Sponsorship Speech for the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2019

Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson

Oct. 2, 2019

More at: https://pinglacson.net/2019/10/02/sponsorship-speech-for-the-anti-terrorism-act-of-2019-18th-
congress/

[The web post has the downloadable PDFs of the Senate Bill and Committee Report. Thanks.]

Thank you, Mr. President. Distinguished colleagues, I have the honor to report on the Senate floor
Senate Bill No. 1083 entitled "An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 9372," otherwise
Known as "An Act to Secure the State and Protect Our People from Terrorism," as embodied in
Committee Report No. 9 in substitution of Senate Bill Numbers 6, 21, and 30.

The amendment to the Human Security Act of 2007 is among the unfinished business of the 17th
Congress. Almost eight months ago, I stood here to sponsor the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2019.
Unfortunately, time was not on our side to deliberate on the said measure. Since then, the Filipino people
have already been confronted by a number of terrorist attacks. As we speak, terrorist groups are
probably planning their next attacks.

Mr. President, we have seen a mutation in the way terrorist groups perpetrate their evil acts since the
passage of the Human Security Act. We have seen the phenomenon of terrorism become more complex
and malevolent. We have seen how the ISIS' tactics have changed as the terror group continues to lose
ground in Iraq and Syria, how their members and sympathizers are taking the fight here in Southeast
Asia. Yes, Mr. President, right here in our backyard. In fact, they attempted to establish a caliphate as
they laid siege in Marawi. Unsuccessful, we saw the recent spate of suicide bombings in our southern
island provinces. Just over the weekend of September 15, at least 700 kilos of ammonium nitrate and an
81mm mortar fuse were recovered in Patikul, Sulu. Imagine the extent of damage that these huge
amounts of explosive components could have done if these were not seized by our security forces.

Nations have made headway in amending or passing new anti-terrorism laws. Sadly, we could not say the
same for our country. Since its enactment in 2007, our country's legislative framework for anti-terrorism
has remained toothless, to say the least.

Only in the Philippines - as the expression goes - where the anti-terror law has literally more provisions
restricting our law enforcers than bringing terrorists to justice. That is not an exaggeration. Under the
current Human Security Act, there are only four instances for terrorists to be prosecuted under the law.
These are: commission of the actual crime of terrorism; conspiracy to commit terrorism; accomplice; and
accessory. On the other hand, there are a total of 20 instances where law enforcers can be charged and
penalized for violations of the Human Security Act. I believe this is not rational. Add to this the penalty of
P500,000 per day to be paid by the government to anyone erroneously detained for possible terrorism.
This is not only irrational, Mr. President; it borders on the absurd.

Sadly, the Human Security Act has proven to fail in terms of its efficacy as an anti-terrorism measure.
Despite the real and present threat presented by terrorist organizations, groups, and individuals to the
Filipino people, we have had only one conviction for violation of the law. Imagine that, time and again,
and seemingly more and more often, we hear of terrorist attacks happening, with a mounting number of
those killed and injured. One conviction, Mr. President. That alone is enough proof of the ineptness and
inadequacy of the current law.
It is therefore incumbent upon the legislature to amend the Human Security Act of 2007. Our country
needs an anti-terror law that would provide a strong legal backbone to support our criminal justice
response to terrorism, enable our law enforcers the much-needed tools to protect our people from the
threat of terrorism, and at the same time, safeguard the rights of those accused of the crime. We need a
strong legal structure that deals with terrorism in order to exact accountability, liability, and responsibility.
Those who have committed, are about to commit, or are supporting those who commit terrorist acts
should be prosecuted and penalized accordingly.

As a responsible member of the international community, there is a clear need for us to amend the
Human Security Act in order to more effectively implement relevant United Nations Security Council
Resolutions, meet international and regional standards on anti-terrorism laws, and fulfill state obligations
as a United Nations member-state.

We need a legal framework for anti-terrorism that is clear, concise, balanced, and rational, which is the
very backbone of this measure under consideration.

