Anti-terror bill

EDITORIAL

Malacañang on Tuesday received a copy of the anti-terrorism bill which is now up for President Rodrigo Duterte’s signature, presidential spokesman Harry Roque said. This amid growing opposition to the bill nationwide.

In a virtual press conference earlier in the day, Roque said Duterte has 30 days to act on the legislation, or else it will lapse into law. “We have a 30-day period to review, either to veto or to sign the bill. Otherwise, if the President does not act on it, it will become law,” he said.

Roque acknowledged the growing opposition to the new law, saying it is the President’s decision if the measure would be beneficial to the people’s protection or not. “That will undergo a process. The provisions will be reviewed and if there is anything unconstitutional, the President will be advised if he should veto it or not,” Roque said.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said Duterte is likely to wait for his department to review the measure, adding his department aims to submit its comments on the bill in 15 days.

Roque, addressing critics and detractors, said the measure will have safeguards against human rights abuses. “There are safeguards. First, it is necessary to have a judicial declaration to be classified as a terrorist group,” he said.

He also said law enforcement authorities that abuse the proposed law could face imprisonment of up to 10 years.

Last week, Roque said Duterte will thoroughly review the anti-terrorism bill to ensure that it complies with the 1987 Constitution.

He said Duterte is in no rush to sign the measure meant to add more teeth to the country’s law against terrorism.

Roque also said the anti-terrorism bill would not curtail freedom of speech.

Under the bill, persons who shall threaten to commit terrorism and those who will propose any terroristic acts or incite others to commit terrorism shall suffer imprisonment of 12 years.

Suspected persons can be detained for up to 24 days without a warrant of arrest, compared to only three days under the Human Security Act the bill is designed to replace.

A 60-day surveillance on suspected terrorists can also be conducted by the police or the military, with an allowable 30-day extension.

Video conferencing for the accused and witnesses will also be allowed under the measure.

The Commission on Human Rights will be notified in case of the detention of a suspected terrorist.

The opposition and progressive groups condemned the passage of the measure in the Congress, describing it as an attack on freedom of speech or an avenue for red-tagging.

Catholic Church leaders feared the new anti-terrorism bill threaten the very values of freedom, respect, justice and compassion.

Under the Human Security Act, law enforcers can be fined for wrongfully detaining a person tagged as a terror suspect.

Lawmakers removed such safeguards in the new legislation and authorized surveillance and wire-tapping of any individual on mere suspicion of being an alleged terrorist, even without any evidence of wrongdoing.

The University of the Philippines-Diliman urged the President to veto the bill, saying its provisions contravened the democratic spirit of the 1987 Constitution.

“We note in particular the threat it poses to the freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right against unlawful arrest and arbitrary detention, our right against unlawful searches and seizures, due process of law, privacy of communications and correspondence, the right to information, and the right not to be subject to an ex-post facto law or bill of attainder,” UP Diliman said.

UP Diliman also expressed concern over the broad but vague and expansive definition of “terrorism,” which could cover all forms of dissent, including lawful protests and criticism.

The Jesuits and the De La Salle Brothers of the Philippines also issued a joint statement opposing the anti-terrorism bill, saying it added to people’s anxiety and fears during a pandemic.

 “Many of the provisions under this bill are couched in language that is sweeping and equivocal as to be easily subject to misinterpretation and abuse. Worrisome are the expanded and vague definitions of a ‘terrorist’; the powers given to the Anti-Terror Council to designate a group as a ‘terrorist group’; the weakening of the protection of one’s privacy and the safeguards against arrests and detention without warrants. Instead of being a measure to protect our people, in the wrong hands, this bill can be used to oppress our people,” the statement read.

Guevarra said they will address the concerns of those opposing the anti-terrorism bill in the crafting of the implementing rules and regulations to prevent abuse of the law or misapplication of its provisions.

Guevarra also said that even if he becomes a member of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) that the law would create, this would not affect the independence of the DOJ’s National Prosecution Service (NPS) in hearing terrorism-related complaints.

The ATC, he said, is essentially a policy making body, while the NPS determines the existence or non-existence of probable cause based on evidence presented before it.

In the House, Assistant Minority Leader and ACT Teachers Rep. France Castro derided what she described as the hasty transmittal of the bill to the Palace.

Castro in a statement also urged President Duterte to heed the people's call to junk the bill and veto it.

"The hasty transmittal of House and Senate Leaders prevents more representatives to withdraw their affirmative vote on the anti-terrorism bill amid public clamor against the said bill," Castro said.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros meanwhile said the new version of the Terror Bill has too many provisions that can and will be used to go after not just terrorists, but critics of the government. “The Terror Bill gives undue discretion to the government to interpret its provisions as it sees fit; introduces severe limitations to various fundamental freedoms, such as the rights against arbitrary detention; and removes safeguards in the old law intended to prevent abuse and corruption. First, the definitions in the Terror Bill are open to too much interpretation. In this case, the Terror Law redefines and expands the definition of “terrorist acts” beyond those that cause widespread death and destruction. Now, terrorism includes acts that damage public property, a public space, or private property, or that interfere with critical infrastructure, if intended for the purpose of, among others, destroying the “fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the country” or creating a public emergency or undermining public safety.”

She said of greater concern, even incitements, threats or proposals are now punished under the bill. “So your post on social media talking about how you’re planning a sit-down protest calling for radical redistribution of the country’s wealth on that critical bit of public infrastructure we like to call a sidewalk? Yes, you are a vile terrorist. Give your friends a copy of Les Miserables or the Communist Manifesto? The possibilities are endless. There is just too much room for interpretation.

Second, while the current law already allows an organization to be proscribed or outlawed, the Terror Bill authorizes the issuance of preliminary orders of proscription prior to an organization being given the opportunity to be heard, thus allowing the immediate seizure of its property and the warrantless arrest and detention of its members, a clear violation of due process. While an organization is allowed to defend itself in Court, considering membership is already illegal, showing up will only get you arrested. This shifts the burden of proof to an organization to prove that it is not engaged in terrorism, while under the handicap of its assets being frozen and its members being arrested left and right. The Terror Law also grants the Anti-Terrorism Council, which is under the direct control of the President, the power to designate persons and organizations as terrorist absent judicial oversight. This means the freezing of their assets.”

She said if a top government official is angry at someone, he could label anybody as a terrorist and the innocent could be taken to jail.

According to concerned groups and individuals, the terror bill would create more terror to the people akin to Martial Law or worse.