 |
| Justice Antonio Carpio |
THE STATE TERRORISM ACT OF 2020
NO
NEED FOR MARTIAL LAW
By:
Antonio T. Carpio - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 05:06 AM June 18, 2020
“Hindi
na kailangan ng martial law kapag napasa namin itong anti-terror bill,” Senate
President Vicente Sotto III told media. I agree with Senator Sotto that under
the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA2020), martial law will be superfluous.
Under
the Constitution, when martial law is declared and the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended, a person arrested for rebellion must be charged in
court within three days from arrest, otherwise he shall be released. Upon being
charged, the court shall determine if there is “probable cause” for his arrest,
that is, whether the crime of rebellion has been committed and he probably
committed it.
If
the court finds that the arrested person probably committed the crime of
promoting rebellion, the court shall determine if there is strong evidence of
guilt against him. If there is strong evidence, he shall remain in detention.
If there is no strong evidence, he is entitled to mandatory bail as a matter of
constitutional right, and upon posting such bail, he shall be released.
Under
the ATA2020, the acts constituting terrorism may also be the same acts
constituting rebellion, the only difference being the intent. In terrorism, the
acts are committed with the intention to intimidate the general public or the
government, or to destabilize the political, economic, or social structure of
the country. In rebellion, the acts are committed with the intention of
removing from the allegiance of the government or its laws any part of
Philippine territory or its armed forces, or to deprive the President or
Congress of their powers.
The
ATA2020 authorizes the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), an
executive body controlled by the
President, to order the arrest of any person suspected of committing any act of
terrorism. There is no need of a
judicial warrant, and no need of
probable cause as the suspect can be arrested even if he has not committed
any act of terrorism. Mere suspicion is
enough as there are no standards for the ATC’s issuance of an arrest order.
The suspect can be detained for a total
of 24 days without any judicial charge. These are all in blatant violation of the Constitution.
Under
the ATA2020, once a judicial charge is filed, the court shall either hold the
suspect in detention if there is probable cause he committed an act of
terrorism punishable with life imprisonment and evidence of guilt is strong,
grant him bail for lesser offenses or if evidence of guilt is not strong, or
release him if there is no probable cause he committed terrorism. However, even
if the arrested person is entitled to bail as a matter of constitutional right,
the arrested person can be placed under “house arrest” instead of being granted
bail. This “house arrest” violates the constitutional right of the accused to
mandatory bail for offenses not punishable with reclusion perpetua or if
evidence of guilt is not strong in offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua.
Under
the Constitution, the President can declare martial law and suspend the writ of
habeas corpus for not more than 60 days. Congress by majority vote can revoke
such declaration within 48 hours from its declaration. In contrast, the
ATA2020, once enacted into law, remains in the statute books forever until
repealed by Congress or invalidated by the Supreme Court.
The
ATA2020 gives the President far greater
powers than martial law with suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Under
the ATA2020, the entire country is in a
permanent state of emergency more restrictive than martial law. Citizens
have lesser protection of their civil liberties than under martial law.
Finally,
the ATA2020 punishes speech that incites others to commit terrorism. The ATC, without a judicial warrant, can order the
arrest of anyone for inciting to terrorism even before the incitement is
made because the ATC is a “proactive” body as explained by Senator Panfilo Lacson,
the principal author of ATA2020. This will have a devastating effect on freedom of speech and freedom of the press in
the May 2022 presidential elections. The Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA2007)
is automatically suspended one month before and two months after any election.
In contrast, the ATA2020, which
repeals and replaces the HSA2007, is not
suspended during any election.
KEY
VOICES VS TERROR BILL
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 05:08 AM June 18, 2020
Mention
the word “terrorist” and what comes to mind is the devastation of Marawi, a
city in ruins after the Maute insurgents affiliated with the Islamic State laid
siege to it in May 2017.
Basilan,
Tawi-Tawi, and other parts of Mindanao have similarly been terrorized by the
Abu Sayyaf group. Having lived with the chaos, violence, and instability that
terrorists bring in their wake, Mindanao lawmakers should have been the first
to support the anti-terrorism bill that now awaits the President’s signature to
become law.
Instead,
Basilan Rep. Mujiv Hataman, Lanao del
Sur (2nd District) Rep. Yasser Alonto Balindong, and Anak Mindanao Rep. Amihilda Sangcopan voted against the bill and
eloquently expressed their opposition to it.
Hataman,
who comes from Basilan where the Abu Sayyaf mainly operates, expressed alarm
over the bill’s expanded definition of “terrorist,” noting how Muslims have
always been “the usual suspects.”
“This law is meant to give the state
the power to tag whomever (it) pleases as a terrorist,” he warned.
