In a virtual forum, Sen. Lacson answered questions on the Anti-Terrorism Bill:
* provisions on terrorist financing
* misconceptions about Anti-Terrorism Council
* safeguards vs wrongful arrest/detention
QUOTES and NOTES:
Anti-Terrorism Bill: Why Repeal the 2007 Human Security Act:
“Actually it’s a repeal of the HSA. The main reason being, we concluded the HSA of 2007 is a dead-letter law. There’s good reason for saying this because so far there’s only 1 conviction, Nur Supian, leader ng federalism sa Marawi Siege. He’s the lone convicted felon dito sa HSA. And there’s only 1 proscribed organization, the ASG it took the government more than a decade before a conviction was finally meted out. The reason again is because ang law enforcement agents are hesitant to file cases under the HSA. Why? Principally because of the P500K per day of detention na multa for wrongful arrest once ma-acquit. Doon sila takot.”
“Out of the 735 respondents undergoing trial – we got this from BJMP – not one of them is being tried for violation of the HSA. Lahat ito murder, illegal possession of firearms. And most of them nahuli sa Marawi siege. And yung ASG, out of the 86, 66 were convicted, 20 were acquitted. But ang 66 na convicted, not one of them has been convicted for violation of HSA. Marami sa kanila, convicted for kidnapping. That’s why we arrived at the conclusion that the HSA js severely underutilized to the point na dead letter law nga. So with the prodding of the security cluster, sina Sec Esperon, DG Monteagudo, Sec Ano, Sec Lorenzana.”
“Also, our attention is being called by UN and neighboring countries, most prominent ang Australia, because most of the provisions here in-adopt namin from the Australian anti-terrorism statute. We also coordinated with US, EU. So this is not only a product of my legislative staff and the security cluster. And it underwent scrutiny by most of our colleagues. The period of interpellation lasted 7 straight days. The period of amendments lasted 3 straight days. That’s how scrutinized this measure had been in the Senate floor.”
‘Humanitarian’ Provisions on Terrorist Financing:
“Kaya tayo nalagay sa partially compliant ng FATF, kasi napakahina ng ating batas o pagtugon sa terrorist financing. Sa Marawi lang ilang bilyon ang pumasok na pera roon para pondohan ang Marawi siege? Katakot takot. Hindi ito na-check dahil sa kahinaan ng batas. Nilagyan natin ng ngipin kung saan base sa UNSC Resolution 1373, at meron silang panuntunan dito susundin natin yan, kung designated na sila ng UN ang terrorist organization or individual, doon papasok ang ATC para i-designate nila sa local scene. At hindi naman sila magfe-freeze ng account. Sila magre-request sa AMLC.”
“At ang taong kung saan ang account niya na-freeze pwede dumulog sa CA para sabihin mali ang pag-freeze ng account, hindi ako ganito, hindi ako ganyan. At hindi ito totally frozen. Binigyan natin ng humane treatment. Maski frozen ang account, pwedeng partially makapag-withdraw pa rin ang suspected terrorist or organization for humanitarian needs. Halimbawa may sakit sa pamilya, pagbibigyan ito under this measure.”
“Kulang kasi ngipin ng batas kasi sa terrorist financing act naka-limit sa proscription. Ngayon dinagdagan natin ito ang mechanism how to go about thwarting or preventing terrorist financing, sinama natin dito. Inaapura tayo ng FATF naroon tayo sa partially compliant among nations. Mas grabe pa hinihingi nila. Pakiusap ng US DOJ, i-consider lang natin reasonable ground. Sabi namin di pwede under PH setting yan. Kasi sa amin kailangan establish mo probable cause.”
“When I was in the PC, kasi wala pa ang PNP noong 1985, alam nyo ba pwede kami mang-aresto noon, ang ano lang is reasonable ground to believe a person has in fact committed a crime. But revised rules of court noong 1985 dito pumasok based on probable cause based on personal knowledge. Napakahirap. So sinasabi ko nga paano magkakaroon ng personal knowledge ang pulis sa pag-commit ng crime halimbawa bank robbery, kailangan kasama ang pulis humoldap ng bangko para magkaroon siya ng personal knowledge. Mahirap but we learned to adjust over time. So ang hinihingi sa amin reasonable ground lang sabi ko hindi pupuwede kaya hindi namin binigyan yan.”
