Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties (CLCL) said Senator Panfilo M. Lacson is dead wrong in his assertion that the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) under the new terror bill does not have judicial authority to issue warrants of arrest, and questioning the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) who said otherwise.
They mentioned how Lacson even alluded to critics such as the IBP as not having studied the bill, when Sen. Lacson said “They have mastered the art of argumentation – when you run out of sound reasons to argue, just say: BASTA!”
Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, who is one of the principal sponsors alongside Lacson and has been staunchly defending the bill against critics, agreed with Lacson.
“Sec. 29. Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. – x x x 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”.
Art. VII, Sec. 18. “During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.”
Another critique on the bill is that under Sec. 29, a “suspect” can be arrested if ATC “authorized in writing” the said arrest – even if the ATC is not a court and therefore cannot “authorize” an arrest.
“While Pres. Marcos called his arrest warrants during martial law as ASSO or PCO [Presidential Commitment Order], the new terror bill calls it “written authorization” but the impact is the same—the suspect is arrested and imprisoned without charges,” recalled the group.
CLCL reiterated the request to supporters of the terror bill to concretely and specifically answer the cited questions “instead of saying “basta” or resorting to generalized assurances that the terror bill is not unconstitutional and not intended to violate due process rights.”