Public interest

Too often, our legislators hold onto pieces of legislation as if these were favors they may withhold from the administration in order to extract concessions.

Too often, as well, public interest takes the toll from the queer power plays between the branches of government.

Last week, opposition senators threatened to hold in abeyance approval for the budget for the AFP. The intent here was to force the military leadership to go through a ritual of public humiliation for that totally botched "Erap 5" incident.

The senators tell us that this is necessary to protect citizens from abusive behavior by the men in uniform. That is a fairly valid argument. But in the end, we all know deep in our guts, that the unfortunate incident is being squeezed for every ounce of political profit by those whose egos need to be served.

Earlier this week, opposition senators pulled the same act once more. This time they are threatening to withhold action on the anti-terrorism bill.

We are told that passage of the anti-terror bill would further embolden those responsible for the spate of assassination of militants. Many suspect that military and police vigilantes are behind the series of assassinations of militants. The latest victim of assassins is communist leader Sotero Llamas.

Opposition senators argue that if the anti-terror bill is passed, they could be the next victims of what appears to be act of vigilantism.

There is a very serious flaw in this line of argument.

The anti-terror bill does make it easier for the law enforcement agencies to detain people suspected of being engaged in terrorism. But it does not create additional room for vigilantism.

To the contrary, urban legend has it that vigilantism happens when law enforcers become exasperated with the cumbersome procedures of the usual justice system. They put much effort and put their lives on the line to get criminals, only to watch them freed on bail or cleared entirely on the basis of some procedural technicality.

If this is true, then facilitating prompt preemptive action by law enforcement agencies and improving the law so that it may be better enforced should diminish the obscene urge to engage in vigilantism.

The opposition argument for holding the anti-terror bill hostage to partisan whim becomes non-sequitur.

No decent democrat want vigilantism to proliferate. But we all know that vigilantes justify their unusual actions by the conviction that public safety requires them.

It is public safety that is the paramount concern on the matter of the anti-terror bill.

Our penal code and the entire edifice of due process evolved through the 20th century did not anticipate the scourge of the 21st century: the reality that now stares us in the face of clandestine networks animated by fanaticism, with facility of access to lethal weapons and prepared to kill innocents in great number to make a political point.

In this new and frightening world after September 11, 2001, even the most mature democracies have taken extraordinary measures to ensure public safety and contain the threat posed by terrorist networks. For these mature democracies – such as France, the US and the UK – strengthening the preemptive capacities of law enforcement agencies is necessary in order precisely to ensure the survival of open societies.

The international terror networks threaten to erode the gains towards liberty and open societies gained through the evolution of modern civilization. In order precisely to ensure the survival of democracies, the enforcement capacities of democratic states need to be reinforced.

The threat posed by the international merchants of terror is not alien to us. Our trains and buses have been bombed right here in the metropolitan center. Groups affiliated with the Jemaah Islamiya and Al Qaeda have nested in our territory.

We might not relish the thought: but we are on the frontlines of the global effort to contain terrorism.

And because we are a frontline state in this effort there is great international expectation that we do more than what we have already done to combat the threat. Our allies have frequently conveyed that expectation to our government.

Because of the gravity of the threat posed by international terror, we must either step up to the plate, apply the same quality of security effort that others have exerted, or become the weak link in the chain of modern states fighting a war to defend modernity itself.

The safety of our public is of paramount importance, of course. But even beyond that, international obligation adds to the burden of acting quickly on making an anti-terror law available for our enforcement agencies.

In this modern world of open borders and open economies where terror networks use all the modern conveniences to sabotage modernity itself, one weak link in the chain of security means the entire chain is weak. Wherever the terrorists find themselves able to strike a major blow, they strike a blow against all humanity.

If we continue to remain the weak link in the international effort to combat terrorism, that will in effect be an open invitation for the terrorists to exploit our weak defenses and commit their murderous acts here. Abiding by our international commitments in the war against terror is, therefore, the same thing as ensuring the safety of our own public.

Terrorism is a global virus. We should not be the open wound that invites it to enter.

This stupid partisan grandstanding involving holding hostage the anti-terror bill for transient political effect will surely invite international dismay. It will encourage the already damaging perception that our imperfect democracy encourages not statesmanship but partisan pettiness.

I suppose that it cannot be helped that the opposition, scrounging frantically for means to hedge their declining political positions, will pick on anything available to leverage against the administration. But that is not an excuse for completely losing all sense of proportion.