By Joseph B.A. Marzan
The Iloilo City Council saw fiery exchanges Tuesday over the controversial Anti-Terrorism Bill.
The enrolled bill has been forwarded to Malacañang on June 8, 2020 for President Rodrigo Duterte’s signature after Senate President Vicente Sotto III and House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano signed it.
Local and international oppositions were raised at the bill after it was passed by the House of Representatives on June 5.
During a regular session of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan on June 16, Councilor Romel Duron delivered a privilege speech in support of the bill.
“Terrorism is one of the gravest crimes, and attention should be paid to preventing possible terrorist attacks. A successful proactive criminal justice approach to terrorism prevention would need a strategy to permit intervention against terrorist planning and preparations before they mature into action. The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is a big help to authorities, countering terrorism through penal prevention would mean criminalizing acts that were committed before any terrorist acts take place,” Duron said.
Councilor Ed Peñaredondo supported Duron while stressing that the bill, when it becomes an act, should not violate human rights.
“This is a very sensitive law that has been passed by Congress. While we respect, honor, and cherish the basic rights of freedom of speech and other liberties granted by our Constitution and by other laws, there is also a limit to it. What I can say is that, in my personal view, on one hand, it is for the best interest of the country, so long as the freedom of expression should not be curtailed by any means, and number two, the basic right of people to criticize or to make suggestions to any policy of the government which they think counters their basic right should not be impaired,” Peñaredondo said.
FATHER AND SON CLASH
Councilor Rudolph Jeffrey Ganzon was vocal in opposing his colleagues’ support for the bill.
“Although I believe that we have an urgent need for a strong and concrete Anti-Terrorism Act, I am not confident and comfortable yet with the capabilities as well as the maturity of our present law enforcement agencies. This law, when passed, can lead to abuse of power, and with what has been happening now, our authorities and men in uniform getting involved and accused in different crimes, are perfect examples. We need an air-tight bill leaving no room for gray areas that will lead to abuse of our executive department and its law enforcement,” Ganzon said.
Ganzon also mentioned the guilty verdict in the cyber libel against Rappler Executive Editor Maria Ressa and former Rappler researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr. as an example of the executive branch’s abuse of power.
“Yesterday’s guilty verdict against Rappler CEO Maria Ressa, while a totally separate issue to the Anti-Terrorism Law, has set a dangerous precedent. The ruling shows that freedom of speech can be curtailed through the legal process and such kind of acts. The repression of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, that we want to avoid with the passage of laws, they may be bent and abused. Until this premise can be fairly addressed, I am apprehensive about the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act,” he added.
Councilor Ganzon’s father, Vice Mayor Jeffrey Ganzon, however, commended Duron and indirectly addressed his son’s contentions against the bill.
“We have to take note that we are a government of laws and not of men, so we have to adhere to the rule of law. We are to understand that this Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is only classified as statutory law, not constitutional law. The Bill of Rights, which is used by dissenters of this law, could be regulated, and that is not absolute. But the security of the State cannot be compromised, and the primordial consideration for me is the security of the State,” the elder Ganzon said.
The son was quick to indirectly respond to his father’s opinion on the interpretation of the laws.
“What we say here is our mere opinion, and our opinions will affect the decisions of the chambers and the Executive. Interpretation of the law is not merely for the lawyers. It’s how we interpret it and how we make our stand. It’s not on the issue of interpretation of the separation of powers, for those people who are lawyers, the ones who took up law. I hope we respect each other,” Councilor Ganzon said.
Vice Mayor joked about his exchange with his son saying that they also practice democracy within their family.
“It’s a matter of respecting each other’s opinion. I just want to tell everybody that even in our family, we practice democracy,” he said.
Duron ended the privilege portion of the session by addressing the father-and-son exchange.
“My privilege speech is only my opinion, whether you agree or disagree, that is your right. I am entitled not to answer your question because it is only my opinion,” Duron said.