‘Lenient’ Detention Period:
“Ang 14 days ito nasa panukalang batas itself at ito amend namin RPC Art 125, delay in the delivery of arrested suspects. At binalikan pa namin ang discussion sa Constitutional Commission, I think sina Comm Padilla, Comm Sarmiento. At ang intent ng kanilang pinaguusapan doon lang sa suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Hindi kasama sa usapan nila ang Art 125 ng RPC. Hindi nila na-restrict ang Congress para mag-legislate para baguhin ang umiiral na max 36 hours or under HSA ay naging 3 days.”
“Kasi pag suspension of privilege of the writ, max talaga 3 days discussed nila ito. Ang hindi kasama sa usapan ang ibang violation na labas sa invasion or rebellion na nakasaad na siyang binibigyan ng poder ang Pangulo para i-suspend ang privilege of the writ. So may kasabihan tayo, pag hindi kasama sa batas, ibig sabihin pwera, deemed excluded ang hindi included. At malinaw sa kanilang discussion na nagre-refer lang sila, ito gusto ko i-address kay Commissoner Gwen, na maski balikan natin ang deliberation ng Constitutional Convention of 1986 para sa 1987 Constitution, malinaw na talagang naka-confine ang kanilang usapan doon lang sa krimen na on account of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. At nabanggit din doon tungkol sa RPC. Hindi kasama. So pwede namin talagang i-extend sa pamamagitan ng batas, hindi pamamagitan ng ATC.”
“Ang ATC tatalima lang sa batas. Hindi yung binigyan ang poder sa ATC na sabihin ng ATC kulong nyo ng 14 days. Hindi po. Ang batas sa panukalang batas nakasaad. At 10 days na extension, korte magde-determine. Ito tiningnan namin transcript ng interpellation sa akin ni Sen Drilon na sinasabing explicitly sinabi ko roon hindi ATC mag-extend kundi korte. Hihingi ng permiso sa korte ang alagad ng batas through the ATC para humingi ng extension ng 10 days.”
“Ang authorization in writing na gagawin ng ATC alam nyo ba na ito umiiral na sa HSA of 2007? Alam nyo sino nag-introduce ng amendment? Si Sen Drilon. Siya nagsingit at ni-retain namin ito sa HSA. Ang mga nagsiboto dito at tinanggap ni SJPE na siyang sponsor ng HSA at ang mga nagsiboto rito hindi rin mga babano-bano na lawyer legislators. The late MDS, the late Aquilino Pimentel Jr., si Teddy Boy Locsin on the part of the House, Edcel Lagman. The late Simeon Datumanong. Sa Senate, Sens Gordon, Drilon, Pia Cayetano, Enrile, the late Sen Santiago and Pimentel. Father ni Comm Gwen bumoto siya in favor of HSA including the amendment ni FMD having been duly authorized in writing by the ATC. Dahil alam naman nila hindi naman binibigyan ng authority ang ATC para blanket bigyan ng authority ang law enforcement or civilian na magdagdag sa element ng citizen’s arrest. Mananatili ang 3 elements, yan pa rin.”
“Ang sinusunod natin na en flagrante delicto at hot pursuit rule. Naroon pa rin yan, di natin dinagdagan yan. Yan pa rin elements ng warrantless arrests. So mali ang notion kaya nagja-jump sa conclusion ang ating kababayan maski ang intellectuals like like Comm Gwen, nadala sa disinformation na nasa poder ng ATC na mag-utos na mag-aresto. Hindi po. Hindi namin pwede gawin yan. Alam naming unconstitutional yan.”
