{"id":257573,"date":"2020-06-09T23:59:16","date_gmt":"2020-06-10T03:59:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=257573"},"modified":"2020-06-09T23:59:16","modified_gmt":"2020-06-10T03:59:16","slug":"protests-push-prrd-to-study-anti-terror-bill-even-closer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/06\/09\/protests-push-prrd-to-study-anti-terror-bill-even-closer\/","title":{"rendered":"Protests push PRRD to study anti-terror bill ‘even closer’"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
FILE: President Rodrigo Roa Duterte holds a meeting with members of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID) at the Malago Clubhouse in Malaca\u00f1ang on April 20, 2020. ACE MORANDANTE\/PRESIDENTIAL PHOTO<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Malaca\u00f1ang on Wednesday said calls to junk the enrolled anti-terror bill would push President Rodrigo R. Duterte to review the provisions of the measure \u201ceven closer\u201d.<\/p>\n

In an interview with ABS-CBN News Channel\u2019s Headstart, Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque explained that since the President certified the bill as urgent, he would \u201cscrutinize\u201d its provisions before deciding whether to sign or veto the measure.<\/p>\n

Asked if there was a chance the President would allow the bill to lapse into law, Roque said, \u201cThe President did certify (it) as urgent so he agrees with the principal author of the bill, Senator Ping Lacson, that there is a need for the law.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cLet\u2019s just say that the public interest on the bill will make the President review the provisions of the bill even closer,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

Roque confirmed that a copy of the bill was transmitted to Malaca\u00f1ang on Tuesday and that the legal department of the Office of the Executive Secretary has started reviewing its provisions.<\/p>\n

He also emphasized the role of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which was tasked by the Palace to review the provisions of the bill amid allegations by some groups that it contained unconstitutional provisions.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe DOJ is still the legal adviser of the President even if he has his own Legal Office within Malaca\u00f1ang itself,\u201d Roque said.<\/p>\n

Terrorism still exists<\/strong><\/p>\n

Amid questions on the President’s move to certify the bill as urgent amid the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic, he pointed out that \u201cterrorists did not stop their nefarious activities\u201d amid the prevailing health crisis.<\/p>\n

Roque cited the recent attacks launched by alleged members of the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) in Maguindanao and the Abu Sayyaf Group in Patikul, Sulu, and various instances where communist rebels attacked soldiers assisting aid distribution.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s very clear that terrorists did not really cease their activities despite the Covid-19 situation and that is why it was certified urgent,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Roque said Duterte\u2019s certification was also to ensure that the House of Representatives would \u201cact on\u201d the measure that failed to pass during the 17th Congress.<\/p>\n

\u201cI guess the certification ensured that it will pass in the House. But you and I know that with or without certification, I think any legislative initiative supported by the administration would find better chances of being passed in the House than in the Senate,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Roque, however, clarified that the measure was not \u201crushed\u201d solely because of the President\u2019s certification.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s just a matter of course. Let me emphasize here that the bill was not rushed solely because of the certification. This bill was pending since January of 2018. It\u2019s been approved four months ago in the Senate and of course, it was already discussed, finished at the committee level at the House of Representatives but the approval on second and third reading of the House came after the certification,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Constitutionality<\/strong><\/p>\n

Recognizing that he once challenged the constitutionality of the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007, the law which the anti-terror bill seeks to amend, Roque pointed out that since he and his fellow petitioners \u201cfailed\u201d to succeed, it was no use to continue questioning its constitutionality.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe actually went to court and attempted to question the constitutionality of HSA and failed. The courts have said it\u2019s constitutional, then why would you continue questioning its constitutionality?\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

In 2007, Roque challenged the constitutionality of the HSA but he and his fellow petitioners eventually lost at the Supreme Court in 2013.<\/p>\n

Under the anti-terrorism bill, persons who shall threaten to commit terrorism, and those who will propose any terroristic acts or incite others to commit terrorism shall suffer imprisonment of 12 years.<\/p>\n

Suspected persons can be detained for 14 days without a warrant of arrest with an allowable 10-day extension.<\/p>\n

A 60-day surveillance on suspected terrorists can also be conducted by the police or the military, with an allowable 30-day extension.<\/p>\n

The opposition and progressive groups have strongly opposed the passage of the measure in Congress over concerns that it would further erode human rights in the country.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0\u2013 Malaca\u00f1ang on Wednesday said calls to junk the enrolled anti-terror bill would push President Rodrigo R. Duterte to review …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":253063,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-azer-parrocha","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257573","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=257573"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257573\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":257574,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257573\/revisions\/257574"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/253063"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}