Duterte to conduct ‘final review’ of anti-terror bill

MANILA, Philippines — While awaiting President Duterte’s signature, the newly approved anti-terror bill will be subject to his “final review” to make sure it does not contain unconstitutional provisions, Malacañang said yesterday.

“That is still subject to final review by the President, to ensure that it is compliant with our Constitution,” presidential spokesman Harry Roque said at a press briefing.

“While it was certified as urgent, it won’t be automatically signed by the President. It would undergo a final review to determine if there are provisions that violate the Constitution before the President signs it,” Roque said.

One of the authors of the controversial measure stressed it will not undermine the fundamental rights of Filipinos.

Puwersa ng Bayaning Atleta party-list Rep. Jericho Nograles explained that contrary to fears of critics, the Anti-Terrorism Act will not be used to crack down on militants and critics of the Duterte administration as it includes necessary safeguards to protect rights enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

“If any police officer violates this law or invokes this law to commit violation, then that police officer will face 10 years jail time,” he told “The Chiefs” on One News TV last Wednesday night.

Roque claimed the measure has enough safeguards to prevent human rights violations. He said the process of identifying terrorist groups would be more tedious than that in other countries as two branches of government – the executive and the judiciary – should have the same findings.

Roque also disputed claims that the approval of the bill was railroaded, noting that the measure was first filed during the 17th Congress.

“The goal of the bill is to defeat terrorism... Terrorists have not stopped launching attacks even if we are grappling with COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019),” he added.

In his interview with “The Chiefs,” Nograles stressed that the measure – passed on final reading by both Senate and House – specifically states that the government “shall uphold the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in the Constitution” and as well as guarantee “respect for human rights which shall be absolute and protected at all times.“

Nograles pointed out that law enforcers who would violate human rights would still be punished accordingly under existing laws and also under the new law.

The lawmaker argued that activism, criticisms of the administration as well as peaceful assemblies and protests are not included in the list of terroristic acts under House Bill 6875, an adopted version of the measure passed by the Senate last February.

He explained that warrantless arrest is not actually new as it is already in existing laws and is just being applied on suspected terrorists.

Nograles further clarified that suspected terrorists will not be automatically arrested without warrant as law enforcement agencies would have to first coordinate with the Anti-Terrorism Council before making such arrest.

The lawmaker said “vague” provisions being questioned by critics could be clarified and addressed in the measure’s implementing rules and regulations.

Oversight powers

He assured critics and the public in general that Congress will have oversight power in the enforcement of the new law to ensure against its being “weaponized” by authorities to stifle dissent.

Nograles urged critics to read the bill first before raising “unfounded issues.”

“Unfortunately a lot of people have not read the bill,” he said.

On the other hand, another author withdrew support for the measure at the last minute and voted against it during final voting in the chamber Wednesday night.

Muntinlupa City Rep. Ruffy Biazon, vice chairman of the House committee on national defense and security, said that the lower chamber should “come up with an important piece of legislation that is truly the work of the House of Representatives” and not just merely adopt the work of the Senate.

“I still believe that we need an Anti-Terrorism Bill. I did not agree either with everyone who spoke against the bill. I believe in some of the concepts. But as a matter of principle, I believe that the House should come up with an important piece of legislation that is truly the work of the House of Representatives,” he explained.

House constitutional amendments chairman Rufus Rodriguez, for his part, voted against the measure, believing it “endangers our civil and human rights.”

“The State should guard against violent terrorist attacks, but should equally uphold the right to freedom of speech, right to peaceably assemble and the Constitution,” the Cagayan de Oro representative said in explaining his vote.

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman also voted against the measure as he slammed the anti-terrorism bill’s “draconian” provisions.

“President Duterte errantly considers more urgent the suppression of sporadic ‘acts of terrorism’ by instituting draconian measures than enacting an economic stimulus package granting relief to distressed people and businesses in the wake of the still raging COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Members of the Makabayan bloc also voted against the measure, expressing fear it would be weaponized against their ranks.

“It would be easy to weaponize the anti-terror bill against critics and members of the opposition because of its vagueness and the broadness of its definition of terrorism,” Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate maintained.

The House plenary approved on third and final reading House Bill 6875 or the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act via vote of 173-31 with 29 abstentions in virtual session last Wednesday.

The same version of the bill, which gives more teeth to the law against terrorism and effectively repeals the Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA), was already passed on third and final reading by the Senate last February.

Under the measure, those who will propose, incite, conspire and participate in the planning, training and facilitation of a terrorist attack could face a sentence equivalent to life imprisonment.

The same penalty would be meted out to individuals found providing support to terrorists or recruiting anyone to a terrorist organization.

On the other hand, a shorter period of imprisonment of 12 years would be imposed on anyone found “threatening” to commit terrorism, inciting others to commit terroristic acts, voluntarily and knowingly joining any terrorism group or association or being an accessory in the commission of terrorism.

Warrantless arrest

Under the bill, a suspected person can be detained without a warrant of arrest for 14 days, extendable by another 10 days, and can also be placed under a 60-day surveillance, which may be extended by another 30 days by the police or the military.

It also designates certain regional trial courts as anti-terror courts to ensure the speedy disposition of cases.

For check and balance and protection of rights of suspects, the proposed measure requires law enforcement agencies to notify the Commission on Human Rights whenever a person is detained.

But the bill seeks to repeal the provision in the Human Security Act of 2007 that awards a sum of P500,000 per day of wrongful detention.

Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Gen. Archie Gamboa is urging critics to give the controversial measure a chance.

“We can only say better late than sorry even if we are the latest country in Asia Pacific to pass a law that criminalizes terrorism,” he said a statement.

“We cannot quantify the loss of lives and property, not to mention the economic impact of a scenario where there is widespread panic and fear should we find ourselves caught in the middle of a terrorist attack,” he said.

Interior Secretary Eduardo Año said only terrorists should be afraid of the Anti-Terror bill.

“The Anti-Terrorism Bill aims to eradicate terrorism from our country. The people have nothing to fear from this bill; it is only the terrorists and their supporters who should fear it,” he said.

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) spokesman Brig. Gen. Edgard Arevalo said there is nothing in the bill that indicates additional power for the military.

“What has been reported to me so far is that nothing in the enrolled bill to be sent to the President for his consideration adds any new power to the AFP,” Arevalo said in a statement.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson said the measure was patterned after anti-terror laws of strong democracies like Australia and the US.

“Terrorism knows no timing nor borders. Some of our country’s policy-makers, especially our people, should know better than just criticizing and believing the massive disinformation campaign against a measure that can secure and protect us as well as our families and loved ones from terrorist acts perpetrated in a manner so sudden, least expected and indiscriminate – as in, anytime, probably even today, tomorrow or next week,” Lacson said. Cecille Suerte-Felipe, Emmanuel Tupas, Romina Cabrera

Related video: