My personal stand as regards to the ANTI TERROR LAW of the PHILIPPINES

With the prevalence of terrorism around the world, wherein the Philippines is not exempted, there is a necessity for the state to defend its citizens from the dangers of terrorism. Terrorism is like wildfire spreading in all four corners of the world, ergo it must be stopped. To stall the possibility of another 9/11 BOMBINGS, RIZAL DAY BOMBING, ZAMBOANGA SIEGE, MARAWI SIEGE, and/or IPIL SIEGE, the government or any government of any state of the world must take any step to deface terrorism.

As can be seen from the developments in the countryside, terrorist groups are now

mushrooming in the country inasmuch as the same are sprouting worldwide, and such terrorist groups are doing damage not just in the Philippines but almost in all of the four corners of the world. The Abu Sayyaf has long been sowing terror in the island of Mindanao and a new terrorist group known as the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) is also destroying any effort of the government for lasting peace in Mindanao. The New People’s Army (NPA) which was declared by the international authorities as a terrorist group, has been pestering the Philippines since 1969, and these security problems need to be stalled if not, be minimized by way of passing a law that would address the same.

The terrorist groups in the Philippines especially the Abu Sayyaf, are also funded by international terrorist groups like the Jemaah Islamiya, and the damage they are causing against the people would be greater if the same would be unchecked, in conjunction, it seems like a passage of a law which may mitigate the sponsorship by international terrorists as regards the establishment of local terrorist groups in the Philippines is a necessity.

The factors that I have discussed above may be the reasons why the Philippine government has espoused for the passage of the ANTI TERROR LAW, which was sponsored by the very illustrious former crime-fighting police general, now Philippine Senator Panfilo Lacson. The purpose of the said law is noble but in the midst of the alleged government atrocities committed against some concerned citizens like the cause-oriented groups such as the concerned Filipino farmers’ unions, concerned Filipino teachers’ associations, concerned labor groups, concerned Filipino fisherfolks organizations, concerned human rights defenders … the ANTI TERROR LAW may or can be used against them by suppressing their constitutional rights to air their grievances against the government or to curtail their constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, privacy, assembly, and expression.

As we have seen in the recent months after the ANTI TERROR LAW was passed and was questioned before the Supreme Court by many concerned freedom fighting lawyers ... many human rights activists, human rights lawyers, and cause-oriented individuals were unfairly extrajudicially charged of being communists or being red-tagged by some appointed government officials, eventually, some of them were executed by some uniformed men for being “rebels” and for having allegedly fought with the arresting officers. These reprehensible incidents would be connected one day in the abuse of the ANTI TERROR LAW because the ones being executed who were human rights lawyers, human rights activists, and cause-oriented individuals were being tagged as communists, or rebels, or related to the Communist Party of the Philippines or the New People’s Army being classified by the international authorities as TERRORISTS.

After having scoured the ANTI TERROR LAW, I have discovered many constitutional defects in it. I also have found provisions in it that would contravene to some existing penal laws especially the Revised Penal Code.

After having examined the very dreaded law, I have found the defects in it which I would like to discuss further below and they are the following: 1.) Section 4, paragraphs a.,b., and c., a provision of the said law which provides for ACTS OF TERRORISM which are very broad; 2.) Section 4 also amended the humane provisions, which are Articles 29, 94, 97, 98, and 99 of the Revised Penal Code 3.) Section 9 prohibits speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners, or other representations tending to promote “terrorism”; 4.) Section 29, a provision of the very controversial law that provides for arrests or detention without the benefit of a judicial warrant and provides further for at least a 14 day to a maximum of 24-day detention of an accused before a case may be filed in court; 5.) Section 35 which gives so much power to the AMLC or the Anti Money Laundering Council to investigate the bank accounts of suspected terrorists and 6.) Section 36 which gives power to the AMLC or the Anti Money Laundering Council to freeze the accounts of the suspected terrorists for 20 days.

Let me discuss in brief the very questionable provisions of the ANTI TERROR LAW why the same are unconstitutional if not against the conscience of one’s humanity viz:

1.) Section 4. Terrorism, subject to Section 49 of this Act, is committed by any person who within or outside the Philippines regardless of the stage of execution:

a.) engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life;

b.) engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage destruction to a government or public facility, public place, or private property;

c.) engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with damage or destruction to critical infrastructure;

These provisions of the ANTI TERROR LAW are overbroad because the acts enumerated in the said provision can be done without being engaged in terrorism, simply put, these acts may be done not in consonance with doing terroristic acts but in doing common crimes only.