In the current definition of terrorism under the Human Security Act, three things are needed for the crime
of terrorism to be proven: the cognate or predicate crime, intent, and motive. Let me elucidate. For
predicate crimes, one must first prove that the act constitutes any of the predicate crimes listed in the
law. Then the intent must be proven. According to the Human Security Act, the predicate crime should
have been intended to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among
the populace. The law does not stop there, Mr. President. Contrary to what criminal law requires,
terrorism as defined under the Human Security Act calls for another element: motive. The crime must
have been motivated by the desire to coerce government to give in to an unlawful demand.

To illustrate, if I am a prosecutor, first I must prove the crime of murder, which is a violation of the
Revised Penal Code. Afterwards, I must prove that the crime of murder was committed with the intent to
sow and create widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace. At the same time, I
still have to prove that the motive behind the act is to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
demand. No wonder we do not normally file terrorism charges against suspected terrorists. What do we
expect if it is more convenient and easier to get a conviction if the suspected terrorists are charged with
any of the predicate crimes listed in the act without any danger of being imposed with a P500,000 fine in
case of acquittal.

A case in point - just last September 10, 2018, the PNP was reported to have filed murder charges
against 18 individuals for the Lamitan, Basilan bombing. All the accused are members of armed groups
known to have pledged loyalty to the international terrorist group Islamic State (IS). Note that despite
having committed clear acts of terrorism, the suspects were charged with murder.

Sure, if suspected terrorists are charged and found guilty of say, murder, they will still be put behind
bars. So why the need to charge them with terrorism, if the penalty is the same? Because this has far-
reaching implications on our overall criminal justice's response to terrorism. Consequently, there is
currently no legal basis for our penal institutions to introduce de-radicalization interventions to those
involved in terror acts because they were not charged for the crime of terrorism.

Therefore, one of our main amendments we are introducing is the new definition of terrorist acts. Our
Committee seeks to make the definition of terrorist acts concise, clear, and adherent with regional and
international standards. If you would direct your attention to the slides, the definition of terrorist acts in
the anti-terror laws of Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Australia contain three main elements: the Acts
that would fall under the definition, the Intent of said Acts, as well as Safeguards. And thus, we propose
to do away with the element of 'motive' and define terrorist acts to cover the following unlawful Acts, in
or outside the Philippines, regardless of its stage of execution:
1. Attacks that cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person's life;

2. Attacks that cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, critical
infrastructure, public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic
loss;

3. Manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of biological

or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of biological and chemical weapons;

4. Release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to
endanger human life; and

5. Threat to commit any of the abovementioned acts.

Note that we include the phrase, "in or outside the Philippines," Mr. President, as an acknowledgment of
the extraterritorial nature of the crime of terrorism. Accordingly, we are adopting the principle of law that
"permits a state to exercise jurisdiction over perpetrators of certain offenses considered particularly
heinous or harmful to mankind, regardless of any nexus the state may have with the offense, the
offender, or the victim." This however does not create an obligation on the part of the Philippines to take
cognizance of terrorist acts committed abroad. It merely gives us the authority to take cognizance of a
terrorist act when needed, such as when a terrorist act has been committed abroad by an individual and
such person comes here to try to evade prosecution abroad. With our proposed amendment, we can be
sure that whether the terrorist act is committed here or abroad, the perpetrator shall be within the arms
of the law once he or she comes to our country.

This resonates with a proposed new section on Foreign Terrorist Fighters, which I will discuss later.

With respect to the element of Intent, it can be inferred from the following amendment on the definition:
When the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate, put in fear, force or induce the
government or any international organization, or the public to do or to abstain from doing any act, or
seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic or social structures of the country, or
create a public emergency or undermine public safety, shall be guilty of committing a Terrorist Act, and
shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act
No. 10592, otherwise known as "An Act Amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, as
Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code."

And equally important, the Safeguards:

Terrorist Acts defined under this Section shall not cover legitimate exercises of the freedom of expression
and to peaceably assemble, including but not limited to engaging in advocacy, protest, dissent or mass
action where a person does not have the intention to use or urge the use of force or violence or cause
harm to others.

Moreover, the Human Security Act does nothing to deter participation in the plotting of terrorist acts. And
so we propose to penalize the following preparatory acts:

* Planning, Training, Preparing and Facilitating the Commission of a Terrorist Act;

* Attempt or Conspiracy to Commit a Terrorist Act;

* Proposal to Commit Terrorist Acts;

* Inciting to Commit Terrorist Acts;

* Recruitment to and Membership in a Terrorist Organization;

* Providing Material Support to Terrorists; and

* Being an Accomplice or Accessory to a Terrorist Act, regardless of its stage of execution.

At this point Mr. President, allow me to discuss in detail the transnational nature of terrorism. As a
responsible member of the community of nations, we are duty-bound to improve upon our laws towards
ensuring we are able to implement UN Security Council Resolutions, meet international standards, and
fulfill state obligations with the United Nations.

Thus, we are inserting a provision on Foreign Terrorist Fighters, to cover Filipinos who may join and fight
with terrorist organizations outside the Philippines. The proposed Anti-Terrorism Act establishes the
Philippine state's jurisdiction over Filipino nationals who commit terrorist offenses outside of Philippine
jurisdiction. It also provides measures to ensure foreign terrorists do not use our motherland as a transit
point, a safe haven to plan and train for terrorist attacks in other countries, or as a source of new
recruits. Mr. President, we send a strong message to them: You are not welcome here. If you dare set
foot in our country, you will be dealt with the full power of our laws.

Mr. President, our proposal is to deem the following acts unlawful and be punished with the penalty of
life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of R.A. No. 10592:

* For any person to travel or attempt to travel to a state other than his/her state of residence or
nationality, for the purpose of perpetrating, planning, or preparing for, or participating in terrorist acts, or
providing or receiving terrorist training;

* For any person to organize or facilitate the travel of individuals who travel to a state other than their
states of residence or nationality for the purpose of perpetrating, planning, training, or preparing for, or
participating in terrorist acts, or providing or receiving terrorist training, including acts of recruitment; and

* For any person residing abroad who comes to the Philippines to participate in perpetrating, planning,
training, or preparing for, or participating in terrorist acts or provide support for or facilitate terrorist
training here or abroad.

Mr. President, our unwavering resolve to fight terrorism also entails the removal of the restrictive and
absurd fine of P500,000 per day for erroneous detention. Moreover, law enforcement personnel are
provided with the capacity to build airtight cases against the perpetrators of such vile acts. We also
strengthen the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) by increasing its membership to include the Chief Minister of
the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. We also designate the ATC Program
Management Center as the main coordinating and program management arm of the Council.

The amendments provide for a longer judicial authorization for the conduct of surveillance, 60 days to be
specific, which may be further lengthened to another non-extendable period of 30 days. As a safeguard,
the authority to issue Judicial Authorization for Surveillance is retained with the Court of Appeals.

We also seek to extend the number of days a suspected person can be detained without a warrant of
arrest from the current three days to now a non-extendible period of 14 working days. This increase still
keeps Philippine legislation within the moderate/lenient bracket. Both Australia and Sri Lanka, in their
proposed amendment to their Anti-Terror Law, allow for 14 days' detention without warrant of arrest.
Bangladesh allows for 15 days while Indonesia for 21 days, Pakistan for 30 days, Malaysia for 59 days,
and Singapore for 730 days.

Mr. President, I would also like to add that some of our neighboring countries allow for the extension of
detention periods without warrant. To illustrate, Thailand's initial period of detention without warrant is
seven days but this can be extended up to 30 days. Indonesia allows for extension up to 120 additional
days, and Malaysia up to two years. Both The Maldives and Singapore provide for the indefinite period of
detention of suspects deemed to be threats to national security.

To safeguard against abuse, we are proposing to require the arresting officer to establish the existence of
the following circumstances:

1. That the further detention of the person is necessary to preserve evidence related to the terrorist act
or to complete the investigation;

2. That the further detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the commission of another terrorist
act; and

3. That the investigation is being conducted properly and without delay.

Moreover, the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act maintains the added safeguards of mandating the arresting
officer to:

1. Notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension of the following facts: a)
time, date and manner of arrest; b) location or locations of the detained suspect/s; and c) physical and
mental condition of the detained suspect/s; and

2. Furnish the ATC of the written notice given to the judge. Mr. President, the amendments also seek to
ensure persons charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act are appropriately managed and taken care of inside
our jail and corrections facilities. We know that prisons can unintentionally provide the perfect venue for
terrorists to recruit, plan, and build their networks. The amendments mandate the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology and the Bureau of Corrections to establish a system of assessment and
classification for persons charged with committing terrorist and preparatory acts. The said system shall
provide for the proper management, handling and interventions for said persons detained. We would like
to emphasize that any law enforcement or military personnel found to have violated the rights of persons
accused under the said Act shall be penalized with imprisonment ranging from 10 years and 1 day to 12
years.

This amendatory measure also subscribes to the saying that justice delayed is justice denied. And so, to
ensure the speedy disposition of cases filed under the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act we include new
provisions regarding the trial of persons charged under this Act. We propose the designation of certain
Regional Trial Courts as Anti-Terror Courts whose jurisdiction will be exclusively limited to try violations of
the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act. We have likewise included a provision allowing the use of
videoconferencing technology for persons charged under this Act to be able to, as well as other
witnesses, to remotely appear and testify.

Finally, learning from the Philippine experience in proscribing the Abu Sayyaf group as a terrorist
organization, which lagged in our courts for more than 10 years, we are proposing an amendment
regarding the issuance of a preliminary order of proscription. Under our proposal, upon a determination
that probable cause exists, a regional trial court judge shall issue a preliminary order of proscription
within 72 hours from the filing of application. After which, the court shall have a period of six months
from the filing of verified application within which to determine, through a summary hearing, whether to
set aside, modify or make permanent such preliminary order of proscription.

May I also remind my esteemed colleagues that amending the Human Security Act means an end to
martial law in Mindanao. Though analysis of the situation shows that it is an empty martial law, "psywar"
to even quote Defense Secretary Lorenzana, the term still has a lingering threat to the minds of the
Filipino people, being a country severely traumatized and still being haunted by the horrors of Martial Law
decades ago. The Armed Forces of the Philippines had repeatedly made a commitment to end martial law
in Mindanao if the measure is passed.

Lastly, Mr. President, I emphasize that amending the Human Security Act does not take away the intent
and spirit of the human rights safeguards provided by RA 9372 for persons accused of Terrorist Acts and
Preparatory Acts. Furthermore, by amending RA 9372, we ensure that our anti-terror law is clear,
concise, and balanced. We strive to provide the state a strong legal backbone to protect the life, liberty
and property of the Filipino people against the evils of terrorism.

Mr. President, I have said it then and I will say it again: "A person may cause evil to others not only by
his actions but by his inactions, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury." I
therefore seek with utmost urgency the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act, seeking to amend Republic
Act 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Co-Sponsorship Speech COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 9 News 

Senate Bill No. 1083 - Anti-Terrorism Act of 2019 Saturday, Jun

Good afternoon, Mr. President and distinguished colleagues:  De

Duterte ov
China mon
Today, it is my privilege to co-sponsor a bill that will amend a law to ensure protection of all Filipinos production
from an evil that has caused so much pain and suffering; a destructive force that has no regard for COVID-19
innocent lives; the phenomenon that is--- terrorism.  Ga
DOE to ens
electricity t
Mr. President, I am referring to Senate Bill No. 1083 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2019 under Committee as schools
Report No. 9 which was first presented to this august body by Senator Panfilo Lacson as Chairperson of distance le
the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, Peace Unification and Reconciliation. Friday, June

Mr. President, sometime in 2016, a gruesome video showing three men standing with their knives, each  Zu
positioned to slit the throat of three kneeling captives circulated on social media platforms. The only on Senate
CREATE
audio that can be heard from the video is the voice of the man at the center uttering words in support of
 Lac
a terrorist organization and waging war against law enforcement agencies in Asia. After this man's Duque's Pa
utterances, they beheaded the said captives.  Sta
Minority Se
Unknown to most of us, the man in the center of the video, who seems to be the leader of the trio, is a Drilon, Risa
Francis Pan
Filipino and a registered voter of a barangay located in the southern part of the country. He is Mohamed condition o
Kiram Reza. It was found out that in 2012, after his bomb-making training abroad, he was able to recruit De Lima
fellow Filipinos to join their organization which aims to sow terror in the country as motivated by Osama  Pro
Bin Laden's video on the 9/11 attack in the United States of America. In 2015, his organization, Dawlaa crime, rele
islamiya, pledged their support to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and he was able to travel to Cebu stude
arresting c
Syria. The following year, he appeared on the video I showed to you earlier. A Filipino turned terrorist.
  Vil
importance
Mr. President, before he made the video, we had already apprehended him as a suspected terrorist when wildlife hab
I was still the Davao City Police Director in December of 2013. We have monitored all of his moves. World Envi
Including that of an occasion when he, together with his wife and son, visited the hotel room of a known  Zu
Jemaah Al Islamiya member and Malaysian suicide bomber named Mohammed Nor Fikrie. Fikrie was Senate Pro
later neutralized by my SWAT team when he was about to detonate himself inside a crowded restaurant Pandemic
 Ev
in Davao City.
Bayanihan
Duterte ca
However, since the military and police intelligence could not provide us sufficient evidence to prove his for COVID-
terrorist activities before the lapse of the allowable detention period, we were forced to release him. If  Ga
only we had been allowed then to detain him for at least a week in order to build a solid case against strengthen
governmen
him as a terrorist, he would not have had the opportunity to commit more terror acts. education
n
In 2018, he was included in the US list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. The UN Security Council
also designated him under the ISIS and Al-Qaeda Sanctions List. Moreover, this man is included in the
INTERPOL Red Notice list in April 2019.

Despite his notoriety as a terrorist, in 2018, our law enforcement agency was only able to file a case
against him for the crime of Inciting to Sedition in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 for
the very video I showed to you.

Imagine, a person Specially Designated as Global Terrorist was charged only with a crime beyond arms-
length of our current anti-terrorism law or the Human Security Act of 2007.

The other terrorist in the video who was standing on the right side of Reza was identified as Mohamed
Saifudin Faiz, an Indonesian national who spent most of his adult life in Mamasapano, Maguindanao. He
was arrested by PNP Intelligence Group operatives in Zamboanga City last 2005 but was released in
2015 after the dismissal of cases filed against him. He was later on deported to Indonesia and eventually
joined the ISIS in Al-Raccah, Iraq.

There lies our problem, Mr. President. Our law against terrorism is so soft that it is almost tantamount to
tolerance. We do not tolerate acts of terrorism. We must let it be known to the world that we are in
solidarity in the global fight against terrorism and this stand should materialize in legislation.

The most advanced weaponry budget can provide is worthless if our law enforcers' hands are tied
because the law restricts them to be more aggressive in their cause against terrorism. It is the terrorists
that should fear the law and not our law enforcers who are always under threat of law suits for violating
rights of suspected terrorists.

I fully agree with the statement of Senator Panfilo Lacson when he said during his sponsorship speech
that it is "Only in the Philippines--as the expression goes--where the anti- terrorism law has literally more
provisions restricting our law enforcers than bringing terrorists to justice."

Mr. President, to bolster the fact that we are in urgent need to update and amend our anti-terrorism
legislation, let me state for the record that in 2017, the Philippines was ranked as the 12th country in the
world with the highest impact of terrorism. Unfortunately, in 2018, our Global Terrorism Index ranking
became worse. We are now the 10th country most impacted by terrorism - this is a list where we do not
want to be included, not in the top 15 and not even in the top 100.

With our ranking, the Institute for Economics and Peace recorded 2,869 deaths due to terror attacks in
the country since 2001; 326 of which was from 2017 - our highest recorded number of deaths in more
than a decade. They recognized the New People's Army, and the two groups which have declared their
allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS), the Abu Sayyaf and the Maute, as the major terrorist groups in the
country.

Mr. President, with thousands of Filipinos who have died and the properties that have been destroyed by
the acts of these terrorist groups, the economic impact of terrorism in our country has already taken its
toll on our goal of sustainable and inclusive economic growth. We will not prosper economically and the
improvement of the lives of our people will be hindered if we will not be able to ultimately prevent the
terror acts in our land.

The Executive Department in declaring Martial Law in Mindanao intends to suppress the acts of terrorists
in the areas. It has been extended twice. It has achieved and served its purpose in suppressing terrorism
for the time being, but we need a more permanent solution when the declaration expires once again. As
legislators, we do not only provide our military and police the weapons to combat terrorism by increasing
their budget but also arm them with the necessary laws that shall further empower them in
implementing peace and order.

The declaration of Martial Law in Mindanao is not enough to address the potential magnitude of
destruction that may be brought about by the evil minds of these terrorists, Mr. President. What we
need, to complement the efforts of the executive department, is to enact a new law, a law that will
revive and strengthen our anti-terrorism legislation. With this, our law will capacitate and enable our law
enforcers to effectively investigate and prosecute those who have committed acts of terror.

Mr. President, with the numerous amendments introduced by Senate Bill No. 1083 to our current anti-
terrorism law, I would like to give emphasis on the proposed amendment to increase the detention days
of a suspected person without warrant of arrest. Sen. Lacson mentioned and as stated in Senate Bill No.
1803, from three days, the allowable detention period outside a warrant of arrest will be a non-
extendible period of 14 working days. I fully support this, Mr. President, I will even support a period
longer than 14 days.

If only time was on our side when we apprehended the Filipino terrorist in the video I showed to you
earlier, we could have killed the cancer before it grew. Let us not allow technicalities to get in the way of
quelling and ultimately eliminating terrorism. We are dealing with a new breed of criminals. Criminals
that are wise enough to run for protection under the very same law that intends to persecute them.

Terrorism thrives because of fear. And so, we remove fear. We are not afraid.

The enactment of the new anti-terrorism law will be very timely to fully prepare us with the move of the
Kurdish government to repatriate the imprisoned foreign ISIS fighters back to their home countries
including Filipino ISIS fighters as a result of US Forces withdrawal from the previously ISIS- controlled
areas. We are in need of a new and effective law that will help us confront treacherous enemies. Sadly,
they are countrymen who chose the path of evil - returning Filipino fighters and all other returning
foreign-trained fighters from other countries and will bring home senseless war to Mindanao which they
view as a safe haven for terrorists for various reasons including a weak anti-terror policy. A law that will
provide the necessary mechanism to control and perhaps aptly prosecute them for the terrorist acts they
have committed and plan to commit.

After the 9/11 terror attack, it was exposed that the United States, which some consider the most
powerful country in the world, is not safe from attacks. Terrorism has become a global phenomenon that
it has sown fear and insecurity in everyone. The war against terror here in our country is a contribution
to the tireless efforts of other nations to defeat this evil.

Having said these, Mr. President, dear colleagues, I appeal to this honorable body for the swift passage
of the Anti- Terrorism Act of 2019. Time is of the essence in preventing these terror attacks. Let's not
waste more precious seconds. It is about time that the government intensifies its efforts and protect the
citizenry against the evil acts of terrorist groups.

Thank you very much.

Explanation of No Vote of
Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan on Senate Bill No. 1083:
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020
26 February 2020

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues:

First, we thank Senator Ping Lacson for his diligence in shepherding this measure, and for his
patience in answering all our questions with regard to it. We recognize the hours of reading, research,
and interviews that went in the crafting, sponsorship, and finally defense of the measure.

However, this representation fears that the amendments to the Human Security Act right before us
may be abused as it will, among others, allow law enforcers or military personnel to place individuals and
organizations under surveillance; compel telcos to divulge their calls and messages; arrest these people
without warrant; and detain them for an extended period of 14 days.

The measure also allows regional trial courts to outlaw an organization as terrorist at the requests of
even foreign and supra-national jurisdictions. It likewise removes the compensation for persons
wrongfully detained.

