Solon notes changes made by House secretariat
AN opposition lawmaker yesterday demanded that the leadership of the House of Representatives release a certification that would show how congressmen voted on the controversial proposed “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020” last week.
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, one of those who opposed and voted against House Bill No. 6875, made the call after some lawmakers withdrew support from the bill, including Albay Rep. Joey Salceda who wrote to the Office of Secretary General and asked to reverse his “yes” vote amid the uproar against the measure which critics believe could be used to stifle political dissent.
Lagman has written to House Secretary General Jose Luis Montales for a certification on how congressmen voted “to ascertain the real score of the voting.”
“There appears to be some confusion on the tabulation of votes as evidenced by changes and corrections made in the result of the voting by the attending staff of the secretariat,” Lagman said in the letter.
Lagman said a certified true copy of the voting must be “based on the individual voting in the plenary and by Zoom (app) as recorded in our all members in the Viber community.”
The data he requested includes the names of representatives who voted “yes,” “yes with reservation,” “no,” and “abstain.”
Lagman also asked that the certification include the names of those who subsequently changed their votes.
“A public disclosure of the voting record would also afford representatives to clarify how they actually voted or that they did not vote at all,” he said.
House Bill No. 6875 was approved on third and final reading on June 3 after congressmen voted 173 against 31 with 29 abstentions.
Muntinlupa City Rep. Ruffy Biazon, an administration lawmaker, withdrew his authorship of HB 6875 which seeks to amend the Human Security Act of 2007, saying the House should have come up “with an important piece of legislation that is truly the work of the House of Representatives, not just a mere adoption of the other chamber.”
Bulacan Rep. Lorna Silverio has changed her vote for “yes” to “abstain” while deputy speaker Loren Legarda of Antique said her name was erroneously included in the names of the bill’s authors posted on the official website of the House of Representatives.
Agusan del Norte Rep. Lawrence Fortun, who voted “no” during the hearing, clarified that he was never a co-author for the bill and he was also mistakenly included in the list which was later corrected by the House secretariat.
Bayan Muna party-list Carlos Zarate earlier urged his colleagues who voted for the measure to withdraw their “yes” votes or simply abstain.
The bill, which the President is expected to sign into a laws soon, authorizes wiretapping of suspected terrorists for a maximum period of 90 days as an amendment to the Anti-Wiretapping Law (R.A. No. 4200) and detention without judicial warrant of arrest for a maximum period 24 days of suspected terrorists instead of the present three-day maximum.
It defines terrorism as acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person or endangers a person’s life; intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place, or private property; intended to cause extensive interference with, damage, or destruction to critical infrastructure; engaged in developing, manufacturing, possessing, acquiring, transporting, supplying, or using weapons; and releasing dangerous substances or causing fire, floods or explosions when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate the general public, create an atmosphere to spread a message of fear, provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, or seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures in the country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson, principal sponsor of the bill at the Senate, said those who oppose the measure had a head start in launching the disinformation campaign which led to the wrong notion that the proposed law is oppressive, especially to those who express their sentiments against the government.
He said the one piece of disinformation is that mere suspicion of being a terrorist would mean outright arrest.
“Ang sinasabing mere suspicion puwede ka hulihin, bumabatikos ka sa gobyerno puwede ka hulihin, disinformation yan (They are saying that mere suspicion [of being a terrorist] can be reason for the arrest, and those who criticize the government can be arrested outright are all disinformation),” he said.
Lacson clarified that under the definition, terrorism “shall not include” advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, mass action or similar exercise of civil and political rights.
“That’s very clear… Mag strike kayo, murahin niyo nang murahin si Presidente araw-araw, sa ibang kaso kayo makukulong, hindi sa anti-terrorism (You can hold strikes, you can curse at the President everyday and you will be liable for a different law, not on anti-terrorism),” he added.
On the issue of warrantless arrest, Lacson said a law on this existed even before the HSA of 2007 was passed.
Senate President Vicente Sotto III reiterated that the President will not need to declare martial law in the country, if needed, since the anti-terrorism bill provides more teeth to the law against terrorism.
President Duterte first declared martial law in the entire Mindanao region on May 2017 after the ISIS-inspired Maute group attacked Marawi City.
Sotto also said the Senate did not fast-track the passage of the bill last February. He said he filed the measure in 2018, and the President certified the bill as urgent so Congress can pass it before it takes a sine die adjournment, which started Friday last week.
If the House of Representatives had not passed the bill, Sotto said, they would have to re-file the bill at the opening of the next regular session in July.
He said he is expecting the President to sign the measure within the week.
VETO CALL
The Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches asked the President to veto the bill.
“May our President heed our appeal borne out of our prayerful concern for our beloved Filipino people,” said Bishop Noel Pantoja, PCEC national director.
He said a veto will enable lawmakers to review the measure.
“We believe that, at the very least, the anti-terrorism act needs to undergo a much more extensive process of consultation and deliberation,” said Pantoja.
He said a review of the proposed law is necessary as they believe the measure imperils the rights of Filipinos and their sense of dignity.
“Causing us great apprehensions are the vague definitions of terrorism, and the extended period of warrantless detention (Sec. 29), which opens the way to serious abuses of a person’s rights and dignity,” he said.
“As this act understandably involves the heaviest and most stringent penalties affecting individual persons and organizations, it should have undergone an extensive process of deliberation,” he added.
The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines – National Secretariat for Social Action said the bill will only fuel the “tyranny” of the “autocratic rule of the president”.
“We, at CBCP-NASSA, condemns in the strongest terms, the blatant maneuvering of the legislative processes and the rule of law to suppress legitimate dissent, and to criminalize or to arbitrarily brand as terrorists those who are perceived to be opposing the administration,” said CBCP-NASSA chairman Bishop Jose Colin Bagaforo.
“We denounce the obvious circumvention of the democratic processes just to obey and please the self-interests of the legislators and the autocratic rule of the president,” he added.
POLICE TRAINING
The PNP said it is going to train and educate its men to ensure they will not abuse their powers under the anti-terrorism bill.
PNP spokesman Brig Gen Bernard Banac said the training and education will start right after the President signs the bill into law.
Banac said the PNP Human Rights Affairs Office will lead the effort “so that our policemen will be aware of the provisions” of the measure.
“We are preparing our institution (for the bill once it becomes a law),” he said.
Banac reiterated the points earlier raised by government and security officials in downplaying fears about the bill leading to human rights violations and other abuses.
Banac said the public has no reason to fear the measure because authorities “balanced” the protection of human rights and ensuring peace and order when they crafted the measure. — With Raymond Africa, Gerard Naval and Victor Reyes
