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.