And at a time when legitimate critics and democratic dissent are being attacked, the Human Security
Act could be likened to a certain extent the anti-subversion law during martial law, and may be used
against critics and opposition leaders.

Certain questions now come to mind: Can the law be used against democratic opposition leaders?
Can opposition political parties be outlawed and tagged as terrorist organizations? Some may say this is
farfetched and most certainly some will say this is not the intent of the law.

Allow me to bring us back in time during the martial law years to remind us of how the law was used
to go after the democratic opposition leaders.

 The Administration then claimed that it had declared martial law in response to the "communist
threat" posed by the newly-founded Communist Party of the Philippines, and the sectarian "rebellion"
of the Mindanao Independence Movement.

 Opposition figures of the time, including Senators Lorenzo Tañada, Jose W. Diokno, Jovito
 Salonga, Senator Ninoy Aquino, felt the administration was exaggerating these threats, using them as a
convenient excuse to consolidate power and extend its tenure beyond the two presidential terms
(allowed) by the 1935 Constitution.

Allow us to further go back to a criminal case filed against opposition leader Senator Salonga, who at
that time was executive vice president of the Liberal Party and eventually became its president, in the
case of G.R. No. L-59524 dated February 18, 1985, against respondents presiding judges (in) Quezon
City, its fiscal, and two officers of the Armed Forces.

These key facts I am to cite, reinforce the well-founded fear of opposition leaders today of being
persecuted under the Human Security Act. Given the current authoritarian climate, we face a well-
grounded fear that it may be repeated.

To cite some of the facts of that case:

- A series of bombings occurred in Metro Manila from August to October 1980. After a bombing
incident on September 6, 1980, military and police authorities charged Philippine-born American citizen
Victor Burns Lovely Jr. with subversion, illegal possession of explosives, and damage to property.

- Former Senator Salonga was implicated in these bombings because:

 Found in Mr. Lovely's possession were pictures taken in May 1980 at a party of former
Congressman Raul Daza held at the latter's residence in Los Angeles, California, showing Sen. Salonga
and his wife with other guests, including Mr. Lovely.

 After another bombing incident (on) September 12, 1980, the brother of Mr. Lovely, Romeo, was
presented in a television press conference. In his interview, Romeo said that he had driven Mr. Lovely
to Sen. Salonga's house twice in August 1980.

- Arrest, search, and seizure orders (ASSOs) were issued against persons implicated by Mr. Lovely in
the series of bombings.

- On October 21, 1980, military officials went to Sen. Salonga's room at the Manila Medical Center to
issue an ASSO, which however did not specify the charges or charge against him.

 Sen. Salonga's lawyers, for some time, were not permitted to visit him in the hospital room.

 On November 2, 1980, Sen. Salonga was transferred, against his objections, to an isolation room
without windows in an army prison camp at Fort Bonifacio. Sen. Salonga was not informed why he was
transferred and detained, nor was he ever investigated or questioned by any military or civil authority.

 On November 27, 1980, Sen. Salonga was released from military custody and placed under
house arrest "still without the benefit of any investigation or charges."

- After four months of being detained, charges for subversion, among others, were filed against Sen.
Salonga.
 All these, while Sen. Salonga had serious health problems.

- On March 6, 1981, and I quote the court records, Salonga was allowed to leave the country for,
among other things, the possible removal of his left eye to save his right eye.

- It must be recalled that Sen. Salonga almost died as one of the principal victims of the dastardly
bombing of the Liberal Party rally at Plaza Miranda on August 20, 1971.

- To quote further from the records and the ruling of the court, Sen. Salonga has limited use of his
one remaining hand and arms, is completely blind in the left eye, and has scar-like formations in the
remaining right eye. He is totally deaf in the right ear and partially deaf in the left ear.

- Further quoting our court records, Sen. Salonga was arrested at the Manila Medical Center while
hospitalized for bronchial asthma.

