MANILA – The House of Representatives had approved on second reading, Tuesday, May 2, House Bill No. 6875 or the Anti-Terror Bill that seeks to amend the Human Security Act of 2007 in order to strengthen the country’s response to global terrorism.
Under the said bill, those who “propose, incite, conspire, participate in the planning, training, preparation, and facilitation of a terrorist act; as well as those who will provide material support to terrorists, and recruit members in a terrorist organization are penalized.” A penalty ranging from 12 years to life imprisonment without the benefit of parole shall be imposed to violators depending on the gravity of the offense.
The said bill, which was certified urgent by President Duterte also removed the provision on payment of Php 500,000 damages per day of detention of any person acquitted of terrorism charges and a suspected person can be detained without a warrant of arrest for 14 calendar days, extendible by 10 days.
Replying on reports of objection of the said bill by human rights and lawyer’s groups, presidential spokesperson Sec. Harry Roque said on Tuesday that the said amendment to the Human Security Act of 2007 was submitted by Senator Panfilo Lacson in the 17th congress.
“Wala naman pong draconian na provision diyan. Lahat po ng probisyon diyan ibinase rin natin sa mga batas ng mga iba’t ibang bansa na mas epektibo po ang kanilang pagtrato dito sa mga terorista,” (There is no draconian provisions in the bill. All provisions therein are based on the laws of different countries that have effective treatment against terrorists), he said.
In his opposition against the bill, Atty. Mel Sta. Maria, Dean of the Institute of Law of Far Eastern University in his post bearing the title: Why is the proposed anti-terror law dangerous? said: “the proposed law does not expressly provide a procedure where the subject-person is given a chance to present countervailing evidence.”
He also warned that the bill will give the president, as the Chief Executive, “enormous executive power, which, if abused, can lead to the ‘weaponizing’ of the law to create fear even among legitimate critics.”
