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.

 

 

CLCL said it is Lacson who has not studied the bill.
“Sen. Lacson’s generalized ad hominem response to the IBP actually shows that he has not carefully studied the bill, otherwise he should have addressed the specific provisions of the bill and the specific constitutional provisions violated. We ask the supporters of the new terror law to answer the specific issues long raised by concerned human rights advocates like the IBP, by citing specific constitutional and statutory arguments  rather than resorting to generalized answers,” said CLCL.
CLCL recounted the critique of the IBP on Section 29 of the bill for example is its specific violation of specific provisions in the Constitution. Sec. 29 provides that:
“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”.
“Sec. 29, therefore, grants the ATC the judicial power to issue “warrants of arrests” allowing the detention of a person for at least 14 days without charges, on the mere “written authority” of the ATC which is not a court. Sec. 29 therefore not only violates the due process clause of the Constitution but also violates Art. III Sec. 2 that declares that “no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge”,” the group asserted.
The group reiterated that the provision allowing the detention of a mere suspect for 14 to 24 days without charges, directly contravenes Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution:
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.”
“Since a person cannot be detained beyond three days even if the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended, the more reason that no one can be detained beyond three days at any other time, and, especially if, the writ is not suspended,” stressed the group.
They emphasized that no law can provide what the Constitution prohibits.
“Worse, it is unjust to imprison people without charges in court and without giving them the judicial forum to present their evidence and defend themselves,” said CLCL.

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.”

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here