Unless he has a change of heart, in a matter of days, President Duterte will be signing into law the Anti-Terrorism bill – but, waiting in the wings is a multitude of opponents ready to bring the law to the high court to decide on its constitutional provisions.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 amends the Human Security Act of 2007, which proponents of the bill say has not effectively battled communist and Islamic insurgencies. As Sen. Panfilo Lacson, a former police chief and one of the authors of the anti-terrorism bill, says, the Human Security Act of 2007 has proven to fail as an anti-terrorism measure partly because of its being lenient to offenders and restrictive for enforcers.
Opponents of the anti-terrorism bill point to its contentious provisions, such as the warrantless arrests and 14-day detention of suspected “terrorists” and the creation of an anti-terror council (ATC) under the Office of the President that would determine what terrorism is and order arrests without a warrant, a function that belongs to the courts.
The Anti-Terrorism Act was approved one after the other (in haste, say bill opponents) by the Senate and the House of Representatives. This came on the heels of a letter sent by President Duterte to the House Speaker certifying the bill as “urgent,” and calling for its passage before Congress goes on a two-month break from June 6.
The proposed law awaiting Duterte’s signature defines terrorism as acts intended to cause “death or serious bodily injury to any person,” “extensive damage and destruction” to a government facility, private property or critical infrastructure and when the purpose of those acts is to “intimidate [the] general public,” “create an atmosphere or message of fear,” or “seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic and social structures of the country.” Those found guilty of these acts face life sentences without the chance of parole.
The bill considers as punishable acts planning, training, preparing and facilitating the commission of terrorism, with lifetime imprisonment without benefit of parole; proposal to commit terrorism with 12-year imprisonment, recruitment to a terrorist organization, with lifetime imprisonment without benefit of parole, and providing material support to a terrorist group or individual.
The bill allows law enforcers and military personnel to conduct a 90-day surveillance on suspected terrorists and compel telecommunications companies to disclose their calls and messages; anyone who deletes or destroys the tapes, recordings or notes will suffer the penalty of 10 years in prison. As if offering consolation, the bill does not authorize surveillance of confidential communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and their patients, journalists and their sources.
“This is terrorism against human rights. This is terrorism against our democracy,” said Carlos Zarate, one of opponents of the legislation. He accuses the House leadership of ramming through the “unconstitutional” legislation through Congress.
Vice President Leni Robredo, a member of the opposition, ponders about the real intent of the legislation. She asks, “Is terrorism really the focus of the Terror Bill? Or is it just interested in giving the state the powers to call anyone a terrorist?”
Jericho Nograles, a leading sponsor of the legislation in the House of Representatives, said that under the law “activism is not terrorism,” adding that there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent abuse.
Secretary of National Defense Delfin Lorenzana defends the proposal, saying, “the people need not fear,” because there are civil liberties “safeguards” in place.
The National Union of Journalists through chair Nonoy Espina and Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Domingo Cayosa strongly oppose the passage of the Anti-Terrorist Act. Both issued a statement about the bill’s worsening the “impunity with which many of our laws and rights are violated by the very ones sworn to protect and uphold these by doing away with the stiff penalties intended to prevent any abuse of this legislation’s most draconian measure, the extrajudicial arrest and detention of suspects.’’
The bill, say the heads of the two fundamental rights groups, poses “mortal danger to the principles of freedom of the press and of expression” in Section 9’s defining the crime of “inciting to terrorism” as being committed “by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations of the same” and is punishable by 12 years in prison.
Rep. Raul C. Tupas, 5th District of Iloilo, comments on Facebook that Congress has “meticulously hammered out the legislation,” which took eight years and three Congresses to complete.
The bill has enough safeguards against warrantless arrest, says Tupas. In fact, the warrantless detention of 14 days of suspects pales in comparison with other countries’ warrantless detentions. Pakistan allows 30 days, Malaysia 59 days, and Singapore, 73 days.
* * *
Sen. Riza Hontiveros, one of two senators who voted against the bill, is bent on joining the effort to take the legislation directly to the Supreme Court. She and a group of lawyers and civic groups are already preparing for the legal battle. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio had said earlier that as soon as Duterte signs the legislation into law, it can be questioned directly before the high court.
Senator Francis Pangilinan, the other opponent of the bill, said, “There are serious constitutional questions that the bill raises, particularly with respect to the fundamental rights of Filipino citizens.”
“Under the current authoritarian bent, this will be open to abuse. In the context of what is happening in the country today, clearly, the direction is more toward repression.”
Lawyer Shidik T. Abantas of Mindanao State University College of Law in Marawi questions the power of the anti-terrorist council to order the arrest of suspected “terrorists.” This should be done by judicial courts, he said. As an example, during the arrest orders issued during the siege of Marawi, hundreds of innocent personalities were arrested and later on released after a month for lack of evidence. He said the practice of “planting of evidence is rampant in the police force, making the council even more dangerous.”
Because of the pandemic, voting on the bill had been conducted online, giving way to erroneous counting of votes, according to observers. Several legislators said they actually abstained from voting, but were still counted as among those who voted yes to the measure. These were Sol Aragones of Laguna’s 3rd district; Cheryl Deloso Montalla, Zambales 2nd District; Roman Romulo, Pasig City; Helen Tan, Quezon 4th District, and Manuel Zubiri, Bukidnon 3rd district. Zubiri told a reporter he never supported the anti-terror bill as it has certain provisions he has “reservations” with.
Email: dominitorrevillas@gmail.com