Palace confident Senate will pass anti-terror bill

Malacañang is not worried over the Senate’s decision to go slow in its deliberations on the proposed anti-terrorism bill, saying senators are generally supportive of the measure and will approve it in due time.

Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye Jr. said the Palace is optimistic that senators will eventually pass the anti-terrorism bill since many of them had sponsored similar measures.

"I don’t think they have rejected it," Bunye said of the anti-terrorism measure. "We understand the position of the Senate in wanting to scrutinize the measure."

He added that "hopefully, after the bill has been objectively studied, the Senate would approve it."

Bunye said the version approved by the House of Representatives has enough safeguards to protect civil liberties, which senators fear might be trampled upon under the proposed bill.

He issued the statement after Senate President Franklin Drilon said Monday the chamber would not be rushed into passing the bill by President Arroyo because senators have to scrutinize the measure thoroughly.

The Senate committee on public order and illegal drugs, chaired by Sen. Manuel Villar Jr., has submitted its report on the anti-terrorism bill but this has yet to be deliberated upon by the entire Senate.

"We will debate on it when we come back in our sessions in 2006," Drilon said.

"We must thoroughly debate this because it involves the possible curtailment of basic liberties in the interest of order and public safety," he said.

Immediately after the House approved its own version of the anti-terrorism bill last week, Mrs. Arroyo appealed to the Senate to "finish the job" of hammering out an anti-terrorism law to enable the Philippines to strike at terrorists and become a stronger link in the global fight against terror.

"We appeal to the Senate to finish the job as a supreme act of patriotism to save lives from the scourge of evil," she said last week. "With enough legal teeth, we can effectively restrain the mobility and strike capability of terror cells here and beyond our shores in cooperation with our allies."

Mrs. Arroyo called on the senators to "affirm our status as a strong global player" in the fight against terrorism, both as a member of the United Nations Security Council and chair of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Counter Terrorism Task Force.

Drilon, however, said the bill must be carefully studied to ensure that it is consistent with provisions of the Constitution, particularly those on the rights of citizens.

He also warned that the bill should not be used to persecute legitimate political opposition, one of the major objections legislators have raised against the bill.

Drilon said it is more important to focus on developing the competence of the country’s law enforcement agencies against terrorists and other criminals.

Maverick Sen. Joker Arroyo said the Philippines should not be compelled to pass an anti-terrorism bill just to satisfy the demand of the United States.

He pointed out that the US has been pressuring the Philippines, along with other Asian nations, to pass similar legislation in order to address the threat of terrorism worldwide.

Majority Leader Francisco Pangilinan told his fellow lawmakers they should "be careful, especially with our present political climate, as to what measure we will introduce to the public."

"It is not enough that we offer the public an immediate anti-terror bill. It is crucial to give them a precise, democratic and legitimate piece of legislation that will uphold their inalienable rights while fighting terrorism," he said.

‘Fine-tuning needed’

The proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005, which was approved on second reading by the House last Wednesday, still needs fine-tuning.

Before approving the measure at about 10 p.m. — just minutes before going on a month-long Christmas season break — majority and minority blocs agreed to reconsider its second reading when Congress resumes session on Jan. 16 so that the bill could be subjected to amendments.

Congressmen — some of whom went on record saying they were eager to go home — skipped the usual period of amendments that a bill goes through before approval on second reading in order to swiftly pass the Philippines version of the United States Patriot Act.

The House spent only two days — Tuesday and Wednesday — on sponsorship speeches, debates and interpellations over the anti-terrorism bill.

Among those who had lengthy interpellations and who wanted to introduce "perfecting amendments" were Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay and Deputy Speaker Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III.

The two expressed concern that the administration, through the police and even the military, could use the many ambiguities in the proposed law to curtail the people’s freedoms and stifle dissent.

Lagman wants to calibrate the penalties for the crimes of conspiracy to commit terrorism, proposal to commit terrorism, inciting to terrorism, making false threats of acts of terrorism, and failure to disclose acts of terrorism.

He said these proposed crimes differ in gravity and should carry different penalties, instead of the common prison term of six years and one day to 12 years as outlined in the bill.

Lagman said a group should not "be penalized and proscribed as a terrorist organization for the terrorist inclination or actuation of a member."

"Suppose a member of a political party or, for that matter, the Couples for Christ, professes that he endorses terrorism or has committed acts of terrorism, will his organization be (classified as a terrorist group)?" he asked.

Lagman warned his colleagues that the present wording of the bill could encourage "contrived infiltration of the membership of a legitimate organization to justify its declaration as a terrorist group."

He also expressed misgivings on another provision that would allow arrests without warrants.

Anak Mindanao party-list Rep. Mujiv Hataman also expressed concerns about the "warrantless arrest" provision.

He has no problem with Lagman’s proposed changes to the provision, save with the third scenario, under which a peace officer with a "reasonable belief" that certain persons were involved in an act of terrorism could make an arrest. He wants the third scenario scrapped. — Paolo Romero, Jess Diaz