The Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties (CLCL) asked Department of Justice (DOJ) Sec. Menardo Guevarra and the DOJ to consider the constitutional implications of the new terror bill when conducting their study on the same and ask that DOJ recommend the veto of the Anti-Terrorism Bill.
The group averred that there are enough laws to address terrorism:
- The current Human Security Act that the new terror bill sought to repeal is already draconian and is more than sufficient to ferret, arrest and charge the Abu Sayyaf and other groups considered by government as terrorists. It allows for surveillance, proscription, opening of bank accounts, freezing of assets, warrantless arrest of suspects and other repressive mechanisms.
- Republic Act No. 10168, the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act, which further imposed more draconian measures to stop supposed terrorist financing.
- Even under various penal laws, acts such as arson, bombing, and other similar acts are already strictly prohibited and penalized.
“The government’s military operations against enemies of the State have been going on ruthlessly and brutally for years without need of terrorism laws. Even drug suspects die in the Philippines by the thousands, what more, if one is a terrorist suspect,” CLCL said.
The group said there is no need for the new terror law, as far as terrorists are concerned, but Malacañang needs this law against critics and the growing number of ordinary people who protest against the failure of government to deliver relief and aid during quarantine.
“They can be easily designated as terrorists or arrested without warrant and detained without charges for more than two weeks to nip these protests dissent,” said the group.
The group again stressed clarifications on misleading statements made by the proponents or supporters of the law:
- Proponents of the new terror law would justify the power of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) to designate and authorize the arrest of suspected terrorists as a form of warrantless arrest akin to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court on warrantless arrests. This argument is misleading and pernicious to the Constitution.
- The first abhorrent feature of this provision in the new terror bill is that it would give political appointees of the President the function of a judge in issuing arrest warrants in violation of Section 2, Article III of the Constitution which requires that only courts can issue warrants. The reason why the Constitution mandates judicial intervention in the issuance of warrants of arrests is because judges are expected to be independent without fear or favor.
- On the other hand, executive officials crack down on dissenters and ordinary people for violating quarantine rules, while the likes of National Capital Region Police Office Major Gen. Debold Sinas are allowed to commit the same act without accountability. It is not difficult to imagine political appointees of the President in the ATC to use the authority to designate and arrest suspected terrorists for political ends and to quell dissent.
- Furthermore, the power given to the ATC cannot be justified as another instance of warrantless arrest similar to the provision of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court on warrantless arrest.
- First, Section 5 of Rule 113 envisages the occurrence of a specific criminal act, either in flagrante delicto when the accused is committing or about to commit a crime in the presence of authorities, or in hot pursuit situations. On the other hand, Section 29 of the terror bill allows the arrest of suspects even if the suspect was not committing a specific terrorist act.
- Mere suspicion may make anyone liable for arrest and detention under the new terror bill.
- Senator Panfilo Lacson’s assertion that Section 29 is already in the current Human Security Act, is again, wrong.
- The HSA is different because it requires that the arrest shall stem from previous surveillance, while the new terror bill does not.
- The HSA requires the police to personally present the suspect before a judge to justify the arrest, while the new terror bill does not.
- Worse, the HSA limits the detention without charges of a suspect to a maximum of three days, while the new terror bill extends it to 24 days in violation of our right to due process and Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution which requires the release of any person who is not charged in court beyond three days. This is not to say that the HSA is not repressive. We are saying that the new terror bill is more draconian and repressive.
Sec. 29. Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest of the Anti-Terrorism Bill states that – “any law enforcement or military personnel, who, having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council, has taken custody of a person xxx suspected of committing any of the acts defined and penalized under [this Act], shall, without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said suspected person to the proper judicial authority within a period of fourteen (14) calendar days, counted from the moment the said suspected person has been apprehended or arrested.”
“The only complaint by the state security forces on the current Human Security Act was its provision penalizing the authorities who abuse the law, with damages amounting to Php 500,000 per day of unlawful detention. However, instead of focusing on amending that provision, Malacañang overreached by redefining terrorism to penalize intentions not acts, allow detention of up to 24 days, as well as giving the ATC the power to designate an individual or organization as terrorist without any judicial proceedings—a useless overkill,” said the group.
The group reiterated their formal request to Sec. Guevarra and the DOJ “to carefully base their study of the bill on the Constitution, as well as the human rights, of the Filipino people and strongly recommend to President Duterte the veto of the new terror bill.”
The CLCL is a broad network of legal academics, litigation and human rights lawyers and civil libertarians. Among its co-convenors are Atty. Neri Colmenares, Atty. Jojo Lacanilao, Dean Tony La Viña, Atty. Edre Olalia, Atty. Arpee Santiago, Atty. Erin Tañada, Atty. Ted Te and Atty. Kristina Conti.
