Contact Details

Rm. N-411, House of Representatives, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
+63 2 931 5497, +63 2 931 5001 local 7370

Press Release

To ascertain the real score of the voting on third reading by the House of Representatives on HB No. 6875 or the proposed “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020”, Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman requested House Secretary General Jose Luis Montales for a certification on how Representatives voted on the controversial measure last June 3, 2020.

Press Statements

The proposed “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020” is symptomatic positive for repression.

Draconian features infect the “terror bill” from a 24-day warrantless arrest, a six-month ransacking of bank accounts, and a 90-day surveillance and wire-tapping, to vague provisions allowing law enforcers, the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to perpetrate abusive interpretations of the law and unlawful apprehensions.

Press Statements

Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman formally asked Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano in a letter yesterday to hold in abeyance his signing of the enrolled bill on the proposed “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020” which is contained in the identical Senate Bill No. 1083 and House Bill No. 6875.

The enrolled bill is the official copy of a measure passed by the Congress which is signed by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House, together with the respective Chambers’ secretaries, for transmittal to the Office of the President.

Press Statements

President Rodrigo Duterte errantly considers more urgent the suppression of sporadic “acts of terrorism” by instituting draconian measures than enacting an economic stimulus package granting relief to distressed people and businesses in the wake of the still raging COVID-19 pandemic.

The President has certified as urgent the passage of House Bill No. 6875 (Senate Bill No. 1083) repealing the Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372) by further tightening the noose on suspected terrorists at the expense of the protection of human rights and civil liberties like critical dissent and expression of grievances despite the lip service to protect such fundamental rights provided in the repealing measure.