By Joseph B.A. Marzan
Ilonggo members of the House of Representatives explained their reasons for their votes on House Bill (HB) No. 6875 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020).
HB No. 6875 was passed by the House of Representatives July 3, with 173 members voting in favor of the measure, which seeks to repeal Republic Act No. 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007). 31 members voted against the bill while 29 abstained.
In a press statement, Rep. Braeden John Biron (Iloilo, 4th district) defended his vote in favor of the bill, saying that it was not an easy decision.
“I voted in favor of the passage of this bill after much pondering. I must admit it was not an easy decision. Standing in the middle of public clamor to junk this bill on one side and my idealism to effect sound legislation on the other, as I swore to do, I walked away from the public pressure, and took the objective path considering the principles behind the creation of this bill as a penal law that could address the far more threatening global issue of terrorism. I am solely against terrorism and not for curtailing our civil liberties,” Biron said.
He said that while the bill has contentious provisions, he believes that these will be struck down once a petition is filed with the Supreme Court.
“However, behind my affirmative vote is my belief and trust in the time-honored presumption – the presumption of innocence, that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This presumption among all other provisions of the 1987 Constitution that grant us our freedoms cannot be taken away by any legislative enactment. If there are provisions in the bill that run counter to the fundamental law of the land, I am confident that these shall be struck down by the Supreme Court,” he added.
SWIFT PASSAGE
Rep. Janette Loreto-Garin (Iloilo, 1st district), who voted against the measure, sent a message to Daily Guardian saying that her vote was based on the quick passage of the bill.
“Cong. Janette Garin voted NO on the passing of Anti-Terrorism Bill on the grounds of its quick passage. Voting based on conscience, she could not agree to pass a law without proper scrutiny especially if it will stomp on the rights of the people,” the statement said.
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
In an interview with Bombo Radyo Iloilo, Representative Lorenz “Nonoy” Defensor (Iloilo, 3rd district) said he voted against the measure on the ground of constitutionality.
“I voted no on the Anti-Terrorism Bill because there were provisions that were inconsistent with our constitution,” Defensor said.
The lawmaker cited several salient provisions which he believed may violate human rights, saying that these should have been subject to scrutiny during the deliberations.
“I believe that the law being passed by Congress especially when human rights are involved, should be in line with the Constitution, particularly warrantless arrests, or the arrest of persons without a warrant issued by a judge,” he said.
He said that there was pressure being felt in the lower house for the swift passage of the bill after President Rodrigo Duterte certified it as urgent on June 1.
“We definitely felt the pressure in the lower house, because when the President certified the Anti-Terror Bill as urgent, it only took two days for it to be swept in, and put into [plenary] with a committee report,” he said.
He expressed his dismay in not being able to debate on the provisions of the bill after the majority decided to forego with the periods of debate and amendments during the second reading on June 2.
“What I didn’t like was that periods of debate and interpellation were suspended. We could’ve had time to ask and carefully examine the bill because we just got hold of it. Another bad thing is the [suspension] of the period of amendment, where we could’ve had the opportunity to provide amendments which were in favor with the Constitution. The House didn’t allow for changes to be made. That’s how I felt the pressure, even as I respect the votes of my fellow members,” he added.
MAINTAINING
Rep Michael Gorriceta (Iloilo, 2nd district) told Daily Guardian that if voting would be held again in the House, he will still vote in support of the Committee on National Defense and Security where he is a member.
The committee is headed by another Ilonggo lawmaker, Rep Raul “Boboy” Tupas (Iloilo, 5th district).
Gorriceta had his name removed as a principal author during the third and final reading, but still voted ‘Yes’, with reservations.
In the updated record of the bill as posted in the House’s official website, Tupas remains one of the principal authors.
“If there would be another vote, I would still vote ‘Yes’, in support of my committee and the chairman, Congressman Tupas,” Gorriceta said.
As of this writing, Daily Guardian has reached out to Tupas and Rep. Julienne “Jam” Baronda (Iloilo City, Lone) but they have yet to respond.
In Bacolod City, Rep. Greg Gasataya also voted yes but with reservations.
“This representation has significant reservations in relation to the following matters for the consideration of the Bicameral Conference Committee or in the promulgation of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of this legislation,” he said.
Gasataya said his reservations are on the following provisions of the bill:
-Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications under Section 16 of the Bill, Paragraph (c) shall apply to suspected persons only after a formal case against him/her has already been filed in the proper court;
– Designation of Terrorist Individual, Groups of Persons, Organizations or Associations under Section 25 of the Bill, the designation by the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) of terrorist individual, groups of persons, organizations or associations shall only be effective and binding upon the UNANIMOUS VOTE of all its members who must be present during the actual voting regardless of circumstances and excuses for absence;
– Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest under Section 29 of the Bill, the warrantless arrest of persons suspected of committing any acts of terrorism as defined in the Bill should strictly abide with the circumstances on valid warrantless arrest under Rule 113, section 5 of the Rules of Court. Any act of warrantless arrest which does not fall under the aforementioned provision of the Rules of Court shall be considered invalid and must be absolutely prohibited;
Gasataya said these reservations “aim to preserve and protect the time-honored principle of separation of powers between the co-equal branches of our government – the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary.
“Corollary to this is the importance of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power by one branch over the other at the expense of public interest and general welfare of the people.” (With a report from Dolly Yasa)