And
police have been known to abuse their
authority, he added, citing the June 12 raid on a Muslim household in San
Andres where agents of the Manila Police District allegedly stormed the house
without identifying themselves and without any search warrant, and subsequently
arrested two businessmen, also without a warrant.
Hataman
lamented that the anti-terrorism bill had been prioritized over the
much-delayed rehabilitation of Marawi, a dire situation that ironically could
breed more radicalism and recruitment by extremist groups.
Balindong,
for his part, protested that their “many proposals to fine-tune the bill to
make it constitutional… were turned down.”
These
Mindanao leaders are not the only ones opposing the draconian measure. In several
open letters to the President after holding various fora last week, Mindanawons
from different sectors appealed to Mr. Duterte to veto the bill and come up
with a “version that is respectful of people’s rights and freedoms.”
…Another
key sector rejecting the anti-terrorism bill is one that the President himself
belongs to: the country’s corps of lawyers.
The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
the mandatory organization of Filipino lawyers, scored the legal and
Constitutional infirmities in the proposed law — in particular the authority of
the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), to be composed of Cabinet members, to order the arrest of terror suspects
which, under the 1987 Constitution, is a power exclusively given to the courts.
IBP national president Domingo Cayosa said the creation of the ATC defeats the
role of the judiciary to do “checks and balances” under the Constitution.
Likewise,
the faculty of the University of the
Philippines’ College of Law warned of the bill’s “clear and present danger
to constitutionalism and the rule of law,” and that “As teachers of the law but
more importantly as citizens of this country, we continue to look to our true
north—the Constitution, which is the bedrock of our citizenship and the people,
whom we serve.”
The
Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties
(CLCL), a reorganization of the legal consortium that opposed emergency
powers during the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,
meanwhile urged the judiciary “to step up and help protect the lives and
cherished liberties of the Filipino people against the overbearing power of the
Executive and the Legislative.”
Over 100 other international lawyers
and lawyers’ groups have
joined these voices urgently calling on the Duterte administration to
reconsider the bill. In an open letter, the groups urged the junking of the
proposed law which, they said, could “suppress and criminalize free speech and
dissent, label and punish political enemies as terrorists, and unjustly deprive
them of basic internationally recognized human rights and due process.”
NOT
ON OUR WATCH, REP. LUCY; PLEASE BE REMINDED OF OUR CONSTITUTION
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 04:01 AM June 17, 2020
…how
is it that the protesters from University
of the Philippines Cebu got arrested when they were not even throwing grenades?
The police claimed they were arrested due to mass gatherings not being allowed,
but they were even wearing face masks
and practicing social distancing!
Their
arrests were rendered even more questionable as their lawyer, Rey Fernandez,
cited the 1982 agreement that the
military and police cannot enter UP campuses without the latter’s consent.
One of the protesters even said they were just voicing out their sentiments
when members of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team came with their
firearms.
The
same goes with the Piston 6. They were
arrested because mass gatherings are supposedly not allowed because of the
pandemic. Yet they, too, were wearing
face masks and practicing social distancing.
These
arrests were not done to safeguard our health amid the pandemic. If they were,
National Capital Region Police Office chief Maj. Gen. Debold Sinas wouldn’t
have had a birthday party and then gotten away with it.
It
is evident that they are using the pandemic as an excuse to arrest and harass
all critics of the government, even without the anti-terrorism bill.
…This
new bill clearly penalizes our freedom of speech due to its overly broad
provisions on what constitutes an act of terrorism. Even the Human Security Act
of 2007 did not threaten freedom of speech as much as this bill does.
So
who is this bill really for?
We
must not let them fool us. Never again, not on our watch—and not when we are
aware of the dangers of this bill. Let us remind Rep. Lucy Torres-Gomez of Article III, Section IV of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, which states that “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression,
or of the press, or the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.” …
Samahan
ng Progresibong Kabataan
“Knee
on the National Neck,” Philippine Daily Inquirer Editorial, June 3, 2020:
“Impending
Reign of Terror with Anti-Terror Act” by Solita Collas-Monsod, Philippine Daily
Inquirer (June 6, 2020):
“A
Law That Breeds Terror” by Joel Ruiz Butuyan, Philippine Daily Inquirer (June
8, 2020):
“Anti-Terrorism
Law: A Double Whammy” by Antonio T. Carpio, Philippine Daily Inquirer (June 9,
2020):
“Anti-Terrorism
or Anti-Democracy Bill” by Richard Heydarian, Philippine Daily Inquirer (June
9, 2020):
“A
Bill of Horrors” by John Nery, Philippine Daily Inquirer (June 13, 2020):
THE
STATE TERRORISM ACT OF 2020
Jus
sanguinis - Citizenship depends on your parents’ citizenship
Jus
solis - Citizenship depends on where you were born
Jus
ko po - Citizenship doesn’t matter, you’ll be arrested just on the suspicion of
terrorism
“The
Philippines—World Capital of Impunity”:
“The
Misrule of Law in the Philippines”:
“The
Killing Fields of the Philippines”:
Impunity,
misrule of law, extrajudicial killings, unchecked rubouts (some apparently state-sponsored)—all are very good
reasons why The State Terror Act of 2020 should not be passed. Police power has been and continues to be abused, and under this law, it is given greater opportunity and breadth to inflict abuse.
