Law-abiding citizens need not fear terror law – Duterte

MANILA, Philippines — Law-abiding citizens need not fear the anti-terrorism law, President Duterte said yesterday, as he maintained that the controversial measure would provide the country “much-needed legal weapons” to combat terrorists.

In his first remarks on the measure since it was enacted into law, Duterte noted that terrorists have staged bombings and have wreaked havoc in Mindanao.

“(The law will provide) the much-needed legal weapons that we need to fight terrorism because terrorism does not involve one or two gun shots. As what happened in Mindanao and in other places, mostly in Mindanao, they are using bombs,” the President said in a televised address early yesterday morning.

“And for the law-abiding citizen of this country, I am addressing you with all sincerity: do not be afraid if you are not a terrorist, if you do not seek to destroy the government, bomb churches, bomb public utilities... just to derail and topple the nation,” he added.

Various groups claim that Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, signed by the President last Friday, will suppress free speech and will be used to target critics of the government.

At least six petitions challenging the legality of the law have been filed before the Supreme Court (SC).

Petitioners have asked the court to declare as illegal various provisions, including those that enumerate acts of terrorism; punish persons who threaten to commit acts of terrorism, incite others to commit terrorism through speeches, writings, proclamations, banners or other representations and recruit people to join terrorist groups; and allow the pre-trial detention of suspected terrorists.

Duterte said he expected critics of the law to challenge its legality before the high court.

He, however, clarified that the law would not be used against those who write articles critical of the government.

“I never filed a case even during (my time as) mayor, I did not charge anyone. I just take it... because that is what my father said,” the President said.

“And it was succinctly uttered once by General (Delfin) Lorenzana when he was still active (in the military service): ‘In the government, the one who gets angry is the one who loses,’” he added.

‘Communists are terrorists’

Duterte also assailed communists, whom he claimed want “to be treated with another set of law.”

“The left and the communists, they think we are always thinking of them... I know that we are also thinking of other matters; as a matter of fact, they are the least that we are spending our time,” he said.

“That’s the problem there... They think they are a different breed. They would like to be treated with another set of law, when, as a matter of fact, they are terrorists. They are terrorists because… I finally declared them to be one. Why? Because… I spent most of my days as a President trying to figure out and connect with them on how we can arrive at a peaceful solution,” he added.

The Chief Executive said he used to have good rapport with communists and had to cultivate friendship with everybody when he was a politician because of the votes.

“Nobody wants a war. I don’t want it, especially me. I know (communists), and it was a good rapport while it lasted. When I became President, the story changed simply because in the ladder of priority, the highest for me would be the security of the state,” he said.

“But there is always a time to be friendly and a time just to be firm. And I did my very best to produce something for the country. Unfortunately I would not be blaming anybody now, unless they would start to blame me again so that I can also blame them. Nothing will happen,” he added.

Duterte terminated the peace talks with the communists in 2017 after a series of rebel attacks against government troops, atrocities that officials said reflected the lack of sincerity to pursue a peaceful settlement.

The President, known for his intense crackdown against criminality, reiterated that he is ready to “kill” anyone who kills innocent people.

“Ngayon, sabi ko nga, sabi nila, ‘Duterte, patay dito, patay doon.’ Totoo. ’Pag pinatay mo ang mga tao, papatayin talaga kita (Now, they said, ‘Duterte kills here and there.’ That’s  true. If you kill people, I will really kill you),” Duterte said.

“Ipusta mo sa libingan ng tatay pati nanay mo (You can bet on that on the graves of your father and mother). If you do that to the people, if you kill them wantonly, then I will take it as a right to kill you,” he added.

Best defense

For Senate President Vicente Sotto III, the best defense against the controversial anti-terrorism law before the SC is the law itself.

Sotto, a principal author of law, yesterday stressed that the measure has long been the subject of debate and rigorous scrutiny in the 16th, 17th and 18th Congress and is “drowning with safeguards” compared with similar statutes in other governments to prevent abuse by authorities.

“(RA 11479) has so many safeguards. Given the long time it was languishing in Congress, I’ve seen all the possible flaws that can be raised against it. So in interviews, I always say there is nothing we can say that (critics) will listen to,” he told the Kapihan sa Manila Bay virtual media forum.

“So the defense of the law before the SC is the law itself. It is the best defense. It is the best argument. Read it. Do not interpret. Read it black and white and you’ll be enlightened,” he added.

The senator also questioned the criticisms from human rights groups from other countries, whose anti-terrorism laws are much more draconian than the Philippine version.

He said the foreign experts must first question the security laws of their countries before meddling in the country’s internal affairs.

More petitions

Meanwhile, two framers of the 1986 Constitution, along with the Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC), questioned before the SC the constitutionality of the anti-terrorism law, citing its overbroad definition of “terrorism” and for giving the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) the authority to perform unreasonable arrests.

Christian Monsod and Felicitas Arroyo, who were members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, filed the 43-page petition before the SC yesterday afternoon, along with petitioners from the AHRC – Rey Paolo Santiago, Amparita Sta. Maria, Maria Ilsea Salvador, Marianne Carmel Agunoy, Xamantha Xofia Santos, Maria Paula Villarin, Paula Sophia Estrella, Ignacious Michael Ingles and Paula Zayco.

Co-petitioners were Jesuit priest Fr. Albert Alejo, Xavier University College of Law faculty member Ernesto Neri, student Wyanet Aisha Eliora Alcibar and the Sentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa.

Named respondents were Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr., Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr., Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, Interior Secretary Eduardo Año, Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, Information and Communications Technology Secretary Gregorio Honasan II, Anti-Money Laundering Council executive director Mel Georgie Racela, Armed Forces of the Philippines chief Gen. Felimon Santos Jr. and Philippine National Police chief Gen. Archie Francisco Gamboa.

This is the sixth and so far shortest petition filed before the SC against RA 11479.

Unlike other groups that have asked for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, the group of Monsod only filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition.

They asked the SC that after hearing the case on its merits, it would issue a judgment declaring 11 sections of the new law unconstitutional and void. These are Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 25 and 29.

They also prayed that the magistrates would permanently enjoin and prohibit the respondents from implementing, in any manner, the 11 sections.

The petitioners said the SC should grant their petition because the definition of terrorism in Section 4 was broad that it could even cover legitimate acts that pursue the constitutionality of protected rights to free speech, expression and assembly.

They explained that Section 4 is a “clear case of overbreadth” because in RA 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007, terrorism was defined by enumerating the acts already punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

Unlike in the anti-terrorism law, it “does nothing to set its parameters in defining terrorism. Instead, it simply mentions ‘acts’ but does not identify which of these acts actually are,” according to the petitioners.

“Our criminal law has never punished intent alone. There must always be overt acts, which are themselves illegal and which themselves manifest this malicious intent,” they said.

The new law also raises the chilling effect to the rights of freedom of speech and expression, that could be misconstrued as red-tagging.

Meanwhile, former Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) chief Rudolph Philip Jurado had earlier asked the SC to declare the Anti-Terrorism Act unconstitutional because it allegedly gives the ATC authority to waive the rights of a detainee.

Jurado filed his 59-page petition for certiorari and prohibition with ancillary prayers for the issuance of a TRO and preliminary injunction at the SC at 11:39 a.m. yesterday.

Jurado, who was appointed by Duterte to the OGCC in April 2017 until he was removed from his post in September 2018, filed the fifth petition against RA 11479.

The respondents in the petition are the ATC, Medialdea, Guevarra, Locsin, Lorenzana, Año, Dominguez, Esperon, Santos, Gamboa, the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives. Paolo Romero, Evelyn Macairan, Rhodina Villanueva