Drilon ready to defend anti-terror law: 'I can face anyone' | Inquirer News

Drilon ready to defend anti-terror law: ‘I can face anyone’

/ 11:21 AM July 15, 2020

MANILA, Philippines — As the only minority senator to vote in favor of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said he is ready to defend the controversial measure, saying that he tried his best to strike a balance between protecting the people’s rights and equipping the state against terrorism.

“I exerted every effort for a balance between the human rights of individuals and the need for the state to repel terrorism,” Drilon said during an online media forum on Tuesday.

Article continues after this advertisement

“I can face anyone and say I tried to do my best in order to make a balance. I signed it on the basis of my best judgment that this strikes a balance between protecting our people against abuse by the state and protecting the state itself,” he added.

FEATURED STORIES

According to the senator, he introduced 14 amendments to the measure when it was still being deliberated in the Senate.

He said his amendments were “designed to balance off [the bill] and to protect the rights of our people.”

Article continues after this advertisement

“All I can say is I tried my best. I have no ulterior motive, no political agenda insofar as this bill is concerned,” he added.

Article continues after this advertisement

President Rodrigo Duterte recently signed into law the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 which is seen to give more teeth to the country’s anti-terrorism policies.

Article continues after this advertisement

Before it was enacted into law, several groups and lawmakers expressed concern that several of its provisions could be used to crackdown on dissent.

The controversial law currently faces several petitions before the Supreme Court questioning its constitutionality.

Article continues after this advertisement

Whether or not the safeguards placed in the measure to prevent abuses are sufficient, Drilon said it would be up to the Supreme Court to determine so.

“It was an effort to balance the needs of the state and the rights of the people. Whether or not that is sufficiently answered…is a question that the Supreme Court must have to resolve,” he said.

/MUF
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: Nation, News

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.