What is very sad with this provision is, the acts done relatively with this provision regardless of the stages of execution is punishable by life imprisonment, meaning even if the crime was committed on its ATTEMPTED and FRUSTRATED stages, it is still punishable by LIFE IMPRISONMENT as if the acts enumerated under Section 4 paragraphs a.,b., and c., were CONSUMMATED, hence once can therefore conclude that it is an unfair provision of the law because it punishes the suspects involved in attempted, frustrated and consummated stages of terrorism which are not in line with the essence of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines;

2.) Part of Section 4 of the Anti Terror Law amends Articles 29, 94, 97, 98, and 99 of Act No. 3815 as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code.

Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the preventive imprisonment of an accused or a convict, as a rule, offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with one half of the time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, except in the following cases: 1.) When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; 2.) When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily and 3.) When they have been convicted of robbery, theft, estafa, malversation of public funds, falsification, vagrancy, or prostitution.

Amendment of the said provision as regards the violation of the ANTI TERROR LAW would be unfair to the would-be suspects of the Anti Terror Law being in custody who may avail from the benefits of preventive suspension which can be deducted from term of imprisonment if ever he/she can be convicted for violation of the Anti Terror Law. It is my humble view, therefore, that it violates Art. 3, Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution which says in part “ No person shall be deprived of his life, LIBERTY or property without due process of law” because amendment of the said provision of the Revised Penal Code denies the right to liberty of any offender of the ANTI TERROR LAW to avail the benefits for the preventive imprisonment of an accused.

Amendment of Articles 94, 97, 98, and 99 of the Revised Penal Code as regards violation of the ANTI TERROR LAW is also unfair to an offender who has behaved well inside any jail or criminal rehabilitation facility, for not giving good conduct allowances which a culprit earns while he is undergoing preventive or serving his sentence, the same is in my view, also tantamounts to a denial of liberty to a suspect without due process via the amendment of the same through the ANTI TERROR LAW;

3.) Sec. 9. Speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners, or other representations tending to promote terrorism, shall suffer a penalty of 12 years.

This provision of the ANTI TERROR LAW is crystal clear, unconstitutional for being repugnant to the constitutional provision which promotes freedom of expression and of the press. This provision must not be given enough teeth and/or legal force and effect on two grounds: 1.) It tramples on the right of every individual Filipino citizen to freedom of the press and expression, and 2.) The definition of terrorism in Sec. 4 is overbroad, hence must not be given any legal weight or merit.

The same provision must or can also be declared unconstitutional because of the FACIAL CHALLENGE DOCTRINE. A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of the “chilling effect” upon protected speech. The theory is that “when statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes” -- concurring opinion of Justice Mendoza in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 2001, cited in Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552, 2010).

4.) Section 16. Surveillance by the government agents as against the suspected terrorists. Government agents can have surveillance against the suspected terrorists by wiretapping the mode of communications of the terrorist suspects through a court order from the Court of Appeals.

While it is true that all surveillance/s through wire-tapping against the suspected terrorists must be done through the rigors of judicial orders, thus, it implies that there shall be a judicial determination first maybe by having secret hearings or vigorously questioning the applicants for surveillance orders by a justice of the appellate court, before a magistrate of the Court of Appeals issues the said order/s, yet this provision of the ANTI TERROR LAW, the mayor can be abused by the government agents without resorting to application for surveillance before the Court of Appeals. Surveillance by wire-tapping without orders from the appellate court constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to privacy by an individual.

5.) Section 29. -- The provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, any law enforcement agent or military officer, who has been duly authorized in writing on the ATC has taken custody of a person suspected of committing any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of this Act, shall without incurring 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, detained, and taken into custody by the law enforcement agent or military personnel. The period of detention may be extended to a maximum period of ten calendar days if it is established that 1.) further detention of the person/s is necessary to preserve evidence related to terrorism or complete the investigation; 2.) further detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the commission of another terrorism, and 3.) the investigation is being conducted properly without delay.

This provision of the Anti Terror Law clearly violates the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the Philippine Constitution as regards LIBERTY of a suspect, since under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code says that after the failure of the arresting officer to file charges in cases of arrests without the benefit of a warrant of arrest in court, after twelve (12) hours as regards crimes punishable by light penalties, eighteen (18) hours with regard to crimes punishable by correctional penalties and thirty-six (36) hours in connection to crimes punishable by afflictive penalties, the officer concerned can be charged for violation of the said provision of the RPC, thus, surplusage to what is being enumerated under Art. 125 as to when to file cases in court with regard to the kinds of offenses by the accused and its penalties (light penalties, correctional penalties, and afflictive penalties), constitutes a denial of liberty to the suspect and can be an actionable wrong against the arresting officer under the said provision of the Revised Penal Code.