“Malaysia and Sri Lanka, they are allowed to detain without filing charges for 59 days, extendible to 2 years. Singapore 730 days hanggang indefinite. Indonesia 21 days pwede extend 120 days. Tayo pinaka-lenient, pinaka-accommodating, pinaka-generous ang in-adopt natin. During the hearings, the law enforcement agencies represented by their personnel were asking for 30 days, which I did not accede to.”
“Well-funded ito at (terrorists) know no borders. Ang timing at cells nila, they operate in cells. Three days under the HSA is too short a period for them to prevent this person to get in touch, once released. Kung in place ang plano nila to launch another terrorist attack di na mapipigilan. Na-release na siya, dahil ma-arbitrary detention ang pulis.”
Proscription:
“Let me address very quickly ang ni-raise na point ni Comm Gwen na proscription. Ang proscription, may due process involved. Once a terrorist organization is proscribed, hindi naman automatic lahat na member, halimbawa na-proscribe ang CPP NPA at sinabi ng kapitbahay, NPA ang kapitbahay ko, it’s not as if dadamputin yan on the basis of the proscription issued against the CPP NPA. No. May due process involved to prove if that person is really a member of a proscribed organization. Proscription will go through due process. We elevated the level from RTC to CA. Sa HSA, RTC lang nag-proscribe. Under ATB, CA ang magpo-proscribe. So it’s not as if ATC magsasabing proscribed ka.”
“Iba ang designation, iba ang proscription. Pag sinabing designation, that’s an administrative act. To assuage the apprehension expressed by Comm Gwen and to settle once and for all ang issue, ito ang ticklish issue having been duly authorized in writing by the ATC. Kung ang intent dito ay bigyan ng authorization to arrest, dapat ang wording dito hindi has taken custody; to take custody.”
Misconceptions on Anti-Terrorism Council:
“Now, may kasabihan tayo, the taste of the pudding is in the eating. May I ask (NICA DG) Alex (Monteagudo), going back sa files, bago ka sa NICA. Meron kayong record sa ATC na nakapag-utos after the passage of the 2007 HSA, meron bang instance nag-utos ang ATC sa law enforcement agencies na mag-aresto outside of the requirements of Rule 113 Sec 5? May ganoong insidente? Kasi kung wala, that is the best test. Kasi existing na ang having been duly authorized in writing by ATC. Sa inyong interpretation, may nautos kayo o sa predecessor ninyo … mang-aresto without warrant? Outside the elements.” (DG Monteagudo’s reply: “Never, Sir, never.”)
“Kaya klaro the legislative intent malinaw naman at basis ng legislative intent hindi ito plucked from thin air. Ang basis ko ang transcript, even ang transcript ng deliberation ng constitutional convention of 1986 na nagbalangkas ng 1987 Constitution.”
“Malinaw doon ang 14 days, hindi pinagbabawalan na i-legislate ng Kongreso. And it is not the ATC that will determine the period of detention or reglementary period of detention. Batas ang magde-determine because it is a policy decision of Congress which is allowed under the Constitution. Di ba malinaw yan? So hindi unconstitutional ang i-prolong natin habaan ang reglamentary period.”
CHR Concerns About Anti-Terrorism Council:
“Ang concern na raise ni Commissioner Gwen, hindi namin binigyan ng power ang ATC more than what they should have. Alam naman natin, at malinaw naman yan, express namin, wala silang judicial or quasi-judicial authority. Hindi namin binigyan. Nagkaroon ng napakalaking misinterpretation because of so much disinformation going on.”
“For example, Sec 29, ang kinu-question nila maski si retired SC Justice Carpio, question niya on constitutional ground, bakit binigyan ng authority ang ATC to order an arrest. Mali po yan. Wala po kaming nilagay doon. Babasahin ko ang mismong provision. Paraphrase ko: having been duly authorized in writing by ATC, hindi ito naka-address sa ordinary law enforcement agent or military personnel kasi di tayo nag-a-amend ang Rule 113 Sec 5 under the Rules of Court. Una hindi natin pwede i-amend yan kasi Rules of Court yan. Ang pwede lang natin amend ang provision ng RPC.”
