Palace unfazed by withdrawals from terror bill

MANILA, Philippines — Malacañang was unfazed by the decision of some lawmakers to withdraw support for the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act, which some sectors fear would be used by the government to silence its critics and violate human rights.

Presidential spokesman Harry Roque said the bill would be transmitted to the Palace for President Duterte’s signature if “clearly approved” by Congress.

“We leave it to Congress to deal with the decision of some lawmakers to withdraw their votes. I don’t know if it is allowed. When I was a congressman, it seemed that it was not allowed, it was not in the rules. But it’s up to them,” Roque, a former representative of the Kabayan party-list, said at a press briefing yesterday.

“For as long as the bill has been clearly approved, then we expect the bill to be transmitted to Malacañang. For now, Malacañang has not received anything and I cannot comment because I do not know the final version to be transmitted to the President for his signature,” he added.

Duterte has certified as urgent the passage of House Bill 6875, also known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which would effectively repeal the Human Security Act of 2007. The House of Representatives approved the bill last week while the Senate passed the same in February.

Several groups have rejected the bill, saying it is a draconian measure that would allow the administration to run after its critics and stifle free expression. Officials have insisted that the measure contains enough safeguards against abusive practices.

As the bill faced mounting criticism from various legal experts, members of academe and activists, some lawmakers withdrew support for the measure while others distanced themselves from it.

Muntinlupa Rep. Ruffy Biazon, one of the principal authors, said he had withdrawn his authorship of the bill as a matter of principle. Deputy Speaker Loren Legarda and Agusan del Norte Rep. Lawrence Fortun have clarified that they were not authors of the bill.

Asked whether the opposition to the bill would influence the President’s decision on whether to sign it into law, Roque replied: “The President is always guided by what is best for the country. There was no decision that was unopposed.”

Roque said there was never an instance when the President did not veto any item in the budgets submitted to him.

“So the President conducts his own studies. We have an office in the Office of the Executive Secretary, the deputy executive secretary for legal affairs that really looks into all proposed acts transmitted for the signature of the President,” the Palace spokesman said.

Opposing ‘support agencies’ 

In a statement, the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) opposed the inclusion of the Department of Education (DepEd) and Commission on Higher Education (CHED) as “support agencies” in the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC). 

CEAP president Fr. Elmer Jose Dizon and CEAP executive director Jose Allan Arellano expressed “serious concern” to the passage of HB 6875 because of its ambiguous provisions on the extent of support that would be asked of DepEd and CHED.

CEAP, an organization of 1,500 Catholic educational institutions, “registers its objection on the inclusion of the DepEd and the CHED as ‘support agencies’ of the Anti-Terrorism Council in the bill insofar as the provision is unclear on the extent of support that must be given by these government agencies to the ATC.”

“Would it give the ATC, while working with the DepED and CHED, unfettered access to campuses, smoking out individuals or organizations suspected of being ‘fronts’ for terrorist organizations?” it asked.

“Will this spell the demise of free and open discourse in schools insofar as dissent may be pre-judged by state actors as a ‘terrorist act’?” it added.

Kabataan party-list Rep. Sarah Elago urged members of the House and the Senate who voted to pass the controversial measure to join their colleagues in withdrawing their votes in favor of the passage of the bill.

“As we see more and more members of the House withdraw their authorship/co-authorship, and clarify their ‘yes’ votes, we likewise urge the Senate to do the same. We call on House Speaker (Alan) Cayetano to give the members of the House enough time to reconsider their position on the ‘anti-terror’ measure before signing the enrolled bill for the President’s action,” she said in a statement. 

Nothing to fear

Claiming that the public is being misled by false information, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana again gave assurance yesterday that the proposed anti-terror law is not something that peace-loving citizens should fear.

“Activism, dissent to government, demonstrations, peaceful demonstrations, those are not terrorism, those are not covered by the anti-terrorism law,” he stressed.

Lorenzana slammed what he tagged as moves to misinform the public and cause baseless fear of the proposed law when one has not even read its provisions.

“All I can say is, all the misinformation about the Anti-Terrorism Bill, that it’s like martial law – it’s not,” he said in Filipino, adding there are enough safeguards for civil liberties.

Lorenzana said it is not true that law enforcers can simply arrest anyone without probable cause because there is a need for court approval “if the person is a terrorist or not.”

On the issue of warrantless arrests for 14 days, he explained that such needs the approval of the Anti-Terrorism Council.

“Police and military can’t just arrest people. No, it does not follow that way, because terrorism is a class of its own. It is planned in advance, organized, before they do the terror act – those that set off bombs and blow themselves up. That’s who gets arrested,” he told reporters in Filipino.

“Cause oriented groups have nothing to fear, they are not the target of the Anti-Terrorism Bill,” he said. Evelyn Macairan, Michael Punongbayan, Gilbert Bayoran, Edu Punay