WOmen, labor, peasant and other human rights groups condemn acts of terrorism, especially as it victimizes the poor, powerless, and marginalized of society. In the same breadth, we condemn Senate Bill No. 2540 and House Bill No. 5923 (the “Terror Bills”) which have two (2) fatal flaws: they are unnecessary and too open for abuse.

The proposed law is superfluous. While a grave threat to civil liberties and political rights of the Filipino people, who fought for decades for the restoration and guarantee of such fundamental human rights.

We express grave concern as House Bill No. 5923 and its counterpart version in the Senate is being rushed by the legislature, upon the prodding of the President and the strong lobby of the USAID. We express alarm as this comes in the wake of the passage of similar bills in Japan, Korea and the processing of the same in other parts of Asia. Of course, we already know of the US passing the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, a few weeks after 9/11 and urging other nations to fight “terrorism.” The context by which the bill is being rushed is simple and clear – a US-led campaign on terrorism. By US standards, the campaign has targeted “irresponsible states” towards the “prevention of war,” classifying Iraq among the former. Within states, the campaign has targeted “terrorist individuals”, of Moslem background or of simply foreign origin – “suspicious neighbors”. The campaign has revitalized in their ugliest forms, racism and xenophobia.

The Terror Bills are Unnecessary

The Bills wrongly assume that manifestations of terrorism are not punished or covered by current laws. On the contrary, the abductions, deaths and destruction often cited by Congress as justification for the Terror Bills are all punished by current law. Even the act of giving assistance, financial or otherwise, to terrorists fall well within the present penal framework. Even following the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, acts of terrorism are already covered by existing laws such as the Revised Penal Code (RPC): Crimes Against Public Order, Persons, Liberty and Personal Security, Property; as well as RA 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law), PD 1727 (Declaring as Unlawful the Malicious Dissemination of False Information or the Willful Making of Any Threat Concerning Bombs, Explosives or Any Similar Device or Means of Destruction and Imposing Penalties Therefor), RA 8294 (Illegal Possession of Firearms).

In short, the Philippines does not lack of penal legislation. It does suffer, however, from a severe lack of law enforcement, especially in the aspects involving the investigation of terrorist acts, and the identification, location, and apprehension of terrorists. It is law enforcement, not the existence of laws, which has been the crucial element missing from the state campaign against terrorism.

For instance, in the case of the Abu Sayyaf, a group widely accepted as a terrorist organization, few will insist that the problem with the Abu Sayyaf is that there is no law punishing the abductions, murders, theft, and destruction perpetrated by the group. In fact, current law covers their acts and even allows for the death penalty to be imposed.

The Terror Bills, which Congress threatens to pass, miss this crucial point and assume that we need a new law defining and punishing “terrorism.” We submit that the Terror Bills are unnecessary; no new legislation is needed to address the problems caused by terrorist groups. What is needed is the strict and honest implementation of existing laws.

The Terror Bills are Too Open for Abuse

At the core of the defect of the Terror Bills is the definition of “Terrorism.” It is too broad and consequently infringes upon the citizen’s fundamental rights involving free speech, assembly and association, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to privacy. Consider the following:

· The definition of “terrorism” can cover a broad range of act(s) which aim to influence government. This contravenes our democratic tradition where citizens have the duty to seek redress of their grievances and express their ideas to the government which merely represents them. Hence, under the Terror Bills, as drafted, popular actions cease to be peaceful expressions of people’s sentiment, and become acts of terrorism. Ultimately, the Terror Bills will curtail – not terrorism which is already punished by present law – but people’s actions to express themselves, especially when they take their government to account.

· To make matters worse, “terrorism” as defined by the Terror Bills not only covers consummated acts or those already manifested through overt acts, but also those which merely “threaten” terrorism. Given the already broad range of acts which are made to fall under “terrorism”, the inclusion of mere “threats” of such acts further widens the scope of acts punished even further. Applied to real life, not only are demonstrations by the people considered terrorist acts but the mere threat that such demonstrations will be conducted is considered as terrorism already. Nothing can stifle the exercise of freedom of expression more than such absurdly draconian measures.

· We note that the Terror Bills propose that terrorism as defined therein calls for the application of R.A. 9160 as amended (the Anti-Money Laundering Act), and R.A. 4200 (the Anti-Wire Tapping Act). This simply means that the funds, property, and communication of a person who is suspected of being a terrorist (under the Terror Bills’ broad definitions this can be anyone) can be subject of search and even seizure by law enforcement authorities. We oppose such unprecedented intrusion into people’s right to privacy. People will hardly feel more secure when the authority to conduct such a high degree of interference is entrusted to law enforcement agencies and the judiciary.

