Legislators from the Visayas on Thursday (June 4) continued explaining their votes for and against the anti-terror measure passed by the House of Representatives on Wednesday (June 3) in a sign of the growing controversy that the proposed law now finds itself in.
Some of the legislators who opposed the measure said they voted 鈥渘o鈥 because the bill was being rushed and many members of the House didn鈥檛 get a chance to speak.
The pile of comments now being thrown at the measure, both pro and against, is getting bigger, though.
In Cebu, six of 10 congressmen representing the province鈥檚 districts voted for the bill with one saying he shared concerns over the measure鈥檚 human rights implications but voted for it just the same.
One of the Cebuano legislators abstained from voting on the measure, House Bill No. 6875, while three others haven鈥檛 made public how they voted.
Pro and con
Rep. Raul del Mar, of Cebu City鈥檚 north district, said he voted for the new anti-terror measure because he found the current law, Human Security Act of 2007, insufficient in addressing terrorism because of so many restrictions against the police and military.
鈥淚 believe that the flaws of the Human Security Act must be corrected now,鈥 he said in a statement.
But Del Mar admitted also that he shared concerns over the human rights implications of the measure with its critics.
鈥淭he bill allows warrantless arrests and longer detention without charges,鈥 Del Mar said.
He pointed to a provision in the measure that would keep suspects detained for 24 days without charges as one of the concerns.
鈥淎s a lawyers鈥 group put it, it allows prolonged detention on the mere inkling of involvement and engagement in indefinable acts of terrorism,鈥 said Del Mar.
He said the new measure鈥檚 provision on warrantless arrests and prolonged detention could 鈥渞emedy a current defect鈥 in the existing anti-terror law which allowed suspects to be detained only for up to 36 hours.
Del Mar said the brief detention periods make for 鈥渁n arduous ordeal for police and military investigators鈥 but prolonging it 鈥渕ay also open a huge door for abuse.鈥
鈥淭he provision also flirts with the question of constitutionality because of the Constitution鈥檚 fixed maximum period of three days even when the writ of habeas corpus is suspended,鈥 he added.
Del Mar said an Anti-Terror Council (ATC) composed of top Cabinet officials will perform functions otherwise reserved for courts, like ordering the arrest of terror suspects.
The new measure, he added, also junked a requirement that suspects be presented to judges for examination if the suspects had been tortured.
New crimes
New crimes had been defined, too, said Del Mar. These included proposing or threatening to commit terrorism; planning, training or facilitating terrorism and inciting to terrorism.
鈥淭he latter crime may be committed through speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners,鈥 said Del Mar.
These, he added, risk 鈥減ossible collision with free speech and free press.鈥
Despite the reservations, Del Mar still voted 鈥測es鈥 to the anti-terrorism measure.
He said he did so 鈥渢rusting the assurance of our colleagues鈥 that the new law would not be 鈥渦sed to suppress legitimate acts of dissent鈥 branded as acts of terrorism.
He said he was also 鈥渃onfident that present and future Congress will exercise its inherent power of oversight if, Heaven forbid, this law will be used to oppress our fellow Filipinos.鈥
He added that he hoped officials鈥攎ilitary, police or civilian鈥搘ho would sit in the Anti-Terrorism Council will not abuse their powers.
Badly needed?
Rep. Pablo John Garcia, of Cebu鈥檚 third district, said he supported the measure because the country needed it badly.
鈥淲e need a new anti-terrorism act more responsive to the changing times and the changing tactics of terrorists,鈥 he said.
鈥淲hy now? Because we cannot wait for disaster to strike before we pass a law to sufficiently arm our law enforcement officials against the ever-present threat,鈥 he said in a post on Facebook.
Garcia said while there was apprehension that the measure would be used to violate human rights, half of its provisions were actually about penalties against those who would abuse the law and violate rights.
鈥淪ome quarters have raised the possibility of abuse. I urge them to read the bill,鈥 said Garcia.
鈥淚t even mandates the Commission on Human Rights to give the highest priority to investigating and prosecuting abuse of the law and violation of the rights of suspects,鈥 Garcia added.
He said there was no room in the law to change the definition of terrorism to include legitimate dissent and criticism of government because 鈥渘ot only does the law sufficiently define what terrorism is, but the definition of terrorism is settled in jurisprudence.鈥
Echoes
Rep. Peter John Calderon, of Cebu鈥檚 seventh district, shared the sentiment.
鈥淚 have to support the bill because we cannot afford another Marawi,鈥 he said, referring to the five-month-long war in Marawi City in 2017 on Islamic State forces out to establish a caliphate in the country鈥檚 only Muslim city.
