Terrorizing the Anti-Terror Act?

For almost a decade working as prosecutor in Davao City, President Rodrigo Duterte surely knows by heart the pertinent laws on common crimes as against acts that constitute terrorism falling under special laws. Even while he was then Mayor of Davao City for succeeding decades, he had direct experience dealing with terrorist attacks.

Just a few months into office of President Duterte at Malacanang, a terrorist bombing rocked Davao City public market where 14 people were killed and injured 68 others on Sept. 2, 2016. Government authorities blamed Muslim extremists that swore allegiance to the Iran-Syria Islamic States (ISIS) as behind that bloody terror attack.

Then on May 23, 2017, a reign of terror was staged by another ISIS-influenced group led by the bandit Maute brothers. They laid siege for several weeks in Marawi City in Lanao del Sur where they swore to establish their own IS state. As Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), President Duterte steered government forces in breaking the back of the Maute terrorist group after almost five months of intense battle.

And who would forget the deadly twin blasts at the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Cathedral in Jolo, Sulu on January 27, 2019? It occurred during an early Sunday mass and killed 23 people and injured 102 others.

All these terrorist attacks happened in our country even while we have the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007 that was supposed to deter these deadly elements of terrorism and other extremist threats.

These terrorism incidents and in the most recent history of other violent extremist attacks in the Philippines give solid grounds for President Duterte to sign into law the Anti-Terror Act of 2020.

Now awaiting signature at the President’s desk, Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson, the principal author and sponsor of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020, strongly believes lawmakers did their best to craft this law amid the severe criticisms against it by rabid human rights advocates groups and administration critics as well.

“The Human Security Act is a dead letter law. No one has been convicted since it took effect in 2007,” Sen. Lacson rued.

Senate Bill (SB) No. 1083, or the Anti-Terror Act of 2020, he stressed, will strengthen the government’s fight against both domestic as well as transnational terrorists groups that have crossed borders in spreading their unabated, deadly attacks in the Philippines.

Lacson’s staunch support for the passage into law of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020 is shared by fellow security and law and order experts led by the National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr.; National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA) director general Alex Monteagudo; and Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Eduardo Año. The four gentlemen, all former military and police generals were my guests in a virtual news forum Kapihan sa Manila Bay we had last Wednesday via Webinar.

Joining us at Kapihan sa Manila Bay Webinar, Commission on Human Rights (CHR), commissioner Gwen Pimentel-Gana expressed the apprehensions of the constitutional body on the possible passage into law of SB 1083. Although having participated during the Senate public hearings on SB 1083, the CHR commissioner admitted the agency remains un-impressed with the final version of the soon-to-become law.

The CHR commissioner is the sister of Lacson’s colleague, Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, who heads  President Duterte’s PDP-Laban party. Her brother was ostentatiously absent when the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the controversial Anti-Terror Act of 2020.

According to Lacson, the inherent weaknesses of existing laws like the HSA of 2007 spurred the remedial legislation to confront more effectively the continuing of terrorism threats in our country. With the initiatives taken by the Cabinet Cluster on Security of President Duterte that included Esperon and Año along with Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana and the NICA chief, Lacson recalled, the legislation of the proposed Anti-Terror bill started as early as three years ago during the 17th Congress.

Refiled in the 18th Congress, it was finally acted upon only on February 26 this year. The Senate voted 19-2 to approve on final reading SB 1083. Opposition Senators Francis Pangilinan and Rissa Hontiveros voted “No” and are now leading the most vocal critics against its enactment.

The House of Representatives, largely composed by administration allies, adopted en toto SB1083 and approved it before they adjourned sine die their second regular sessions earlier this month. President Duterte certified this as an urgent measure and was immediately ratified by both chambers. There is about two weeks left to sign or veto the Anti-Terror bill, or it will lapse into law in 30 days if President Duterte does not act on it.

The CHR commissioner echoed their fears and concerns and warned the new law might be susceptible for abuse and mis-use by the Executive Branch due to lack of clarity of the law. She argued this can not be corrected through the implementing rules and regulations (IRR).

A lot of the “safeguards” in the HSA against abuse of government law enforcement authorities, Lacson pointed out, were adopted into the SB 1083. He reminded Pimentel-Gana that no less than her late father – ex-Senate president Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel Jr., along with the late Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago and their fellow legal eagles like Senators Juan Ponce-Enrile and Franklin Drilon closely scrutinized and vetted the HSA in 2007.

Except, Lacson cited, they removed the P500,000 a day of fine against any law enforcement agents of the government for wrongful arrest of alleged terrorist suspect and increased from three days to 24 days the detention of terrorist suspect.

Acting in Congress as the policy-makers, Lacson invoked the country’s 1987 Constitution when they crafted the new policy to improve the war against terrorism.

As far as other objections terrorizing the Anti-Terror Act of 2020, we have the Supreme Court to rule on its alleged constitutional infirmities.