Tag: Anti-Terrorism Council

Posted on

On the Manila RTC’s Dismissal of the Proscription Case vs the CPP-NPA

The Manila RTC’s dismissal of the pending proscription case is pursuant to the Saving Clause provision under the Anti-Terrorism Act and should not in any way be interpreted as a setback for the law itself.

That being said, that is exactly the reason why “proscription” is designed to be the exclusive authority of the judiciary since it could involve possible detention of individuals and members of organizations suspected to be violating the Act, hence due process of law must be strictly observed.

Unlike “designation” which only involves preliminary freezing of bank accounts and assets of those involved in terrorist financing, and which the Anti-Terrorism Council is given the authority to perform since it is merely an administrative act.

*****

Posted on

On the Blocking of Websites ‘Affiliated to and Supporting’ Terrorist Organizations

If the blocked websites had to do with financing the activities of the CPP-NPA which the Anti-Terrorism Council had already designated as a terrorist organization, there is legal basis under the law for such action undertaken by the NTC.

That being said, the action may be challenged before the court because it is the basic right of an “aggrieved” party to do so as it has something to do with the interpretation of the law.

*****

Posted on

On the Designation of the CPP-NPA as a Terrorist Group and Its Reported Call to Resume Peace Talks

It is called resource denial operations and rightly so, in order to tighten the noose on the financial and logistical needs of the CPP-NPA.

That being said, the non-traditional left-hand/right-hand approach must still be applied by welcoming back to the fold their members, making sure that they will be treated justly and ensuring their personal safety – the same way the earlier surrenderees who appeared before our Senate red-tagging hearings a few weeks ago are being treated.

Having the momentum with the series of successful operations against the CPP-NPA who are now officially a “designated terrorist group” by virtue of the authority vested by the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 upon the Anti-Terrorism Council, I doubt if the security sector will recommend the resumption of centralized peace talks to the President, more so after they validated the information that after all, peace talks are just part and parcel of their long-drawn strategy to consolidate their forces and stop the momentum gained by the security forces.

While we should not give up on peace, we should learn from the experiences of the past. It is better to have localized peace efforts, with guidance and support from the national government.

*****

Posted on

#PINGterview: Updates on the 2021 Budget, Anti-Terror Law IRR

In an interview on CNN Philippines, Sen. Lacson answered questions on:
* ‘violations’ by the House in passing the P4.5-trillion 2021 budget bill
* possible institutional amendments for R&D, COVID vaccines
* implementing rules and regulations of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

QUOTES and NOTES:
 Continue reading “#PINGterview: Updates on the 2021 Budget, Anti-Terror Law IRR”

Posted on

Read: The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 11479, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

“The IRR of the Anti-Terrorism Act is so masterfully crafted that it gives our law enforcement officers no room for misinterpretation in implementing the law. Even this early, having the Executive Secretary, SOJ and SFA in the ATC is serving its purpose.” (Sen. Ping Lacson, Oct. 18, 2020)

View Fullscreen
Skip to PDF content

Related:
Republic Act 11479, The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020
Lacson: Anti-Terrorism Law’s IRR to Enlighten Security Forces, ‘Doubting Thomases’
Ping: Aprubadong IRR ng Anti-Terror Law, Malinaw na vs Terorismo Lang Talaga