Why is government bent on passing the anti-terrorism bill now of all times? Why is this so urgent? How can this be more urgent than the COVID-19 pandemic? This has been expressed by netizens in the past few days.

Before the longest lockdown in the world ended and Metro Manila shifted to a lesser strict regime of general community quarantine by June 1 even as cases continue to rise, the government suddenly put to the fore the passage of Anti-Terrorism Bill or House Bill 6875.

How has government tried to fast-track it since Friday, May 29:

  1. On May 29, the House Committees on Public Order and Safety and on National Defense and Security adopted the Senate’s version that was already approved on third and final reading on February 26. Having the same versions approved would dispense of lengthy discussions in a bicameral conference to come up with a unified version. There are least five pending versions of the anti-terrorism bill in the House that were different from each other and all were different from the Senate approved version.
  2. President Rodrigo Duterte certified House Bill No. 6875 as urgent in a letter to House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano on June 1. Certifying the bill as urgent would dispense of the three-day rule between the second and third readings of bills, so it could still be passed before Congress adjourns this week.
  3. In another effort to fast-track the passage of the bill into law, the House invoked Section 54 of its rules, which allows for a motion to close debate after two speeches in favor and one against, or after only one speech in favor and none against if done within the last 15 days before adjournment.
  4. The bill sponsors rejected all proposed amendments aimed at removing the unconstitutional provisions in the bill, in the end keeping a faithful copy of the Senate version.
    1. Magsasaka Representative Argel Cabatbat proposed to exclude isolated acts of people due to “political frustration” from being considered as terrorism, an amendment to amend Section 4 so that vigils, protests that suddenly evolve into riots, disorderly action and looting but without proof that the same was premeditated shall not be considered as of terrorism.
    2. Quezon City Rep. Jesus “Bong” Suntay wanted amendments on Section 15 of the bill that provides lesser penalties for public officials than ordinary citizens even if they commit grave acts of terrorism. The bill only provides administrative offenses penalized with dismissal and perpetual disqualification from government service for guilty public officials. Ordinary citizens could be penalized with life imprisonment without parole or long prison terms.
    3. Suntay also questioned Section 29 that allows warrantless arrests. Under the bill, a suspect may be detained for 14 days for interrogation without a warrant of arrest. The period of detention may be extended if the Anti-Terrorism Council, not the judiciary, finds it necessary.
    4. Agusan del Norte Rep. Lawrence Fortun withdrew as co-author of the bill due to provisions that he found alarming and allegedly “legitimize acts that are against the Constitution.”
    5. Deputy Minority Leader and Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate and Gabriela Party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas, together with Suntay and Fortun, questioned the provision that grants law enforcers a total 24 days to hold for questioning suspected terrorists.
    6. Only a day after Duterte certified the bill as urgent, the Lower House of Congress approved the measure on second reading voting via viva voce (calling out ayes and nays on the floor).

A petition to junk the anti-terrorism bill and uphold human rights have garnered more than 257,000 signatures.

 

HSA a better tool than Martial Law – Esperon

The Duterte administration has been pushing for the amendments of Human Security Act (HSA( of 2007 into the anti-terrorism bill. Key officials in his Cabinet such as the secretaries of Interior and Local Government Eduardo Año and National Defense Delfin Lorenzana and National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon – former top officials of the Armed Forces of the Philippines – have been vocal in their support for amending HSA.

In October 2019, Esperon said another martial law of the then-almost two-year old Martial Law in Mindanao is no longer needed if Congress will be able to pass measures to amend HSA. The HSA gave law enforcement and judicial authorities the legal instruments to combat terror threats in the country, but was seen as a weak law by the supporters and proponents to amending the law.

Esperon described the current law as not “user-friendly.” The amended HSA could become a better tool for them in their anti-terrorism and their anti-insurgency campaign, for which the current moves to amend the law appeared to be directed, than Martial Law. Esperon said that even Martial Law in Mindanao has limitations, as they had to get Congress approval for that.

HSA has been criticized for being ineffective or useless because of provisions penalizing law enforcers with the payment of P500,000 in damages per day of detention of any person acquitted of terrorism charges.

 

Bill tagged as ‘urgent’, ‘very timely’ and fears ‘baseless’ questioned

Duterte in his letter to Cayetano said the call for a speedy passage of the anti-terrorism bill aims to “address the urgent need to strengthen the law on anti-terrorism in order to inadequately and effectively contain the menace of terrorist acts for the preservation of national security and the promotion of general welfare.”

The public, still under a general ‘stay at home’ rule, in the less strict modes of lockdown (GCQ and MGCQ) since June 1, has taken to social media their call to #JUNKTERRORBILLNOW ever since the House Committees approved the bill to send it to plenary.

In the government’s June 1 pandemic response public briefing, Año said the anti-terrorism bill is “very timely so if we return to the new normal, we would already have a law to be enforced and we would no longer have terrorism as a problem.”

Many questioned how the anti-terrorism bill is timely during the time of pandemic, if not to clamp down on critics as the government did using the COVID-19 lockdown.

Meanwhile, Lorenzana said the opposition to the bill is baseless.

“Binasa ko ‘yung panukalang batas, ‘yung karapatan ng tao ay may sapat na provisions at yung law enforcement agencies ay may sapat na kaparusahan sa nag-abuso,” he said.

[I read the proposed law, the rights of the people have sufficient provisions and there are sufficient punishment for law enforcement agencies which will abuse it.]

One of the amendments from the current Human Security Act of 2007 to the proposed anti-terrorism bill’ is that it removed the payment of P500,000 in damages per day of detention to a person acquitted of terrorism charges.

On Sunday, Lorenzana said “This bill was deliberated lengthily by both Houses and all sectors were invited as resource persons during these deliberations. All sides were heard,” he added.

Many decried the provisions of the bill that they find would not only target ‘terrorists’ but ordinary citizens speaking out and protesting against government.

 

Many also found the bill to perpetuate and exacerbate the regime of human rights violations and culture of impunity in Philippine society.

 

Many also vowed to carry on with the fight for basic human rights of the people.

 

Loading spinner

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here