By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
There is a growing apprehension that the Anti-Terrorism Bill now pending before the President will become an instrument to stifle dissent in the country. There is a rising concern that this bill, once signed into law will create an atmosphere of fear that once prevailed under martial law.
Abang Lingkod Party list Representative Stephen Paduano was cited last week saying that “law- abiding citizens should not be afraid of Anti-Terrorism Bill. Only those members of a terrorist group or persons who join or commit terroristic act should be wary about it.”
He elaborated by saying that people with dissenting opinion or who join rallies and demonstration or unions and even political opposition “are not part of terrorism group for as long as they are not committing or intending to commit terror act.”
The bill, passed by both Houses of Congress while the nation was preoccupied with the pandemic, was passed so quickly with the nation hardly aware that there was such a bill and without wide-based public debate.
Paduano’s statement came out after opposition and critics condemned the Anti-Terrorism Bill which is now waiting for the signature of President Rodrigo Duterte. Senator Panfilo Lacson is heading the attack against the critics of the proposed measure while other senators are eerily silent.
Paduano made a lame excuse that “there are no perfect laws and implementors”, adding that “laws found weak or defective should and always be amended or repealed. Just like Human Security Act of 2007 that we want to be repealed.” That is like shooting first and then being contrite afterwards.
On the other hand, Bacolod Bishop Patricio Buzon said “it is deeply alarming how fast the anti-terrorism bill was passed amidst strong protestations against problematic provisions identified by legal luminaries, rights groups and academicians.”
He added that while they recognize the mandate of government to secure its people against acts of terrorism, it needs to be pursued in a manner that upholds human rights.
“The crafting of this draconian piece of legislation is an assault to our right to be consulted on matters of state policies that gravely impact the lives of our people and democracy,” Bishop Buzon said.
That is the problem because if there were mass consultation chances of the bill being accepted by the people would be nil. Moreover, the quarantine had limited the full participation of Congress and the presence of media in the deliberations. Thus, the speed of approval of House Bill 6875, or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
San Carlos Bishop Gerardo Alminaza said the “Terror Bill” when signed by President Rodrigo Duterte into law will be like “the winnowing fan that will separate the grain from the chaff. It will unmask who are the true defenders of human rights and of the poor and who are not; who will steadfastly proclaim the truth ‘in season or out of season’ and continue our Church’s prophetic mission and who will be silenced.”
He added, “We shall put the burden of its consequences on the consciences of its authors and those who did nothing. Our challenge is to stay vigilant, engage key players in meaningful dialog and critical collaboration and use our God-given gifts to be a positive force to achieve our shared goals. We refuse to lose hope.”
Their reactions reflect the thinking of the other Church leaders.
In response, Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said the President will thoroughly review the anti-terrorism bill to ensure that it complies with the 1987 Constitution. The president is in no rush to sign the measure meant to add more teeth to the country’s law against terrorism. The President would not allow unconstitutional provisions in the proposed law.
While we have no reason to doubt the presidential spokesman, our experience with martial law comes to mind – assurances that the rights of citizens are respected. The reality was the massive violations of citizens’ rights not by their arrests alone but by silencing them.
The defects of the proposed measure became more apparent when fifteen members of the House of Representatives had their names stricken out as authors of the controversial terrorism bill while at least five others retracted or corrected their vote to abstention which is equivalent to a negative vote.
The retractions came due to “a groundswell of opposition to the controversial measure feared as a potential state weapon against dissent.”
Let us continue tomorrow.
