Terrorist designation

A few years ago, I joined former president Rodrigo Duterte on one of his visits to Dumaguete City. He expressed disgust over the spate of killings in Negros Oriental and ordered law enforcement agencies to probe, prosecute and punish those involved in the criminal activities. The image that stuck to my head was the altercation between the political camps of the slain Governor Roel Degamo and beleaguered Congressman Arnolfo “Arnie” Teves, Jr. Literally, they quarreled right in front of Mayor Digong. The Degamo camp accused the private army of the Teves family as responsible for the death of several individuals in the province. The latter denied the allegations.

Cut to 2023. Congressman Teves finds the full extent of the law closing in on him. He is now a “terrorist” in the eyes of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC). The Council found probable cause to designate Teves for violating Section 4 (committing terrorism), Section 6 (planning and preparing the commission of terrorism), Section 10 (recruitment to a terrorist organization) and Section 12 (providing support to terrorist groups).

Designation and proscription

Teves’ brother and former provincial governor Pryde Henry and 11 other individuals, otherwise called the Teves Terrorist Group, have also been tagged as terrorists. Teves and his armed group of followers are linked to several politically- and economically-motivated killings and harassments in Negros Oriental. The group’s reign of terror culminated with the assassination of Governor Degamo in March. It is clear that the ATC designation was not only based on the Pamplona Massacre but on several cases of orchestrated killings, which have remained unresolved to this day. The ATC, through Resolution 43, noted that victims did not file any criminal complaint against the Teves Terrorist Group because of the existing atmosphere of fear and threat prevailing in the province. I believe that the province will remain under a pall of gloom, until and unless the private armed groups employed by local politicians will be permanently dismantled or disbanded.

As defined by the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, a designated person is an individual or a group identified by the United Nations Security Council or a supranational jurisdiction as a terrorist, one who finances terrorism or a terrorist organization. It also refers to those identified by the ATC (Section 25). Moreover, the intent of the crime of terrorism is to intimidate the public, provoke the government and international organizations, create a public emergency and destabilize the country’s political, social and economic structure. Those who engage in acts that cause death, destroy public and private properties, create weapons of mass destruction or cause man-made calamities face the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole.

Allow me to point out that designation, as opposed to proscription, is executive in function. Proscription, meanwhile, undergoes judicial determination. Section 26 provides that: Any group or organization that engages in terrorism shall, upon application with the Department of Justice (DOJ), before the Court of Appeals with a due opportunity to be heard given to the group of persons, be declared as a terrorist or an outlawed group by said Court. Moreover, both processes require strong evidence of probable cause to designate or proscribe certain individuals as terrorists.” The anti-terror law is also silent on which should take precedence: designation by the ATC or preliminary issuance of a proscription by the court.

Despite the label, the justice department clarified that the representative is still not a fugitive. Until now, no court has issued an arrest warrant against Teves.

Legal effect

So, what are the legal implications of the terrorist label on the case of Teves? First, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) immediately froze the assets of the congressman and other ATC designees. In case of a designation or upon the issuance of a preliminary proscription, the AMLC is authorized to issue an ex parte to freeze the assets of suspected individuals without delay (Section 36).

Second, Teves might face expulsion from the House of Representatives. To my knowledge, he is the country’s first legislator to be officially branded a terrorist. In my view, it is conduct unbecoming of an elected public servant. To preserve the institutional integrity of the Lower House, I think the ethics committee might recommend the expulsion of Teves to the plenary. While he has yet to be tried or even found guilty of the crime of terrorism, his ATC designation will put the institution at reputational risk. His membership might destroy public respect for the Lower Chamber. According to the 1987 Constitution, the House may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and suspend or expel a member with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its members (Article 6, Section 16).

Third, the Negros representative and other designees can be detained without a judicial arrest warrant. The anti-terror law empowers the ATC to have any suspected individual apprehended and detained within 14 calendar days. It may be extended to another 10 days if it is established that further detention will preserve the evidence of terrorism, prevent the commission of another act of terrorism and aid in the proper and speedy investigation (Section 29). Unfortunately, Teves cannot be detained since he is not in the country.

Fourth, Teves can be tried for two crimes. To wit, the crime of multiple murder and the offense of terrorism. This is because the elements  of murder are different from the elements of terrorism. While murder may be a predicate act for terrorism,  a prosecution for terrorism requires the separate mens rea of creating fear or panic in the mind of the general public.

I believe in the integrity of our justice system and rule of law. Congressman Teves and the other 12 designees can always question the ATC designation before the court of law. If the court finds the ATC to have erred in its designation, then Teves and his group can file a case of malicious prosecution against the Council. The Supreme Court defines it as “an action for damages by one against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. The gist of the action is the putting of legal process in force, regularly, for the mere purpose of vexation and injury (Cabasaa n v. Anota)”

In the end, the court will always have the final say.