Photo courtesy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies
ReplyDeletePhoto link:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/csis_er/21787982788/in/photostream/
Gonzalinho
ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT IS ESSENTIALLY MARTIAL LAW
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 04:01 AM June 23, 2020
Arrest without warrant, detention without being charged, is the essence of martial law. The late senator Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel Jr. famously said that he was twice arrested by martial law enforcers but he did not know why.
The anti-terrorism law authorizes arrest without warrant by a court, but merely on the personal determination of the arresting officer. No application for warrant of arrest and no judicial action to issue the warrant of arrest are needed.
The arresting officer reports to the court after the arrest, but the court will decide whether the detention should continue, not pass upon the legality of the arrest without warrant. The offense of arrest without court warrant is erased from criminal law.
The arresting officer reports to the court the detention of the citizen and may ask the court for 14 days detention plus 10 more days—or the sum total of 24 days in detention!
The saying, “Work expands to fill the time available,” gives the arresting officer the luxury of time to investigate the case. The burden of the arresting officer to justify the arrest without warrant is shifted to the person detained, who now has the burden to convince the court to void his detention.
JOSE J. FERRER JR
jjferrerjr1@yahoo.com
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/131044/arrest-without-warrant-is-essentially-martial-law#ixzz6Rfs7q8zo
“Arrest without warrant is essentially martial law.”
Gonzalinho
A VAGUE, BADLY WRITTEN ANTI-TERROR BILL
ReplyDeleteBy: Vicente V. Mendoza - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM June 28, 2020
The proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is hard to understand. Yet a criminal statute must be clearly and precisely drawn so that it can give adequate guidance to those concerned.
Section 4 of the law provides that any person, who
(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 or destruction to a government or public facility, public or private property; (c) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure;
(d) Develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons, explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons; and
(e) Release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods or explosions
when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate the general public or a segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear, to provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, or seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structure of the country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety, shall be guilty of committing terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592.
It is not clear whether the phrase “when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate the general public or a segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear, to provoke or influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, or seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structure of the country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety,” qualifies the acts separately described in (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), or only paragraph (e), which refers to the “release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods, or explosions,” to which the phrase is attached.
…Section 4 is the heart of the proposed law. It must state what terrorism is and who are guilty of it in clear and precise terms.
And what is meant by “serious bodily injury,” “extensive damage or destruction,” “extensive interference,” “seriously undermine public safety,” and “seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structure”?
Confounding the ambiguity and overbreadth of Section 4 are provisions on extraordinary rendition, the dreaded practice of transferring a suspected terrorist or supporter to a foreign country for detention and interrogation on behalf of the transferring country. While Section 3 (c) states that extraordinary rendition may be done “without framing formal charges, trial or approval of the court,” implying thereby that it is allowed, Section 48 prohibits it—without, however, providing penalty for the violation of the prohibition.
What should the conscientious citizen make of these provisions, one of which says no formal charge, trial, or even court approval is necessary to carry out extraordinary renditions, but another says extraordinary rendition is prohibited?
…A statute whose terms are so vague that persons of common understanding must necessarily guess at its meaning or differ as to its application offends due process. And a statute that sweeps unnecessarily broadly both prohibited and protected conduct is overbroad and likewise offends due process.
* * *
Vicente V. Mendoza is a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/131231/a-vague-badly-written-anti-terror-bill#ixzz6RftHoHt1
“Vague, badly written,” it is doubly so because of the rights that are violated.
Gonzalinho
‘THE LINE OF FIRE IS A PLACE OF HONOR’: ACTIVISM IS NOT A CRIME
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 04:01 AM June 30, 2020
The right to dissent is one of the most important rights guaranteed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Nevertheless, Filipino activists have every reason to fear for their safety as they have been regularly subjected to red-tagging, political persecution, and state violence since the downfall of the Marcos regime. Slain student leader Leandro “Lean” Alejandro, whose 60th birth anniversary we celebrate on July 10, knew the risks of working as a full-time activist. But as he pointed out, “The line of fire is a place of honor.”
