls of civil rights groups, and is urging people to accept the potential flaws of the Act and just trust them. As Secretary Ignacio Bunye said in an official statement, "Rather than criticizing government for lapses in a law that has yet to be implemented, let us join hands in fighting terror." But isn't this the point of legislative debate in a democracy? To be sure that enacted legislation will best serve the people?

It would be hard to argue that some form of anti-terrorism legislation is not needed in the Philippines. Terrorism is very real here; the presence of extremist groups such as the Abu Sayyaf is the prime example. Daily updates in the newspapers follow developments in the recent kidnapping of an Italian Priest in the south of the country. Most recently 14 Filipino marines who attempted to rescue him were killed. Also recently, last month the US ambassador paid $10 million USD to four members of the Abu Sayyaf who provided information leading to the death of two terrorist leaders.

Opponents of the anti-terrorism law do not deny that terrorism exists and should be combated, but they suggest that the scope of the law should be limited so that references to ethnic and political minorities are eliminated. For example, the Communist Party of the Philippines and its guerilla wing, the New Peoples' Army, would be at high risk of being added to the terror list, and depending on who you talk to, this is arguably a good thing. But what about the individuals that are merely suspected of being affiliated with such groups? And what about political opponents that fear the law will be misused to persecute them for voicing dissenting political views? In a country where many feel helpless and lack faith and trust in their President, the civil rights implications are huge. As a local human rights lawyer recently told me when comparing the US to the Philippines, "Even if one disagrees with the Bush administration, I would trust Bush a hundred times more than Arroyo or any other developing country's leader when it comes to enforcement of the law and the potential abuse of power." With the Act set to be implemented this Sunday, the near future should be very telling for human rights and the rule of law in the Philippines.