鈥淭he bill has its own safeguards that will prevent violation of human rights,鈥 he added.
Rep. Janice Salimbangon, of Cebu鈥檚 fourth district, said she voted 鈥測es鈥 because she is totally against 聽 terrorism.
鈥淥ur country cannot afford chaos and must be at all times peaceful,鈥 said Salimbangon.
鈥淭here is no place for terrorist in a democratic country like ours. Nowhere in this world can progress be attained in an atmosphere of violence,鈥 she said in a text message.
Rep. Paz Radaza, of Lapu-Lapu City鈥檚 lone district, said she also voted for the anti-terror bill because it was what the country needed.
鈥淲e need a very strong measure, with equally strong check and control mechanism, against terrorism which may strike anytime even during pandemic and other crisis,鈥 she said.
Confidence
Rep. Emmarie 鈥淟olypop鈥 Ouano-Dizon, of Cebu鈥檚 sixth district, said she鈥檚 confident that the bill has provisions against abuse by law enforcers.
鈥淚 voted yes to the bill because terrorism knows no rules,鈥 she said.
鈥淚f we read the contents of the bill, all the needed safeguards and checks and balances are enumerated,鈥 she added.
Representatives Eduardo Gullas, of the first district, Wilfredo Caminero, of the second district, and Vincent Franco Frasco, of the fifth district, could not be reached for comment.
Abstain from rushing
Rep. Rodrigo Abellanosa, of Cebu City鈥檚 south district, abstained from voting, saying there was too little time to discuss the bill.
鈥淢y policy as district representative is to always listen to my constituents while maintaining independence from House blocs,鈥 Abellanosa said.
He said, though, that he felt the bill was 鈥渦nreasonably rushed.鈥
鈥淓verybody was caught flat-footed,鈥 he said in a text message.
Ilonggo vote
In Iloilo, Rep. Lorenz Defensor said he voted against the bill because it violated the Constitution and would open up abuses against people鈥檚 rights.
鈥淚 understand that the fight against terrorism must be intensified,鈥 Defensor said in an interview over Bombo Radyo Iloilo on Thursday. 鈥淏ut we should not compromise the rights of people by mere suspicion,鈥 he said.
鈥淭here are groups of people who express their criticism against government not because they are terrorists but because of poverty, hunger, abuses of government and corruption in government,鈥 Defensor said.
Aside from Defensor, Representatives Loren Legarda (Antique) and Janette Garin (Iloilo) also voted against the bill which has been certified urgent by President Rodrigo Duterte.
Legarda said she was surprised that she was listed as among the principal authors of the bill and had asked the House secretariat to remove her name from the controversial measure.
Garin said she voted against the bill because her proposed amendments were rejected.
Capiz Rep. Emmanuel Billones said he voted for the bill 鈥渨ith reservations.鈥
Aklan Rep. Carlito Marquez said he abstained from voting because there were provisions that were 鈥渘ot clear鈥 to him.
How Representatives Fredenil Castro (Capiz), Ma. Lucille Nava (Guimaras) and Teodorico Haresco (Aklan) voted was unclear.
Representatives Julienne Baronda (Iloilo City) and Michael Gorriceta (Iloilo) also asked that their names to be removed as authors although both voted for the bill along with Iloilo Representatives Raul Tupas and Braeden John Biron.
鈥淚 am solely against criticism and not for curtailing civil liberties,鈥 Biron said in a statement explaining his support for the bill.
鈥淚f there are provisions in the bill that run counter to to the fundamental law of the land, I am confident that these shall be struck (sic) down by the Supreme Court,鈥 he added.
Defensor said the bill is flawed and ran counter to the Constitution from the start.
He cited the provision allowing the arrest of suspected terrorists or those committing terrorist acts based on a written authority issued by the ATC, whose members would be appointed by the President.
Presidential discretion
鈥淚 do not want to leave to the discretion of any President (who should be arrested),鈥 Defensor said. 鈥淭he courts should be the one to decide,鈥 he added.
鈥淚f government is doing nothing wrong, it should not be afraid of the people,鈥 Defensor said.
In Negros Occidental, Rep. Jose Francisco Benitez voted against the bill, saying it would be difficult to protect constitutional rights if the state鈥檚 powers were expanded.
鈥淭his erosion of rights will cause precedence and institutional legacies that may reverse our democratic processes whoever might eventually be in power,鈥 Benitez said.
A total of 173 members of the House voted for the bill while only 31 opposed it. At least 29 abstained from voting.
Benitez said the bill passed without legislators being able to express their apprehensions.
鈥淏ecause there was not enough time for deliberations to refine it, I felt compelled to vote no,鈥 he said.
The other House members in Negros Occidental have yet to disclose how they voted.