MANILA, Philippines — Capping off his fourth year as the highest official in the land, President Rodrigo Duterte has affixed his signature to hundreds of bills — some more controversial than others.
In the lead-up to his penultimate State of the Nation Address (SONA) early next week, we look back at some of the bills that sparked debates before and after Duterte signed them into law.
And with two years left in his presidency, will the chief executive have enough time to nudge the legislature to make a final push for some of his other priority bills?
‘More teeth’ vs terror
Still fresh out of the President’s office, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 has caused quite a stir due to fears that it may be used to crack down on dissent.
It was around four months after the bill got the approval of the Senate in February this year when the chief executive certified it as urgent. This triggered widespread opposition from the Filipino public, several lawmakers, and even a former Supreme Court justice.
This certification drew criticism also because it came at the height of the pandemic in the Philippines. A health crisis caused by a virus from China, which — at the time of the anti-terror bill urgent certification — has already infected over 18,600 in the Philippines. To date, over 78,000 COVID-19 cases have been confirmed.
Calling it the “most controversial law” so far signed by Duterte, political analyst Dennis Coronacion said the anti-terror measure “affects everyone.”
“Although its supporters claim that it contains safeguards, many believe that it poses a serious threat to our democracy and civil liberties,” Coronacion, who also heads the political science department at the University of Santo Tomas, said in an email interview with INQUIRER.net
“The bones of contention include the prolonged detention without any formal charge, the broad and vague definition of terrorism, and the creation and composition of a council that will be heavily involved in processing terrorists,” he added.
Hardly a month after the President signed it last July 3, the Supreme Court is now being swamped with petitions questioning the law’s constitutionality.
Even lawmakers over 13,000 kilometers away from the Philippines across the Pacific Ocean have thumbed down its passage.
In a letter to Manila’s top diplomat in Washington, Jose Manuel Romualdez, 45 members of the US Congress called on the Philippine government to immediately repeal the law, with one US lawmaker saying that it would give a “new weapon” to the Duterte administration’s campaign to “suppress dissent and will only worsen attacks on ordinary people in the Philippines.”
“The question is, does he even care if the administration’s bill is facing public opposition? As shown in the process of enacting the anti-terrorism bill, the President could not be easily swayed by public pressure,” Coronacion said.
‘Emergency powers’
When the Philippines was met with a spike in coronavirus cases in March, the President called on Congress to convene in a special session to urgently approve a measure that would give him additional powers to deal with the pandemic.
When word got out that an “emergency power” bill is being proposed, Filipinos were quick to air out their concerns, with some saying that the measure may be vulnerable to abuse or corruption.
This, after it was reported that Malacañang’s supposed draft of the measure included provisions seeking “emergency powers” for Duterte.
Some provisions also sought for authority to reallocate any appropriation in the 2020 General Appropriations Act as well as a “take over” of companies as well as utilities and private medical centers deemed necessary in the government’s response to the crisis.
After an hours-long session, the Senate and the House of Representatives approved the measure, which no longer included the provisions in question, and transmitted it to Malacañang for Duterte’s signature.
With the opening of the second regular session of the 18th Congress on July 27, both chambers of Congress are set on approving another COVID-19 measure to replace the Bayanihan law, which already expired last June.
Creation of a ‘regional structure’
Flashback to his earlier years in power, the President also signed a law that — as Coronacion had described it — recognizes the dream of the Muslim Filipinos for self-determination and cultural recognition: the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL).
Signed into law in July 2018, the BOL sought to replace an existing poverty-and conflict-wracked Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with a potentially larger, better-funded and more powerful region named Bangsamoro for the minority Muslims.
The autonomy deal was a significant attempt by the government to negotiate an end to nearly half a century of on-and-off Muslim fighting that has left more than 120,000 people dead and hampered development in the country’s poorest regions.
Why is this controversial?
“It was controversial because some quarters were saying that it violates the 1987 Constitution and the 1991 Local Government Code,” Coronacion said.
“More than anything else, it caused fear among the conservative sections of our population, saying that it could lead to the separation of Muslim Mindanao,” he added.
But while it faced several petitions before the Supreme Court questioning its constitutionality before it was ratified through a plebiscite, the BOL is now in its second year of implementation.
Rice tariff
Another measure Duterte signed into law that faced opposition from the same sector it claimed to be helping is the Rice Tariffication Law.
“Our local rice farmers opposed this law believing that rice imports could put an end to their livelihood,” Coronacion said of the measure, considered to be a priority bill of the Duterte administration.