Non-filing of charges in court against a suspect within fourteen (14) days from his/her warrantless arrest, which is extendable for a maximum period of ten days, a corollary to the violation of the ANTI TERROR LAW is too much and is a clear denial of LIBERTY of a person without due process of law.

6.) Sec. 35. The Anti Money Laundering Law Council is empowered by the ATL to investigate bank accounts of suspected terrorists or suspected sponsors of terrorism notwithstanding the existing banking laws like the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits as amended, Foreign Currency Deposit Act, and the General Banking Act.

Clearly, this provision of the Anti Terror Law violates the right to privacy of any individual, who is suspected of being a terrorist or a sponsor of terrorism. Investigating the bank account of an individual without its consent, and without respecting the banking laws which provide privacy to every individual who has bank accounts constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to privacy of every person suspected of being a terrorist or sponsor of terrorism.

7.) Sec. 36. The Anti-Money Laundering Council has the power to freeze bank accounts if there is probable cause that such bank accounts are maintained by terrorists or sponsors of terrorism.

This provision of the ANTI TERROR LAW is clearly a flagrant violation of the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE as regards the denial of one’s property without due process of law because it somehow confiscates a property of a person without court processes and hearings and also a violation of one’s constitutional right to privacy.

In view of the foregoing legal rationales and premises, I humbly believe and submit, that the ANTI TERROR LAW shall be abrogated for being unconstitutional by the Highest Tribunal of the land, the Supreme Court, for being overly broad, for being a material in violating the constitutional rights of individuals relating to privacy and for being violative to the due process clause of the constitution especially in the field of rights to liberty and property.

FIVE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION OF THE LAWS OF THE SEA (UNCLOS) LAW

1) As can be gleaned in the case of the Philippines vs. China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration under PCA case number 2013-19, the UNCLOS LAW is really a good international law that protects any country regardless of its size. In the said case, the Philippines became victorious over China as regards the territorial maritime dispute between the two countries, not to mention the Chinese influence over the international community because of its international political hegemony;

1) The UNCLOS LAW gives a demarcation line to every country with regard to its waters, such law limits other countries to infringe on the environmental laws of their fellow states as regards the Exclusive Economic Zone of each state; it also prohibits other nations or foreign nationals in infringing the customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitary laws of another state in its contiguous zone, the same also prohibits the infringement of municipal laws of a state by foreign nationals as regards to the territorial sea of the former;

3) The UNCLOS LAW provides or classifies the deep parts of the sea of every state well within its Exclusive Economic Zone like the continental shelf, continental seabed, and the like, and what are the territorial or economic right/s of every state over the said part/s of the deep sea of each state’s Exclusive Economic Zone, thus stifling other countries to illegally invade or use that territory of a state;

4) The UNCLOS LAW by way of its Art. 94 provides for respect of each and every flag state and every foreign vessel which enters the jurisdiction of each flag state by enumerating the rules for the harmonious relations of the flag state and any foreign vessel entering the territory of every flag or host state, such provision of the UNCLOS LAW in relation to the International Regulations for Preventing Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) also prevents any maritime accidents within the maritime territory of the flag state as against and between foreign vessels/ships;

5) The UNCLOS LAW which is an international law is actually one of the avenues in halting maritime, territorial disputes between countries, hence it is also an agent of peace because it puts every state not just to respect every fellow state's territory but also every nation’s sovereignty.

FIVE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION OF THE LAW OF THE SEAS (UNCLOS) LAW.

The UNCLOS LAW is not a perfect law, it has also some loopholes, Art. 298, Sec. 3 of part XV of UNCLOS provides “ A state party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1, shall not be entitled to submit to any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another state party without the consent of that party”, hence any state party may not submit itself to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in a territorial dispute with any state because of this provision of the UNCLOS. This provision of the UNCLOS was invoked by China when it decided not to face the Philippines in the matter of arbitral trial between the two countries as regards the West Philippine Sea and the Spratlys maritime and territorial dispute between the two countries;

The UNCLOS LAW can be easily ignored, in the case of the Philippines vs. China under PCA case number 2013-19, the same issued a position paper in December 2014 arguing that the maritime and territorial dispute between the two countries was not subject to arbitration because the conflict between the two was a matter of sovereignty and not exploitation rights;

It seems like the international laws including the UNCLOS LAW have no teeth as regards international political hegemons like China by not submitting to the international laws like the UNCLOS LAW and by diverting issues, like when China accused the Philippines of having voluntarily violated the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, made in 2022 between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China, which stipulated bilateral negotiations as the means of resolving border and other disputes;

