Even this late in the day Congress must still carefully scrutinize and examine the proposed "Act Defining Terrorism, Establishing Institutional Mechanism to Prevent and Suppress its Commission, Providing Penalties Therefore and For Other Purposes".
Terrorism really deserves the harshest of punishment. Thus the penalties of life imprisonment or even death under certain circumstances as proposed in the bill, are just right and proper. Considering such severe penalties however, the punishable offenses must be clearly and strictly defined as to avoid the possibility of unjust and cruel punishment. As defined in the proposed law, terrorism mainly consists of planning, threatening or actually using violence, force or any other means of destruction of persons, properties or the environment. The intent of the persons committing any of these acts must be "to create or sow a state of danger, panic, fear, or chaos to the general public, group of persons or particular person, or of coercing or intimidating the government to do or abstain from doing an act".
To determine this intent requires probing the mind of the perpetrator which is humanly impossible. A person inflicting physical injuries on his victim may have no intent to create or sow fear or panic on the latter but if fear and panic ensue, will he now be considered a terrorist as to increase his punishment to at least life imprisonment? To be sure, even mentally imbalanced hostage takers may be considered as "terrorists" under the bill. Furthermore, the crime of grave threats already punishable under the Revised Penal Code as that committed by any person who shall threaten the person or property of another or of the latter’s family with the infliction of any wrong amounting to a crime, falls squarely within the definition of terrorism. So, unless clarified, it would seem that the penalty for Grave Threats will be increased in the proposed bill. And what about threatening another with a weapon or drawing the same in a quarrel that sow or create fear or panic, which is already punishable by the RPC as Light threats, will it be considered as an act of terrorism under the proposed bill? Following the general definition, it may be so considered.
The proposed law’s definition of "terrorism" is too general for comfort. There is a clear and present danger that this definition may be used by the authorities concerned to inflict greater punishment for much lesser crimes. It still needs a lot of clarification so that the sense and connotation of the offense will be limited within the magnitude and concept of the activities similar to the horrible and terrifying acts being perpetrated by the likes of the Al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiya or the Abu Sayyaf and other internationally known terrorist groups.
Another aspect which our legislators should closely examine is the degree of liability of the offenders that seemingly contravenes some basic principles in criminal law. Under the RPC, a conspirator is equally liable as the principal even if he did not directly participate in the commission of the act/s on the theory that "the act of one is the act of all" (Article 8). So is the one who directly induce others to commit it, the mastermind (Art. 17). Following this principle, they should also suffer the penalty of life imprisonment or death like the terrorists themselves. But under section 5 of the proposed law, the conspiracy or proposal to commit terrorism is separately punished with a penalty lesser than the one imposed on the main offenders when those who commit them are supposed to be equally guilty. On the other hand, under Article 18 of the RPC, those who cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts not absolutely indispensable in the consummation of the offense are liable only as accomplices with a penalty one degree lower. Yet in Section 7 of the proposed law, those who "knowingly, willfully and voluntarily facilitate, contribute or promote terrorism" (who are considered mere accomplices under the RPC), have the same penalty of life imprisonment or death as the terrorists. One cannot help but get the initial impression that the proposed law punishes the less guilty with a greater penalty and the guiltier, with a lesser penalty. Our legislators should therefore closely examine these provisions to avoid misunderstanding and oppression.