“Ang written authorization na binabanggit ko rito, yan ang ini-issue ng ATC sa duly designated deputies. Itong complexities and nature ng terrorism, masyadong kumplikado. Hindi pwedeng ordinary police o civilian na nakahuli base sa Rule 113 na about to commit, actually committing, just committed, tapos parang hot pursuit, en flagrante delicto principle. Of course ang third element is escaped prisoner pero hindi nagma-matter dito. So ang sinasabi na written authorization hindi ito binibigay para magsagawa ng warrantless arrest kasi illogical yan.”
“Ang warrantless arrest, immediate and spontaneous yan, pag may ginaganap na krimen alangan maghintay ng written authority or authorization ang pulis o military personnel. Hindi po ganoon. Ang legislative intent nito mag-form ng special group, tawagin na munang counter-terrorism group. Ito bibigyan maybe in the form of a memorandum order na itong mga taong ito nakapag-training o seminar abroad o dito sa iba’t ibang lugar na pwede nilang pagsanayan, how to handle the custodial investigation. So kapag arestado ang terrorist suspect following the requirements or elements ng citizen’s or warrantless arrest, doon papasok ang deputies na may written authorization from the ATC. So misconstrued lang ng IBP.”
“So yan ang misconception. Tulad niyan nabanggit ni Atty Gwen na unconstitutional. Kasi nga may misunderstanding sa nakasaad sa panukalang batas. Hindi rin pwede mag-utos ang ATC na mag-detain.”
“Sinulatan ko ang IBP noong Martes at pinaliwanag sa kanila na hindi nagbibigay ng written authorization ang ATC para mang-aresto. Mali yan kasi unconstitutional yan. Ang ibang powers ng ATC. Hindi sila nagpo-proscribe. Sinusunod namin dito base sa panukalang batas ang UN SC Resolution 1373.”
Concerns on Surveillance:
“Ang concern ni Comm Gwen, maraming safeguards in place. Sabi ni Sec Ano masyadong complex ang crime of terrorism, sui generis ito, class of its own. Di katulad ng ordinary crimes na madaling i-follow up. Ito well-organized, well-funded, may mga cells na kailangan talaga i-prevent ang future terrorist attacks, not just limited to that single act of the person. Ang sabi ni Comm Gwen about surveillance hindi naman all the time ang maaresto based on warrantless arrest na-surveil because spontaneous nga yan at immediate yan.”
“A policeman for example sees a person running from the scene of the crime say a terrorist attack. Obviously meron siyang probable cause based on personal knowledge na ang taong yan just committed the act of terrorism. Walang surveillance na involved doon. Inaresto niya ang tao.”
“(T)here would be a special team of police officers maybe a composite team, NBI, police, military. Ito ang sinabi ko kanina na binibigyan ng written authorization ng ATC na kung saan sila ang magte-takeover kasi taken custody based on warrantless arrest. Sila magta-takeover ng custody to handle the custodial investigation. And they will have to coordinate all efforts and consolidate all information related to the particular person arrested by the police officer. So ang 14 days, reasonable yan. Maiksi pa nga yan.”
Safeguards Against Wrongful Arrest/Detention:
“Nariyan pa rin Civil Code. Kung inalis natin 500K kung wrongfully arrested or detained tapos naghihingi ng danyos, pwede siya humingi ng damages, kung naperwisyo, naaresto wrongfully. Nariyan yan, hindi natin inaalis yan. Pwede siya humingi ng amount of damages na gusto niya.”
Appeal to Read the Bill instead of Believing Disinformation:
“Ang panawagan ko sa hindi pa nakakabasa ng final version, ang enrolled bill. Pakibasa natin sa halip na magkumento base lang sa pakikinig ng mga nagki-criticize at nagkukumento na maari ring hindi nakabasa. So panawagan ko lang po basahin natin madali ito mahanap nasa Senate website ito. At nasa aming website, pinglacson.net. Kung gusto nyo mabasa ang kopya ng enrolled bill, para maliwanagan natin at hindi tayo mapapadala sa propaganda na naghahasik ng disinformation campaign laban dito.”
*****