· We further note that the Terror Bills extend the inquest period for those accused of terrorism to fifteen (15) days. This means that suspected terrorists can be held without formal charge for more than two (2) weeks. We emphasize the importance of the right to a preliminary investigation or inquest as soon as possible after arrest, which has long protected those wrongly accused of unnecessary detention. There is nothing in the crime of terrorism which should erode this safeguard. On the contrary, given the broad and vague definition of terrorism as well as the government’s continuing penchant to accuse persons wrongly, the security provided by the right to preliminary investigation or inquest should be strengthened.

In conclusion

The national situation, beset as it is by threats and overt acts of terrorism, has to address squarely its problems of law enforcement and corruption in the military establishment. As it is, acts of terrorism (as already penalized in the RPC) are not investigated thoroughly, law enforcement operations are not transparent, and military operations such as that in Mindanao go overboard worsening distrust among groups of people struggling for self-determination.

The Terror Bills now pending in Congress and certified as urgent by President Arroyo miss the point that acts of terrorists are already punished by statute. What is worse, the Terror Bills erode the rights guaranteed by the Constitution as being indispensable to the maintenance of a democratic and free society. People should remain free to express themselves without fear of being tagged as terrorists and held for an extended period of time. People should continue to be able to influence government policy without fear that their communication will be tapped. If only the present laws are honestly enforced, and government agents are free from suspicion that they collude with terrorists, there will be no need to concoct a
new crime called terrorism. By being unnecessary and too open for abuse, the Terror Bills should be junked.

Signed:

AKBAYAN! Citizens Action Party
Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL)
Amnesty International Philippines
Buklod ng Kababaihan – Olongapo
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW)
Center for Agrarian Reform Empowerment and Transformation (CARET)
Center for Migrants Advocacy – Philippines (CMA-Phils.)
Confederation of Independent Unions in the Public Sector (CIU)
Institute of Politics and Governance (IPG)
KAISAHAN
Labor Education and Research Network (LEARN)
Manggagawang Kababaihan Mithi ay Paglaya (MAKALAYA)
Mariners Association for Regional and International Networking Organization (MARINO)
Merchant Marine Overseas Association (MMOA)
National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN)
Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan (PKSK)
Peoples’ Global Exchange (PGX)
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights)
Pinag-isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anak Pawis (PIGLAS)
SARILAYA, Inc.
WomanHealth, Phils.
Women’s Education, Development and Productivity, Research and Advocacy Org. (WEDPRO)

This report attempts a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the Philippines’ membership in the World Trade Organization.

It finds the country deriving no benefits from membership but incurring tremendous costs. Being in this multilateral body has been an unmitigated disaster for the country. Indeed, the appropriate term for the Philippine experience in the WTOfrom 1995 to 2003 is “multilateral punishment.”

Practically all the disadvantages that opponents of WTO membership for the Philippines warned against during the ratification debate in 1994 have come about, even as those who led the country into the organization remain unaccountable for the consequences of their misguided advocacy.

One of the main byproducts of membership has been the erosion of national sovereignty, as the US government took a direct hand in overhauling the Philippine legal system to make it “WTO-consistent.” Strong US influence was exercised either through constant pressure from the US Trade Representatives’ Office and US Embassy or directly via consulting groups such as the USAID-funded AGILE program. The latter was especially the case in the areas of Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs).

Owing to the alignment of our laws with WTO rules, which benefit mainly big northern transnationals, the broad-based diffusion of technology necessary for self-sustaining industrialization has been restricted at the same time that the country, which is rich in genetic resources, has been rendered vulnerable to corporate biopiracy. This process of legal realignment has also eliminated the use of trade policy as a mechanism of industrialization.

The impact of the WTO has been most damaging in the area of agriculture. In one key sector after another—rice, corn, poultry, vegetables—the entry of foreign commodities facilitated by the WTO has resulted in the displacement of significant local production and large numbers of producers. At the same time, membership in the WTO has not protected the Philippines from WTO-illegal restrictions on Philippine exports of products like tuna and bananas imposed by trading powers such as the United States, European Union, and Australia.