Following its passage in February 2019, the law has been met with constant calls for its review. Some militant party-list groups even blasted the alleged continuing denials of top agriculture officials on its ill effects.
‘Executive-legislative dynamic’
For four years, Duterte has enjoyed a supermajority in Congress since his 2016 presidential win.
“His allies in Congress have increased further after the 2019 elections,” Coronacion pointed out.
But even so, the support for the President’s legislative agenda in Congress “is not always absolute.”
But how does Duterte’s relationship affect his bid to ensure that his priority bills will survive the legislative mill?
“Although law-making is the primary responsibility of our lawmakers, the President is expected to build rapport with the members of Congress since most of his programs need to be turned into laws to get realized,” Coronacion said.
“In Philippine politics, building close ties between the President and the majority of the members of Congress is not so much of a problem as they usually belong to the same political party (the administration party), which the former always heads,” he explained.
If Duterte pushes for a bill and asks his party mates sitting in Congress to support it “everyone is expected to vote for that bill.”
But in cases wherein a major administration bill could “not muster the votes that it needed in Congress,” this is the time the President needs to put on his negotiation hat and talk to his party mates.
“Here, the President would try to meet the demands of his allies in Congress in exchange for their votes. In most cases, our legislators’ demands are particularistic in nature and would often entail dispensing the state’s resources in favor of their constituents,” Coronacion said.
“His popularity has made things easier for him in Congress. But, for the bills that would need more than his popularity to get enacted, he would have to do what his predecessors did – negotiate with the legislators,” he added.
Not ‘mindless minions’
He also debunked the perception that the President had “mindless minions” roaming inside Batasang Pambansa in Quezon City or the Senate building in Pasay.
“Has the formation of a supermajority in the House of Representatives reduced the autonomy of its members? I don’t think so…A legislator’s support for the President is not always absolute. It lasts only while their political alliance works to his/her advantage,” Coronacion explained.
“For instance, an administration congressman would opt to abstain from the controversial death penalty bill because of fear of losing the Catholic votes in his/her district. Thus, it is wrong for us to think that our legislators are the President’s mindless minions,” he added.
Can the death penalty make a comeback?
Duterte has long since been pushing for the reimposition of the death penalty, saying it would eradicate the illegal drug problem in the country. A problem that triggered the chief executive to launch the internationally-condemned drug war.
“I am aware that we still have a long way to go against this social menace. Let [it be)]the reason why I advocate the imposition of the death penalty for crimes related to illegal drugs,” Duterte had said in his previous SONA.
But with two years left in his term, will Duterte have time to persuade lawmakers to push for it? He may be “running out of time” to do so, according to Coronacion.
In the 17th Congress, the House of Representatives gave its nod to House Bill No. 4727 seeking to reimpose capital punishment for heinous and drug-related offenses, but it did not prosper in the Senate.
Fast forward to the 18th Congress: Several bills seeking to revive death penalty have been filed in both chambers a year ago. However, they’re still pending at the committee level.
“The Senate is known for being independent-minded. For whatever reasons, the Senators don’t easily acquiesce the President’s demands,” Coronacion said.
“[T]he death penalty bill is one of those few controversial bills that our legislators will think twice before they throw their support for it. The main reason is the fear of losing the Catholic votes,” he added.
The President’s success on pushing for the death penalty bill would depend on “how serious he is and what he can offer to our legislators,” according to Coronacion.
“He might be running out of time already because by 2021, our legislators will be preoccupied with the upcoming elections,” he added.
Political analyst Ramon Casiple, executive director of the Institute For Political and Electoral Reform, also sees little hope for the bill to muster enough votes in the upper chamber.
“He doesn’t have a majority there. I attended a hearing there at the Senate. They lacked votes for that,” Casiple told INQUIRER.net in Filipino in a phone interview.
“I think the situation [in the Senate] will not change, especially that elections are coming up. The next president would have to deal with that issue,” he added.
What’s next for Duterte?
Coronacion and Casiple shared a similar vision for the President, with just two years left in his presidency: Building up a legacy.
“Legacy is a big issue. It’s a six-year term. If he’s rushing to do something he wants, he will do it. That includes Cha-cha [charter change], for example. Or laws that he thinks are important so that his enemies can’t get back at him,” Casiple said.
The President could also be looking to ensure his political grip once he steps down from the presidency in 2022, according to Casiple.
“I think he would make sure that his successor will be someone on his side. That’s one thing he would watch closely to make sure it will be an ally or a friend,” he said,
/atm