DOJ ‘to expedite’ review of Anti-Terrorism Bill

MANILA, Philippines — The Department of Justice (DOJ) is planning to expedite its review of the terror bill given that the President had certified the measure as urgent, according to Undersecretary Markk Perete.

Malacañang is expected to seek the DOJ’s opinion on the measure, which has met with opposition from various sectors who fear that its definition of terrorism is too broad and vague and that it could be used to crack down on dissent.

“We hope to expedite as well our opinion on this proposed legislation precisely because we understand that the President has also certified the bill as urgent,” Perete said in the televised briefing on Monday.

Suppressing dissent

The official declined to discuss the bill in detail pending the DOJ review, but he responded to concerns that it could be used to label activists as terrorists.

Perete said a cursory reading of the provisions of the measure showed that a lot of elements must be present before an act could be considered a terrorist act. One provision, he said, stated that it did not in essence stifle dissent, opposition, or criticism against the government.

“So that should somehow calm the concerns of certain quarters over the possible abuses that could be committed using the proposed antiterrorism act,” he said.

Perete also said the bill had been pending for some time, even before the new coronavirus pandemic.

“Even at the start of the pandemic, the agencies involved in national security have been very alert and have repeatedly informed us that we should not stop being vigilant against possible terrorist activities, especially because in times of a pandemic, they might exploit this chance,” he said.

The bill cleared the House of Representatives last Wednesday, but 15 lawmakers withdrew as coauthors of the measure and five others retracted their yes votes as public opposition to the proposal escalated.

Opponents of the bill fear it could be used to suppress free speech and harass critics of President Rodrigo Duterte. The bill authorizes the government to wiretap suspects, arrest them without warrants and hold them without charge for 14 days, among other provisions.

Minus 2 more

Two more legislators distanced themselves from the bill on Monday.

Buhay Rep. Lito Atienza withdrew his yes vote and changed it to abstention, saying it was in response to “violent objections” to the measure.

Bukidnon Rep. Manuel Zubiri said he, too, had asked the House secretariat to change his vote, as he had been mistakenly registered as having voted yes when he had meant to abstain.

Atienza, a former mayor of Manila, said that due to the limitations of online House sessions held via Zoom, the bill “was not thoroughly discussed during plenary sessions.”

“It is important that this bill, which affects the whole nation, should have been lengthily discussed on the floor to ensure that all voices have been heard,” he said.

Atienza said he decided to listen to the people objecting to the bill and recommend that the House “reconsider and satisfy all issues and questions raised.”

Zubiri said that from the start, his vote was an abstention because he had reservations about certain provisions of the bill.

It’s unclear if the House secretariat could still accept the changes to the final vote on the bill, as the 302-member chamber adjourned indefinitely last Friday.

Congress will return on July 27.

Duterte veto

On Sunday, Pro-Life Philippines urged the public to encourage the lawmakers who voted for the bill to change their votes.

“We can’t say what will happen once [the] majority is overturned, but we do know that it builds momentum toward junking this bill,” the group said in a Facebook post.

The Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines joined the opposition to the bill on Monday, saying the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of educational institutions should be safeguarded against any form of suppression.

The group expressed hope that the President would heed the voice of the people and veto the bill, which is expected to be submitted to him this week for him to sign.

“Listening to the various concerns raised creates an opportunity to work together in crafting a better [piece of] legislation that effectively combats terrorism without necessarily trampling upon constitutionally protected rights,” said Catholic priest Elmer Jose Dizon, the group’s president.

Also on Monday, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana maintained that the proposed terrorism law was different from martial law.

Lorenzana lamented what he called disinformation about the terror bill and urged the public to first read its provisions before opposing it.

“The antiterror bill is not like martial law. As I have been emphasizing before, there [are] enough safeguard[s]. There are so many safeguards [to protect] the civil liberties, the human rights of our citizens,” he said.

Terrorism councilIn a later message to reporters, Lorenzana said the creation of an antiterrorism council headed by the Executive Secretary as provided for by the bill was intended for the identification of terrorists, their surveillance and possible arrest.

“What we are talking about here is the crime of terrorism only. The [council would be] deeply involved in the daily monitoring of terrorism and it would know if an application is warranted or not, [while] the courts, [which] do not monitor terrorism on a day-to-day basis, may not be able to determine if a warrantless arrest is warranted or not,” Lorenzana said. “Speed is needed to prevent terrorism.”

—With reports from Tina G. Santos and Jeannette I. Andrade