Home 
We tend to fudge labels, and we confuse not just the enemy but also ourselves, and it’s costing us plenty. No, no ransom money was paid, just reimbursement for “board and lodging.” But the real point of contention is what to call the Abu Sayyaf. Are they rebel warriors, or are they merely common criminals? That question lies at the heart of the larger debate abroad in the “war against terror,” and on this point, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo deviates from US President George Bush, from whom she usually gets her bearings on these weighty issues.
Government seems to consider members of the Abu Sayyaf as plain bandits, common criminals who merely wave religious banners to cloak themselves with a lofty cause. We agree. Ms Arroyo says “we must remind them that ‘crime does not pay.’” Unfortunately for us, that means that conversely we must grant them all the rights of the accused guaranteed in the Constitution: the right against warrantless arrest, the right to remain silent, to be presumed innocent, and to be convicted only upon proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Moreover, our own anti-terrorism law, the Human Security Act, which enables the government to monitor and investigate terror groups, will be short-circuited by the government’s own position. That law requires some additional elements before a group is considered “terrorist.” The group must have acted “to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.” Given Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita’s denial that ransom money changed hands, do we then prove that it is unlawful to ask to be reimbursed for board and lodging?
On the other hand, if we were to believe the Abu Sayyaf’s claim that they are freedom fighters for the cause of an independent Islamic state, we concede them some propaganda points, but we also subject them to the discipline of international humanitarian law over organized armed groups. If indeed they are the warriors they claim to be, that means they are legitimate objects of military attack in case of armed encounters. In other words, if as mere criminals, they can be executed only after trial, this time, as soldiers, they can be shot in battle without any legal niceties.
If indeed the Abu Sayyaf claims to be part of a larger political movement, then Ces Drilon’s first-hand account provides damning proof that it has violated the international prohibition on the use of child soldiers. She said she and her crew were held by “bandits who were 12 years old, 17 or 15, and they were holding guns…”
We can fudge our answers, or we can face the questions squarely. Ransom was paid. The Abu Sayyaf men are criminals, and they must be brought to justice. And the legitimate political movements of the Moro people, both armed and unarmed, must disown these criminal acts committed in their name but without their blessings. — Raul Pangalangan, Inquirer
