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.
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.
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.
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
“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)
Mapapawi na ang takot ng ilang sektor at agam-agam ng mga awtoridad sa pagpapatupad ng Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 ngayong lumabas na ang Implementing Rules and Regulations nito.
Ayon kay Senador Panfilo Lacson na pangunahing nagsulong at nag-sponsor ng naturang batas noong ito ay nasa Senado pa lamang, maliwanag sa 48-pahina ng IRR ng Anti-Terror Law na tumatalima ito sa Bill of Rights sa ilalim ng 1987 Constitution.
“As the principal sponsor of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in the Senate, I hope that the release of the law’s IRR will now enlighten our law enforcement officers as well as Armed Forces of the Philippines personnel, so they will be properly guided in performing their all-important mission of protecting our citizens from the indiscriminate and merciless acts of terrorism that can only be perpetrated by people with the ugliest and most senseless ideologies,” paliwanag ni Lacson.
The release of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 should enlighten not just our security forces but also the law’s critics and doubters, Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson said.
Lacson, who sponsored the measure in the Senate, noted the 48-page IRR places great emphasis on adherence to the Bill of Rights in the 1987 Constitution.
“As the principal sponsor of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in the Senate, I hope that the release of the law’s IRR will now enlighten our law enforcement officers as well as Armed Forces of the Philippines personnel, so they will be properly guided in performing their all-important mission of protecting our citizens from the indiscriminate and merciless acts of terrorism that can only be perpetrated by people with the ugliest and most senseless ideologies,” Lacson said.
To the Inquirer: Please allow us to set the record straight regarding some points raised by former Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio in his Inquirer column, where he said Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson, along with President Duterte, are “sadly mistaken” with regard to the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) as terrorists.
Obviously, the President was referring to the designation of the CPP-NPA as a terrorist group by the Anti-Terrorism Council in late 2017 as authorized by Sec. 11 of Republic Act 10168, the Terrorist Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012, following the standards set by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. It paved the way for the filing of a proscription case by the DOJ, which is now pending before a Manila Regional Trial Court.
Among the provisions of the newly signed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is a restatement of Sec. 11 under RA 10168 – we simply added the mechanism for the freezing of assets by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
Thus, there is nothing illegal in the action by the Chief Executive to proclaim that the CPP-NPA is a designated terrorist organization after the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) has ruled on the matter.
What I simply clarified when asked to comment on the declaration made by the President is the difference between designationand proscription. Designation is administrative and can be exercised by the Executive Branch through the ATC, while proscription is judicial which only the RTC (under the now-repealed Human Security Act of 2007) and the Court of Appeals (under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020) has the power to decide.
In the case of proscription, the burden of proof lies with the Department of Justice. Even membership of a proscribed terrorist organization undergoes the same due process of law – meaning the Court of Appeals will decide who may be identified as members and subsequently arrested.
Unfortunately, designation and proscription have been used interchangeably – and conveniently at that – by critics of the Anti-Terrorism Law to advance their purpose of asserting that mere designation may result in arrest and detention, thus giving the ATC judicial powers under RA 11479 – which is wrong, if not malicious.
In an interview on DZBB/GMA News TV, Sen. Lacson answered questions on the Anti-Terrorism Law: * active role of the Commission on Human Rights in the Anti-Terror Law [10:31] * encouraging the filing of petitions on the Anti-Terrorism Law to boost public discussion [14:48]
In an interview on DWIZ, Sen. Lacson answered questions on:
* Anti-Terror Bill to be questioned before the Supreme Court [10:01]
* goals of Senate inquiry into Jolo incident [34:24]
* PH warning vs China over military exercises [40:34]
* special session for Bayanihan 2 [42:39]
At the meeting of the Rotary Club of Manila, Sen. Lacson holds the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 – and its critics – to the Rotary’s Four-Way Test. Sen. Lacson also answered questions on the Anti-Terrorism Bill after the speech.
It is good to once again see familiar faces, virtually at least. I am certain that moving from physical meetings and events to the digital realm is something that is new to all of us. Nevertheless, I find comfort in knowing that this pandemic could not shake the dedication of a Rotarian spirit in living up to its overarching motto: Service above self.
Your invitation says I have 30 minutes to speak. Since there are many points to cover in our virtual discussion today, I will cut to the chase and go straight to the issues at hand.
For the past couple of weeks, among the trending topics that have been dominating the mainstream and social media platforms is the Anti-Terrorism Bill, which as we speak, is awaiting the signature of the President. Unfortunately, the ongoing campaign against this proposed measure, heavily influenced by massive misinformation and disinformation, unfairly devalues the importance of this legislative measure on many fronts.
Hence, as the principal sponsor and one of the authors of the bill, it is incumbent upon me to take every available platform to shed light on the legislative intent and merit of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, as proposed.
To Governor Presbitero Velasco, Jr., the National President of the League of Provinces of the Philippines (LPP); Gov. Dakila Carlo Cua, National Chairman; Gov. Susan Yap; to all the members of this honorable organization, my colleagues in public service, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
Allow me to express my gratitude for your overwhelming support to the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill. As mentioned by no less that Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary Eduardo Año during last week’s webinar, 784 local government chiefs already signed the Manifesto in Support to the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill as of June 17. This alone shows us a clear picture that there is indeed a demand for a stricter and effective counter-terrorism measures on the ground.
The Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) President Francis Lim, National Issues Committee Chair Rizalina Mantaring, respected members of this great association, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
When two great legal minds clash, not symmetrically, nor tangentially, but squarely, as in head-on, what do laymen like me and probably some of you in this virtual gathering, do?
I am referring to your last week’s guest, retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio on the one hand, and on the other – an equally eminent legal eagle, a former Justice Secretary, and also my colleague in the Senate – Minority Leader Franklin Drilon. Let me explain.
After reading the transcript of his remarks before the Management Association of the Philippines yesterday, I think he has made up his mind on his interpretation, so in the meantime I will leave it at that.
That said, I am scheduled to speak before the same MAP membership meeting on June 24, and I will have the opportunity to respond point by point to the constitutional issues and concerns that he raised as guest speaker of the same forum.
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
In an interview on SMNI, Sen. Lacson answered questions on the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020:
* ATB compliant with the 1987 Constitution [0:17]
* powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council [7:13]
* upholding of human rights [13:48]
* need for a legal backbone vs the threat of terrorism [14:56]
Tatlong maiiksi subali’t klarong pagsasalarawan ang naging tugon ni Senador Panfilo Lacson, sponsor ng Anti-Terrorism Bill sa Senado, sa maling akala na naging dahilan ng pagkabahala ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines sa ilang nilalaman ng naturang panukala.
Ang Anti-Terrorism Bill ay mabilis, mabisa at naaayon sa Saligang Batas, maiksing tugon ni Lacson sa pahayag ng nabanggit na grupo ng mga abogado.
“The Anti-Terrorism Bill speaks clear of our swift, effective, and constitutional policy against these acts of terror and against no one else but its perpetrators,” ayon kay Lacson sa kanyang sulat kay IBP President Domingo Egon Q. Cayosa.
Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson on Tuesday rectified the misconceptions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines about the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, as he maintained the measure aims to combat terrorism in a “swift, effective and constitutional” manner.
In a letter-reply to IBP president Domingo Egon Q. Cayosa, Lacson addressed the IBP’s concerns about parts of the bill, including the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC).
“The Anti-Terrorism Bill speaks clear of our swift, effective, and constitutional policy against these acts of terror and against no one else but its perpetrators,” he said.
I will be as eagle-eyed and vigilant and more in guarding against abuses in the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 because I will regard any abuse as a bigger challenge, since I am going all in on this.
“Taya pati pamato na ako rito,” not just because I was the principal sponsor of the measure who painstakingly defended its constitutionality and strict compliance to the Bill of Rights with the help of most of my colleagues who interpellated and proposed their amendments to further enhance the safeguards which I accommodated, as long as we would not come up with another dead-letter law like its predecessor, the Human Security Act of 2007.
Having said that, Section 29, which is now the focus of so many challenges on its constitutionality, is merely a restatement of the same provision in Republic Act 9732 which was originally proposed by a legal eagle in the person of Sen. Franklin Drilon, accepted by an equally great legal mind in Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, then principal sponsor, and voted favorably upon by other legal luminaries in the previous Senate such as the late Senators Aquilino Pimentel Jr., Miriam Defensor-Santiago, and Senators Richard Gordon and Pia Cayetano, to name a few.
Not only that: the same Section 29 underwent further scrutiny in the ensuing bicameral conference with the help of the more eminent members of the House panel, namely: the late Rep. Simeon Datumanong, former DOJ secretary; Reps. Douglas Cagas, Louie Villafuerte, Antonio Cuenco, Edcel Lagman, and Teddy Boy Locsin Jr., now DFA secretary, among others.
With so many illustrious names in the law profession going through the same provision – “having been duly authorized in writing by the ATC, having taken custody of…” how could a layman and perpetual law student like me doubt the constitutionality of the said Sec 29?
The only difference is that the ATB which I sponsored in the Senate has more added safeguards like the immediate notification in writing or the nearest judge where the warrantless arrest was made in compliance with Rule 113, Sec 5 of the Rules of Court, the CHR and the ATC itself which are not present under RA 9732.
Dahil marami nang nagbabalik-loob sa pamahalaan o kaya ay sumusuko sa mga awtoridad, nag-level up na ng mga “fronts” ng New People’s Army (NPA) na siraan ang Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB).
Sa impormasyong nakalap ni Senador Panfilo Lacson, ang pagkakalat ng maling impormasyon laban sa ATB ay ginagawa umano ng mga grupo at indibiduwal na kaalyado o nakikisimpatiya sa NPA.
“An Army commander reported that in anticipation of the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Bill, the NPAs have started surrendering. 27 in just 2 days in Quezon, Laguna and Mindoro alone. Many more are sending surrender feelers. That is why, he said, their fronts have become busier with their disinformation campaign,” pagbubunyag ni Lacson sa kanyang Twitter account.
Fronts of the communist New People’s Army – and their “allies” – have become busier in their disinformation campaign against the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 over the weekend, as more of their comrades surrender to authorities.
Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson bared this on Sunday as he urged the public to read a provision in the bill that those behind the intensified smear drive have conveniently skipped.
“An Army commander reported that in anticipation of the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Bill, the NPAs have started surrendering. 27 in just 2 days in Quezon, Laguna and Mindoro alone. Many more are sending surrender feelers. That is why, he said, their fronts have become busier with their disinformation campaign,” he said on his Twitter account.
In an interview on DZBB/GMA News TV, Sen. Lacson sets the record straight on pieces of disinformation against the Anti-Terrorist Act of 2020 – including safeguards against possible abuse; and the role of the Anti-Terrorism Council.