REBELS OR TERRORISTS?

       RA 6968 defines Rebellion this way:  : "Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection – How committed. – "he crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives."

RA9372 defines a terrorist and the acts that could be labelled terrorism: .- Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code:

a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);

b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);

c. Article 134-a (Coup d' Etat), including acts committed by private persons;

d. Article 248 (Murder);

e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);

f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under

1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);

2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);

3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);

4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);

5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,

6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)

thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

SEC. 4. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. - Persons who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment.

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the same.

Confusing Definitions:

Although these definitions are legally correct, however, the use of the word "rebel" in society connotes a different meaning. To be a rebel, as I knew it in the 60's was to be a nonconformist; to be someone who does not want to be identified as part of a group; as one who has unique ideas; one who dresses up differently; thinks differently from other people. The movies is replete with rebels. James Dean, that movie idol was a rebel. Robin Padilla was labeled a rebel. Richard Gomez performed rebellious roles in the movies. And of course, our very own icon, FPJ performed many heroic rebellious roles, more often than not the masses' hero rebelling against socio-political and religious iniquities . The masses adored them because in the end they produced a feeling of victory over the wrongdoings of other people whom they encountered in the story. 

In other words, the word "rebel" has a kind of a romantic connotation. 

Hence, to say that the terrorists in Marawi are rebels does not bring about that horror that the people feel when watching how they massacre, murder, kill through sniper's bullets, behead their victims. The Isis-inspired terrorists as rebels do not give that "romantic" meaning to the word "rebel" because they are plain violence-prone individuals whose moral view of war is simply to do away with anyone who opposes them. 

Hence when i hear reports that call these terrorists "rebelde" or "rebel" I cringe in uneasiness because they are not heroic people who have any worthwhile ideal to be followed. 

Should we not try to use terrorist instead of rebel, when reporting on these wayward people and aliens in Marawi?