By BIN Staff | 11:41 PM June 06, 2020
Bohol 3rd district Representative Alexie Besas-Tutor is among the members of the House of Representatives who voted “Yes” to the Anti-Terrorism Bill.
In a statement acquired by Bohol Island News (BIN), Tutor pointed out the Abu Sayaff Group (ASG) encounter back in 2017 as “an eye opener” for her as to what terrorism can do.
“I do not want that such incident will occur again in our Beloved Province. Its brutality knows no bounds. It is like a bomb waiting to explode and we cannot just remain lenient even in the midst of a pandemic. Just because we are in a crisis situation, does not mean that terrorists will not strike. When they do, God forbid, what then shall we do, ” she said in a statement.
At least 11 members of the ASG infiltrated Bohol on April 10, 2017.
However, they were unsuccessful in their attempt to kidnap tourists after their whereabouts were located by government troops.
Onboard three pump boats, each powered by two 16hp engines, 11 heavily armed members of the ASG sailed from Sulu up to the Inabanga River and landed at remote Sitio Ilaya in Barangay Napo, Inabanga town. They were brought there by Joselito Melloria, a local resident who had become a so-called “Balik Islam”, a convert, when he married a woman from Mindanao.
The fight between the ASG and the government troops lasted for a month at that time.
Tutor said the clear intent of the approved bill is “to suppress, prevent or deter and punish acts of terrorism”.
” This serves as the backbone and teeth to support the criminal justice response against terrorism. In comparison with the Human Security Act, this Bill has a more comprehensive approach in addressing the threats and acts of terrorism,” she said.
HERE’s THE FULL STATEMENT:
Why I voted “Yes”?
The Abu Sayaff encounter in 2017 was an eye opener of what terrorism can do. I do not want that such incident will occur again in our Beloved Province. Its brutality knows no bounds. It is like a bomb waiting to explode and we cannot just remain lenient even in the midst of a pandemic. Just because we are in a crisis situation, does not mean that terrorists will not strike. When they do, God forbid, what then shall we do.
The clear intent of the Approved Bill is to suppress, prevent or deter and punish acts of terrorism. This serves as the backbone and teeth to support the criminal justice response against terrorism. In comparison with the Human Security Act, this Bill has a more comprehensive approach in addressing the threats and acts of terrorism.
Apprehensions arise probably due to misinterpretation, misinformation and misconception on some sectors. To cite a few:
1.14 -Day Detention of suspects.
The purpose of the detention with or without a 10-day extension is to preserve evidence, complete the investigation and prevent the commission of another terrrorism, thereby building an air-tight case. Section 29 of the approved bill clearly cites the circumstances thereof; succeeding sections provides the safeguards to ensure the rights of the detainee.
To quote Sen. Lacson, ” It is within the moderate to lenient bracket. Australia and Sri Lanka, in their proposed ammendment to their Anti- Terrror Law, allows for 14 days detention without warrant of arrest. Bangladesh allows for 15 days, Indonesia for 21 days, Pakistan for 30 days, Malaysia for 59 days and Singapore for 730 days.”
2.The possibility to be used to go after the administration’s critics.
Critics can freely express themselves. There is no curtailment to such right.
As provided for in Section 4, paragraph ( e ) of the approved bill, states that
xxxxxx
xxxxxxx
Provided, that terrorism as defined in this Section shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, which 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.
3.Arrest of people on mere suspicion.
Citing this law to justify the arrest of people on mere suspicion does not suffice since the elements of a warantless arrest are retained. Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the circumstances of a lawful warrantless arrest.
In summary, there are more reasons to approve the Bill than disapprove it. We defy the very essence of an enacted law if it does not have a strong backbone to go after the violators. The most important thing is that in every enforcement and implementation of the law, the State upholds the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in the Constitution. After all, respect for human rights remains absolute and protected at all times.
