MANILA – Days after it was certified as urgent by President Rodrigo Duterte, the amendment proposed under the controversial anti-terrorism bill is now a step closer from becoming a law.
The House of Representatives has approved on third and final reading last night House Bill 6875, or the Anti-Terrorism bill. Among the 302 congressmen present, 173 voted for the bill, 29 dissented while 31 others abstained.
Allay the fears of the public, Department of National Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said critics of President Rodrigo Duterte, including those who were making peaceful protest, are not considered as terrorists under the measure.
“No… they are not terrorists, anybody who makes a peaceful protest, they are not terrorists,” Lorenzana said in an interview with CNN Philippines on Wednesday.
“It is enshrined in our Constitution that you can do peaceful protest, a peaceful assembly, those are actually protected by the Bill of Rights so hindi sila terorista,” he added.
The Defense secretary also assured the public that the measure will not give law enforcers a “blanket authority” to tag anyone as a terrorist.
“There are enough or stringent sanctions to anybody who will commit abuses in implementing this law so the people should not worry about this,” he added.
Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque, meanwhile, said that the measure, which allows detention of suspected terrorists for 10 to 24 days without a warrant, does not infringe on peoples’ constitutional right to free expression and press freedom.
“There is a hierarchy of laws. Our Constitution is supreme, then [there are] the laws enacted by Congress. When the act of Congress infringes on the Constitution, it will be declared by the court as unconstitutional,” Roque told ABS CBN News Channel.
Roque was referring to Article 3, Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution which states that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
“There is an established jurisprudence on freedom of expression, and the only way that the government can curtail freedom of expression is if there is clear and present danger which the state has the right to prevent,” Roque said.
“Unless the state can establish that there is clear and present danger, and in terrorism it is easily to do so, the freedom of expression will not be infringed upon. That right enjoys a high priority, even higher than property rights,” he added.
“We only had two convictions under the existing Human Security Act. Clearly, our laws lack the teeth, given the current face of international terrorism,” Roque said. “This is not something that just cropped up.”/PN