Liberalization of agricultural trade combined with a very weak financial and technical support from government has proven to be a deadly formula for Philippine agriculture. State support for agriculture has not even reached the ten per cent de minimis level of subsidization allowable under rules of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AOA). Lack of government support is the main reason why the idea–floated by pro-WTO advocates during the ratification debate–that, spurred by the AOA, Filipino farmers would move into the production of high valued added crops like cut flowers had little basis. Such a shift has high capital requirements, which can only be provided by the state.

The study contends that, contrary to the reigning neoliberal ideology in Philippine technocratic circles, aggressive state support rather than more liberalization is the solution to the worsening crisis of agriculture.

The study finds that the main source of the negative consequences of the AOA for the Philippines is its being a highly inequitable agreement that institutionalizes high levels of domestic support, subsidization, and tariffs for the United States and the European Union. Such high levels of support have encouraged overproduction and the consequent export dumping that has wreaked havoc on the agricultural sectors of developing countries like the Philippines. The AOA has institutionalized a split between the socialized, subsidized agriculture of the North and the unsubsidized free-market agriculture of the South. It is unlikely that reforms will be allowed that will transform the AOA from being an instrument for monopolistic competition between the EU and the US.

In entering the WTO, the Philippines joined a body that is not only blind to development but non-transparent and non-democratic in decision-making. Effective control is exercised by the big trading powers via a process called “consensus,” which disenfranchises most developing countries. Dissatisfaction with WTO decision-making on the part of the developing countries was one of the factors behind the collapse of the Third Ministerial in Seattle in December 1999.

The study finds that it was only through arbitrary procedures, non-transparent mechanisms such as the “Green Room,” and intimidation that the big trading powers managed to get the developing countries to agree to the declaration issued by the Fourth Ministerial in Doha, Qatar, held in November 2001. That declaration launched a limited round of new negotiations for trade liberalization that most developing countries had been opposed to before the ministerial.

The momentum from Doha failed to surmount deep-seated differences. Trade negotiations have ground to a halt less than three months before the Fifth Ministerial, which will be held in Cancun, Mexico. The big fear is that in order to push through further global trade liberalization, the negotiators of the big trading powers will again resort to non-transparent methods as in Doha.

The final section of the report underlines the disconcerting degree of non-transparency in the Philippine government’s preparations for the Cancun meeting. At this late stage, for instance, it is not clear: 1) if the government will tell the WTO that it is maintaining the rice quota; 2) what services it is planning to open up under GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services); and 3) what its positions are on key questions on the “New Issues” of investment, competition policy, government procurement, and trade facilitation.

Clearly, a more decisive approach to the Cancun Ministerial and the WTO–one that faces up to the fact that it is one of the most damaging agreements and organizations our country has entered into–is overdue.

Executive Summary of
MULTILATERAL PUNISHMENT:
THE PHILIPPINES IN THE WTO, 1995-2003
By Walden Bello

The US-lead invasion and occupation of Iraq is illegal

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal judged that “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Consequently, we demand

An immediate end to the illegal occupation of Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom and the immediate withdrawal and removal of all foreign troops, military advisers and representatives, military equipment and armaments.

We insist that

The Iraqi people have absolute and sovereign right to determine their own future and any decision about the need for international assistance rests solely with the Iraqis.

The United States’ and United Kingdom’s occupation of Iraq is illegal, as is any administrative authority or interim government established by the occupying forces. Therefore, any decisions made by the occupying forces or their representatives are not binding on the Iraqi people.

The UN-held escrow Iraqi oil account must not be used to foot the bill for reconstruction of the damage caused by the illegal war and UN sanctions. The funds must be held in trust for the Iraqi people until there is a legitimate and genuinely representative government elected by the people.

While we strongly support independent civil society assistance to and solidarity with the Iraqi people, the United Nations and its agencies, other governments and non-governmental organisations should not serve as a cover to legitimise, or profit from, the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Humanitarian aid must not be used to support or promote the military, political and economic objectives of the occupying forces.

The UN, other governments and NGOs should not use their own resources or public money to replace humanitarian assistance, aid, reconstruction or other development activities which are the legal and moral responsibility of the invading and occupying forces, nor should they characterise as “aid” that which is the entitlement of the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi people have sovereignty over all natural resources and utilities. The invading and occupying forces or their private sector proxies have no right to make any decisions about who controls or benefits from the exploitation of natural resources or the construction and delivery of basic services and utilities.

The full costs of all reconstruction, compensation and reparations for the physical, social, economic, psychological, ecological, cultural and heritage destruction caused by the US-lead invasion of Iraq must be borne by the aggressors.

