Lagman maintains Anti-Terrorism bill is unconstitutional
Published Jun 21, 2020 12:00 am
By Charissa Luci-Atienza
Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman maintained on June 21 that the proposed “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020" is "constitutionally infirm" and will violate human rights and fundamental freedoms, and thus, should not be given the benefit of the doubt.
Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman
(FEDERICO CRUZ / MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO) He described as "flawed" Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano's call on the oppositors to give the measure a chance and allow first its implementation. "We should not wait for any abusive enforcement of the proposed “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020” to happen after it becomes a law because the abuse is in the measure itself," he said in a statement. According to him, Cayetano "fails to see that the proposed new anti-terrorism law is the abuser for containing provisions violative of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms." He said the proposed law should not be accorded the “benefit of the doubt”, explaining that the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms should not be left to contingency and uncertainty. "The “benefit of the doubt” gives favor to ambivalent conduct despite its uncertainty," Lagman said. He said the measure, which has been transmitted to President Duterte's desk for his signature, is "constitutionally infirm." He said one of the repressive provisions of the bill is "it redefines the crime of terrorism in vague and all-encompassing terms so much so that it would ensnare into culpability innocent citizens and legitimate dissenters." The veteran lawmaker also noted that the measure also seeks to the detention of a suspected terrorist to a maximum of 24 days without judicial warrant. "This is in excess of the three-day maximum period prescribed and institutionalized by the Constitution even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended," he said. Aside from authorizing repressive surveillance and intrusion to privacy, Lagman explained that the bill "penalizes “proposal”, “threats”, and “inciting” to terrorism which would infringe on the right of free speech as its articulation is prevented because of the chilling and deterrent effects of the criminalization of said acts which are not even penalized in the “Human Security Act of 2007”." He also questioned the measure's provision that authorizes the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), which he called as a "mere administrative agency", to designate as terrorist a person or an organization without judicial process or intervention. "The pretended safeguards in the proposed “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020” are mere motherhood statements which are orphaned by repressive provisions in the measure itself, thus exposing their being token safeguards," Lagman said In a separate statement, Puwersa ng Bayaning Atleta (PBA) partylist Rep Jericho Nograles took a hard stance on Lagman's remarks, assuring the public that he will bat for the inclusion of "civil rights provisions" in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. He said he is eyeing to include in IRR a whole section that would ensure the accountability of public officers. This includes the automatic filing of criminal, administrative and civil cases against public officers who abuse their discretion in carrying out anti-terrorism operations. “The safeguards in the law must be clear in the implementing rules and regulations to be very sure that the anti-terror law will only be used against terrorists,” Nograles said, citing that the Philippines landed the ninth spot and the only Southeast Asian country in the top 10 of the Global Terrorism Index. “The Human Security Act of 2007 is not enough to fight the evolved nature of terrorism. As an example, our law enforcement and security forces are cannot go after a foreign terrorist in our own land because we have not yet legally defined a foreign terrorist until this Anti-Terror Bill. I believe if the President signs the Bill into Law, the foreign terrorists will think 1,000 times before entering the Philippines again,” he said. He said the Human Security Act of 2007 does not enough teeth that would have allowed the government to stop the suicide bomber even before he could carry out his mission. Nograles noted that under the present law, a predicate crime must be committed before a suspected terrorist is arrested. While, the Anti-terrorism Act of 2020 "can give government forces the right to stop and arrest a suicide bomber the moment he starts collecting materials to build the bomb,” he said.
Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman(FEDERICO CRUZ / MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO) He described as "flawed" Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano's call on the oppositors to give the measure a chance and allow first its implementation. "We should not wait for any abusive enforcement of the proposed “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020” to happen after it becomes a law because the abuse is in the measure itself," he said in a statement. According to him, Cayetano "fails to see that the proposed new anti-terrorism law is the abuser for containing provisions violative of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms." He said the proposed law should not be accorded the “benefit of the doubt”, explaining that the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms should not be left to contingency and uncertainty. "The “benefit of the doubt” gives favor to ambivalent conduct despite its uncertainty," Lagman said. He said the measure, which has been transmitted to President Duterte's desk for his signature, is "constitutionally infirm." He said one of the repressive provisions of the bill is "it redefines the crime of terrorism in vague and all-encompassing terms so much so that it would ensnare into culpability innocent citizens and legitimate dissenters." The veteran lawmaker also noted that the measure also seeks to the detention of a suspected terrorist to a maximum of 24 days without judicial warrant. "This is in excess of the three-day maximum period prescribed and institutionalized by the Constitution even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended," he said. Aside from authorizing repressive surveillance and intrusion to privacy, Lagman explained that the bill "penalizes “proposal”, “threats”, and “inciting” to terrorism which would infringe on the right of free speech as its articulation is prevented because of the chilling and deterrent effects of the criminalization of said acts which are not even penalized in the “Human Security Act of 2007”." He also questioned the measure's provision that authorizes the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), which he called as a "mere administrative agency", to designate as terrorist a person or an organization without judicial process or intervention. "The pretended safeguards in the proposed “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020” are mere motherhood statements which are orphaned by repressive provisions in the measure itself, thus exposing their being token safeguards," Lagman said In a separate statement, Puwersa ng Bayaning Atleta (PBA) partylist Rep Jericho Nograles took a hard stance on Lagman's remarks, assuring the public that he will bat for the inclusion of "civil rights provisions" in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. He said he is eyeing to include in IRR a whole section that would ensure the accountability of public officers. This includes the automatic filing of criminal, administrative and civil cases against public officers who abuse their discretion in carrying out anti-terrorism operations. “The safeguards in the law must be clear in the implementing rules and regulations to be very sure that the anti-terror law will only be used against terrorists,” Nograles said, citing that the Philippines landed the ninth spot and the only Southeast Asian country in the top 10 of the Global Terrorism Index. “The Human Security Act of 2007 is not enough to fight the evolved nature of terrorism. As an example, our law enforcement and security forces are cannot go after a foreign terrorist in our own land because we have not yet legally defined a foreign terrorist until this Anti-Terror Bill. I believe if the President signs the Bill into Law, the foreign terrorists will think 1,000 times before entering the Philippines again,” he said. He said the Human Security Act of 2007 does not enough teeth that would have allowed the government to stop the suicide bomber even before he could carry out his mission. Nograles noted that under the present law, a predicate crime must be committed before a suspected terrorist is arrested. While, the Anti-terrorism Act of 2020 "can give government forces the right to stop and arrest a suicide bomber the moment he starts collecting materials to build the bomb,” he said.