Art. 94 of UNCLOS, the leading provision of the said law as regards probable international collision at sea and the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) the leading international law with regard to a possible international collision at sea are not given high regard by China when in one instance, a Chinese ship has rammed a Filipino fishing vessel somewhere off the coast of Mindoro, and when the Chinese Navy had a near shootout with the Philippine Navy at Scarborough Shoal which used to be a part of the (EEZ) Exclusive Economic Zone of the Philippines;

The UNCLOS LAW has no mechanism with respect to the execution of the decision/s of the Permanent Court of Arbitration as what everybody has witnessed in the victory of the Philippines over China, in conjunction with the maritime territorial dispute of the two parties.

THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE ANTI-TERROR LAW

 

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE ANTI-TERROR LAW

With the prevalence of terrorism around the world, wherein the Philippines is not exempted, there is a necessity for the state to defend its citizens from the claws of the dangers of terrorism, thus the passage of the ANTI-TERROR LAW by the Philippine Congress is very commendable. Terrorism is like wildfire spreading in all of the four corners of the world, ergo it must be stopped. To stifle the possibility of another RIZAL DAY BOMBING, ZAMBOANGA SIEGE and/or MARAWI SIEGE, the government must take any measure to get rid of terrorism, and we must be very thankful that the ANTI-TERROR LAW was passed by the Philippine legislature in due time to address the national problem of terrorism.

As can be gleaned from the developments in the countryside, terrorist groups are now sprouting in the country as much as the same are mushrooming around the world, and such terrorist groups are wreaking havoc not just in the Philippines but all over the world. The Abu Sayyaf has long been rampaging in Mindanao and a new terrorist group called BIFF or the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters is/are also destroying any effort of the Philippine government for lasting peace in Mindanao. The New People’s Army which was declared by international authorities as a terrorist group has been pestering the Philippine government and these security problems need to be stalled if not be minimized by way of the ANTI-TERROR LAW.

The terrorist groups in the Philippines especially the Abu Sayyaf are funded also by international terrorist groups like Jemaah Islamiya, and must be counteracted upon, otherwise, the damage it is causing against the people would be greater, in connection to this the provision of the ANTI TERROR LAW which provides powers to the Anti Money Laundering Council is but proper so that the suspects funding the terrorists existing in the Philippines be checked, if not be arrested and also as to weaken the local terrorists of the Philippines for it may defund the same.

As can be seen from the Declaration of Policy of the ANTI TERROR LAW, the purpose of the law is very noble for it aims to do the following a.) To protect life, liberty, and property from terrorism; b.) To condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and c.) To make any form of terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the Law of Nations.

The ANTI TERRORISM LAW provides for the punishment of the acts of terrorism, and any steps of anyone who supports the same which punishment may somehow slow down, negate if not destroy terrorism and the damages it may do for the Philippines and its people.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ANTI-TERROR LAW

The ANTI TERROR LAW is a very dangerous law because it includes broad offenses like “engaging in acts intended to endanger a person’s life” and “acts intended to cause damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place or private property” and such “overly broad offenses” are punishable by life imprisonment. The over broadness of the offenses can make legal acts within the ambit of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and other constitutional freedoms punishable. What is very sad with this is … the legal acts of one which become illegal because of the over broadness of the law is punishable by life imprisonment;

The ANTI TERROR LAW does not respect one’s privacy because it provides for wiretapping as one of the ways of gathering pieces of evidence against would-be suspects, hence one’s constitutional right to privacy cannot be invoked in this respect;

Section 29 of the ANTI TERROR LAW provides that in cases where suspects are arrested without warrant of arrest, the arresting agents or officers cannot be held liable for the delay of the delivery of suspects in court or before the judicial authorities as can be found under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code. This provision can be easily abused by the authorities because the agents or arresting officers may deliver the suspects to the judicial authorities within 14 days from arrest without a benefit of a warrant of arrest and can even be extended for another 10 days without filing cases in court;

Under Section 35 of the ANTI TERROR LAW, the Anti Money Laundering Council Authority is given the power to investigate, inquire into and examine the bank accounts of suspected terrorists or their supporters without or in the absence of Court orders. This clearly violates the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the Philippine Constitution, since the power to investigate, inquire into or examine the bank accounts of suspected terrorists does not follow hearing and notice processes of the courts;

The time within which to conduct surveillance against the suspects, as granted by the court (Court of Appeals) is too long, which is 60 days, and can even be extended for another 30 days. This leeway given to the authorities is too long and too much to gather evidence against the suspects, and may even be subjected to abuse on the part of the government agents or authorities.