Philippine Ambassador to Washington Jose Manuel Romualdez has assured American lawmakers critical of the new anti-terrorism law, which the Department of Justice said took effect Saturday, that it would not violate human rights in the country.
On Saturday, the Office of the Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to dismiss motions assailing the new law for supposed “utter lack of merit.”
READ: SC orders government to justify legality of anti-terror law
In a statement, the OSG said the petitions against the act relied “primarily on baseless allegations of vagueness of the law, unjustified fears of abuse, and imagined conjectures.”
Vice President Leni Robredo is among those who oppose the Anti-Terrorism Act, and earlier urged concerned citizens to go to the high court to question the the law’s constitutionality.
Before President Rodrigo Duterte signed Republic Act No. 11479 into law, over 250 groups from different sectors had appealed for his veto, particularly questioning Section 29.
But human rights lawyer Chel Diokno, in an interview on ABS-CBN’s TeleRadyo, disputed the date of effectivity of the law, saying a law takes effect 15 days after its actual publication, and not just via online.
“According to (Justice) Sec. Menardo Guevarra, the count should start from July 3. But, when we looked at it, July 3 was just the publication of the anti-terror law on the online website of the Official Gazette,” Diokno said.
He added: “Counting should start from the actual publication of the Official Gazette. Not online, but on paper of the Official Gazette. And that was on July 6. So, our count shows that the effective date is not now, but July 22.)
Former Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te shared Diokno’s view.
“There is no law that says that the online Official Gazette substitutes for the printed OG under Art. 2 of the Civil Code. Publication in the actual OG was on July 6, (therefore) effectivity is July 22, not July 18,” Te said on Twitter.
Romualdez, in a letter on July 16 to the 45 lawmakers opposing the law, explained the Anti-Terrorism Act “expressly excludes legitimate exercises of the freedom of expression and to peaceably assembly (sic) engaging in advocacy, protest, dissent, mass action and other similar exercises that are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety.”
“The Philippines remains committed to the protection of civil and political liberties as well as human rights. The Anti-Terrorism Act itself strongly mandates that human rights shall be absolute and protected at all times,” Romualdez said.
The law, he added, provides significant safeguards to prevent abuses, such as in the detention of persons without warrant.
“Its prescribed period on warrantless detention is also not materially dissimilar from the anti-terrorism laws of other countries, including those in the West,” he said.
He added the power of determining with finality who are to be regarded as terrorists resided with the judicial system through proscription.
Echoing the concerns of several sectors in the Philippines, US Representative Janice Schakowsky of Illinois called the law a new weapon to suppress dissent in the country.
Schakowsky is among the 45 congressmen who asked the Philippine government to repeal the law.
“We believe it’s already being used to stifle peaceful dissent and target civil society including human and labor rights groups in the Philippines,” she said.
READ: Labor unions file 9th petition vs. anti-terror law
Romualdez said criticisms and concerns by certain groups had “diluted the real legislative intent behind the law, which is to uphold the policy of the state to protect life, liberty, and property from terrorism.”
“The law properly defines what are to be considered terrorist acts, predicated by certain essential conditions, i.e., violent actions and violent purpose,” Romualdez said.
He said the Human Security Act of 2007, the law that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 seeks to replace, “has been woefully ineffective in addressing the terrorist threat in the Philippines.”
The old law has only enabled one conviction since coming into force, he added.
“This despite numerous acts perpetuated, (sic) and falling under the rubric of terrorism, by persons and groups since its enactment,” Romualdez said.
“The Anti-Terrorism Act aims to plug the loopholes in the Human Security Act by putting in place a more effective legal framework that would enable a criminal justice response to terrorist acts beyond that allowed for by the Revised Penal Code.”
He stressed that the fight against terrorism “is one standing and defining area” of Philippines-US defense and security cooperation.
“What the law signifies is the Philippine government’s strong resolve to combat terrorism and to implement a more effective and comprehensive approach to such a serious threat that knows no borders,” Romualdez said.
Earlier on Thursday, Senate President Vicente Sotto III hit back at “misinformed” US lawmakers who urged the Philippine government to repeal the law, saying they should mind their own business.
“Off hand, I would say they are misinformed. Why don’t they look at their own laws? Their Homeland Security Act? Their security law is rather strict and tight,” Sotto said.
Also on Friday, Senator Panfilo Lacson questioned the moral ascendancy of some US Congress members to oppose and criticize the Philippines’ anti-terror law.
“I wonder how many among those 50 or so members of the US Congress voted in favor of their own country’s Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001… These US Congress members should shut up unless they admit to being a bunch of hypocrites,” Lacson, principal sponsor of the recently-signed law, said in a statement.
READ: Anti-terror law now in force
READ: ‘Peaceful nights’ as anti-terror law takes effect Sat.
