The veteran lawmaker
from Albay just wont let this one slide despite numerous explanations and
support from the different sectors of the society.
Lagman insist that if
the Anti-Terrorism bill is allowed to become a law it like waiting for the
abuse to happen.
“We should not wait
for any abusive enforcement of the proposed ‘Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020’ to
happen after it becomes a law because the abuse is in the measure itself,” he
said.
 |
| (photo credit to owner) |
Lagman slams House
Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano for failing to see that the proposed measure “is
the abuser” for containing provisions violative of civil liberties and
fundamental freedoms, which are all guaranteed by the Constitution.
“Cayetano’s remark that the proposed law be accorded the ‘benefit of the
doubt’ is flawed because the protection and promotion of human rights and
fundamental freedoms should not be left to contingency and uncertainty,” he
said.
The “benefit of the doubt” gives favor to
ambivalent conduct despite its uncertainty, the Albay representative argued.
He said the proposed
measure on its face “is constitutionally infirm because of the following
repressive provisions, among others”:
“It redefines the crime of terrorism in vague and all-encompassing terms
so much so that it would ensnare into culpability innocent citizens and
legitimate dissenters;
“It prolongs the detention of a suspected terrorist
to a maximum of 24 days without judicial warrant, which is in excess of the
three-day maximum period prescribed and institutionalized by the Constitution
even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended;
“It authorizes repressive surveillance and
intrusion to privacy;
“It penalizes “proposal”, “threats”, and “inciting”
to terrorism which would infringe on the right of free speech as its
articulation is prevented because of the chilling and deterrent effects of the
criminalization of said acts which are not even penalized in the “Human
Security Act of 2007”; and
It authorizes the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), which is a mere
administrative agency, to designate as terrorist a person or an organization
without judicial process or intervention.”
“The pretended safeguards in the proposed
“Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020” are mere motherhood statements which are orphaned
by repressive provisions in the measure itself, thus exposing their being token
safeguards,” Lagman said.
What
can you say about this?
Share us your thoughts by simply leaving on the
comment section below. For more news updates, feel free to visit our site often.
Stay
updated with today's relevant news and trends by hitting the LIKE button.
Thanks
for dropping by and reading this post.
Report from Politiko
Disclaimer: Contributed
articles does not reflect the view of THE PH CHRONICLES. This website cannot
guarantee the legitimacy of some of the information contributed to us. You may
do additional research if you find some information doubtful. No part of this article
maybe reproduced without permission from this website.
0 Comments