Anti-terror bill
>> Tuesday, June 16, 2020
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.
Read more...