Reparations for the physical, social, economic, psychological, ecological, cultural and heritage loss, damage and suffering caused by the UN Security Council mandated sanctions must be borne by the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council.

In addition, reparations must be paid to all persons who have suffered physical, economic and psychological loss and trauma resulting from twelve years of sanctions and the 2003 invasion based on individual and collective claims and dispensed by an independent compensation tribunal.

We call for

A Peoples War Tribunal based on the Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg Tribunal principles and precedents to investigate and prosecute the war crimes of, amongst others, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Tommy Franks, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, and John Howard.

International sanctions on the aggressor nations for their illegal, preemptive attack on a sovereign nation.

The United States Government to desist from threats of force and use of force against all sovereign nations.

Focus on the Global South
8 May 2003

Workers from the Alliance of Progressive Labor joined the mass action led by the Kuryente alliance in Mendiola to denounce President Gloria Arroyo’s scheme of lowering electricity rates as inadequate and deceptive.

“The real problem is the existing onerous contracts between government and the Independent Power Producers. Any scheme that would continue to honor the PPA would still be detrimental to the public,” Josua Mata, secretary general ofAPL, said.

President Arroyo, in her Labor Day message last year, announced that PPA charges of the National Power Corporation would be cut down by P1.25 per kilowatt hour but not the PPA of Meralco which is privately owned by the Lopez family.

In a statement, APL said that the government deceived the consumers last year when it lowered PPA charges but lengthened the period of payment from 7-10 years to 15-20 years depending on the expiration of the contracts. The labor group averred that since October PPA charges began increasing again almost monthly, which now total to P3.00 per kilowatt hour more than the previous charges.

The labor group welcomed the Supreme Court decision to uphold the P28 Billion Meralco refund but it has doubts on how the company would refund it and if the poor would really benefit from it. The group is keen on the proposal to convert the refund to people’s shares of stocks and to have a representation in the Meralco board. “This would check further dealings of Meralco that would be detrimental to the consumers,” Mata concluded.

1 May 2003

Even as President Gloria Arroyo leaves the declaration of labor holiday to employers, the Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL) poured in tens of thousands in the streets of Metro Manila, Cebu, Davao and Cagayan de Oro today, May 1.Echoing the cries of their forerunner, the Union Obrero Democratica (UOD), the APL bannered the theme of this year’s celebration “Isandaang Taon ng Tagumpay at Pakikibaka: Wala Pa ring Soberenya, Sistema pa rin ang Problema.”

Josua Mata, secretary-general of APL, underscored the problem of US occupation, especially of Mindanao. “After asserting its superpower status in the Middle East by invading Iraq, now the US is set to keep the Asian peoples reminded of its dominance, by bringing in troops to the Philippines via the Balikatan 03-1. Of course, our own President Arroyo is shameless in inviting the US to our shores in exchange for the dollars that would never come,” said Mata.

“The US poses itself as the angel of death in allegedly fighting global terrorism, by prescribing laws in countries like the Philippines similar to the US Patriot Act, but that would in fact kill organized labor,” decried Congressman Mario Aguja of the Akbayan Political Party. “The anti-terrorism bills should instead be the ones killed in the legislature,” he stressed.

Such “mass killing of human rights and organized labor” is dramatized in a mass die-in by some 10,000 participants to the rally, which started at Welcome Rotonda. Various groups such as AMEND, Amnesty International, CATW, Bisig, Pandayan, Padayon, and Kaalagad, took part in the die-in. “We are lying down in the searing grounds leading to Malacanang, to protest the blatant disregard by this government of the fundamental rights of workers. DTI Secretary Mar Roxas even had to consider the proposal of the Filipino Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industries (FCCCI) and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industries, for a ten-year moratorium on labor strikes and extension of the contractual period to two years,” according to Mata.

The multi-sectoral Task Force May 1 also criticized the “no permit, no rally” policy for May 1, saying that “this government has been consistent in trampling upon fundamental rights to organize and assemble, more especially since Bush, through its messenger Powell, invited us to be part of its unilateral campaign against terrorism.” Further, “The labor leaders Ka Isabelo de los Reyes and Ka Andres Bonifacio might turn in their graves as their very ideal of freedom — or Kalayaan — is being disparaged by this government.”

Task Force May 1 co-convenor Jessica Soto of Amnesty International stated that,“our freedom and our rights are under attack.” Referring to the Anti-Terrorism Bill, Soto said, “these ‘terror bills’ undermine the Filipino peoples’ legitimate struggle for reform and social equity.”