Lean was one of the key figures in the struggle against the fascist Marcos dictatorship during the 1980s, alongside senators Lorenzo Tañada and Pepe Diokno, and labor leaders Ka Bert Olalia, Lando Olalia, and Crispin Beltran. He became the first secretary-general of the multisectoral group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) when it was established in 1985. In the same year, the charismatic leader, together with JV Bautista, was arrested while negotiating on behalf of student demonstrators. For two months, he was detained in Fort Bonifacio where he said, “The struggle for freedom is the next best thing to actually being free,” in his letter to then girlfriend Lidy Nacpil.
In 1978, Lean entered the University of the Philippines Diliman at the peak of martial law. He took up BS Chemistry as pre-medicine course, but eventually shifted to Philippine Studies where he learned about Marxism in his history and political science subjects. After martial law was lifted in 1981, he led a student mobilization in Manila to protest against tuition hikes and was among those violently dispersed. He was elected chair of the University Student Council in 1983.
…On Sept. 19, 1987, Lean was gunned down in his car while approaching the headquarters of Bayan in Quezon City, by suspected elements of the military who were hell-bent on preserving the ruling system. He had just come from a press conference where he called for mass protests against the increasing military influence in the Aquino administration.
Lean may be gone too soon, but he left an indelible contribution to the national democratic movement. His legacy remains an inspiration to freedom-loving Filipinos. Had he lived today, he would find himself facing a familiar adversary in President Duterte, who is on the verge of criminalizing dissent by signing the draconian anti-terrorism bill.
Daniel Aloc
tierra.giya@yahoo.com
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/131293/the-line-of-fire-is-a-place-of-honor-activism-is-not-a-crime#ixzz6Rfx7VLVc
“The right to dissent is one of the most important rights guaranteed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution.”
Tools of state terror: “red-tagging, political persecution, and state violence.” More on how to advance state terror:
“Duterte’s Authoritarian Toolbox”:
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2019/06/placeholder-4-of-4.html
“Weakening the Rule of Law in the Philippines”:
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2019/06/placeholder-3-of-4.html
Gonzalinho
In 1933 Germany the Nazi minority in the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act that gave Hitler dictatorial powers. The other parties in parliament were intimidated by the Nazis who threatened physical violence against them.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
“Plan J. Get Congress to pass amendments to the current Human Security Act of 2007 or Republic Act 9372, allowing you to impose de facto martial law, i.e. martial law by virtue of the effective repression and abuse of political and civil rights without the actual declaration of it.”
ReplyDeleteThe State Terror Act of 2020 implements a dictatorial strategy identified as early as October 3, 2018. See comment at this link:
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/09/how-to-evade-accountability-for-your.html
Gonzalinho
public servants are paid by the taxpaying public (boss). we have the right to complain about crappy govt service and crappy public servants.
ReplyDeleteSonny Candazo,
@certifiedsonny
Philippine Daily Inquirer (October 3, 2019)
We need servant leaders in government, not dictators.
Gonzalinho
I am a raging, ranting, angry Filipino. That does not make me a terrorist. Killing innocents, jailing dissenters, THAT is terrorism. The Anti-Terror Bill is a misnomer. It just gives the government the power to terrorize its citizens.
ReplyDeleteBituin escalante, @gobituin
Philippine Daily Inquirer (July 6, 2020)
The State Terrorism Act of 2020 should be interpreted in the context of Duterte’s murderous “Drug War,” so-called, which was instigated to instill fear among the populace of Duterte’s dictatorial and abusive exercise of power. The purpose of the State Terrorism Act of 2020 is essentially the same. It is to support the dictatorial and abusive exercise of executive authority and to deter and inhibit activism and dissent undertaken in resistance.
Gonzalinho
Pope’s Monthly Prayer Intentions
ReplyDeleteApostleship of Prayer
April 2021
Fundamental rights
We pray for those who risk their lives while fighting for fundamental rights under dictatorships, authoritarian regimes and even in democracies in crisis.
Link: http://popesprayerusa.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/INTENZIONI-DEL-PAPA-2021-ENG-DEF.pdf
Gonzalinho
A very clear personal threat to Liza (Soberano). This gov’t said citizens should not fear the Anti-Terrorism Bill (before it became law) but now the fears of citizens are coming true. Anyone who dares to comment, criticize, speak up can be red-tagged like Liza.
ReplyDelete@citizenjaneph
Philippine Daily Inquirer (October 23, 2020)
Gonzalinho