 When arrested, he was not informed of the nature of the charges against him. Neither was
counsel allowed to talk to him until the Supreme Court intervened and issued an order directing that
his lawyers be permitted to visit him (Ordoñez v. Gen. Fabian Ver, et al., G.R. No. 55345, October 28,
1980).

 Only after four months of detention was Sen. Salonga informed for the first time of the nature of
the charges against him. After the preliminary investigation, Sen. Salonga moved to dismiss the
complaint but it was denied.

Supreme Court records in the case of Salonga vs Cruz Paño again ruled in 1985, and I quote:

- The respondents admit that no evidence was presented directly linking petitioner Salonga to actual
acts of violence or terrorism.

- Further quoting the court's ruling: "There is no proof of his direct participation in any overt acts of
subversion."

- "Guilt by visit or guilt by association" theory is too tenuous a basis to conclude that Senator
Salonga was a leader or mastermind of the bombings.

- He was indicted simply because some plotters, masquerading as visitors, have somehow met in his
house.

- And court records on the testimony of Victor Lovely against petitioner Salonga is full of
inconsistencies, the court said.

 Senator Salonga and Atty. Renato Tañada could not have whispered to one another because the
petitioner is almost totally deaf, quoting from the ruling.

 Lovely could not have met Senator Salonga at the Manglapus party in Washington D.C. in 1977
because Sen. Salonga left for the United States only on November of 1978.

 The pictures of Sen. Salonga and Mr. Lovely at Raul Daza's birthday, to quote again the court
 ruling, in Los Angeles is not proof of conspiracy. Politicians have their photos taken with many people.

- Sen. Salonga "invoke[d] the constitutionally protected right to life and liberty guaranteed by the
due process clause, alleging that no prima facie case has been established to warrant the filing of an
information for subversion against him."

The litany of lies and fabrications by the prosecution in that case revealed the extent of abuse of law
enforcers inflicted upon an ailing opposition leader and former senator.

Our fear with an Administration that has jailed an incumbent senator on a case whose key witnesses
are convicted drugs lords, that has repeatedly warned about imposing martial law all over the country,
that has in fact imposed martial law in Mindanao under what we continue to believe to be questionable
constitutional grounds.

These instances are more than simply déjà vu, they are more like foreboding.

The proposed new definition of terrorism is vague and encompassing, making it open to abuse in
that the simplest mobilization or common crimes can be framed by errant law enforcers as acts of
terrorism.

The prolonged detention is an impingement of rights and liberty. Why 14 days? If security officials
and law enforcers are doing their job, why will it take them long to file a case? Or, is the practice of
arrest and detain now, produce or invent evidence later still prevalent, as it was when opposition leader
Jovy Salonga was arrested, detained, and charged in 1981?

The current law is not perfect, and we, in Congress, should be working continuously to make it work
for the people.

The amendments, however, are worrisome and could make the Human Security Act an even worse
tool for repression, instead of an instrument for thwarting terrorists.

In closing, ang batas, dapat proteksyon ng mamamayan. Proteksyon sa mga pagmamalabis at

maling paggamit nito. Kaya kapag nagkamali sa pagpapatupad nito, dapat may managot, para hindi na
maulit, para hindi na abusuhin ang batas, para hindi na pagmalabisan ang karaniwang tao.

Dahil sa karaniwang taong walang poder at walang kapit, maaaring maging terror ang batas.

Laws must be rights-based and must allow civil and political rights to flourish.

Without respect for rights, there can never be security. Kung walang paggalang sa karapatan,
walang seguridad.

Respectfully, I vote no to the measure

out  |  Senators  |  Committees  |  Secretariat  |  Legislative Documents  |  Publications  |  GAD  |  Ba

Press Release
February 26, 2020

Senate OKs bill repealing the Anti-Terrorism Law

The Senate, voting 19-2, today approved on final reading Senate Bill No. 1083 which
provides more teeth to the law against terrorism and effectively repealing the Human Security
Act of 2007.

Senators Sonny Angara, Nancy Binay, Pia Cayetano, Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa, Grace Poe,
Imee Marcos, Manuel "Lito" Lapid, Joel Villanueva, Cynthia Villar, Emmanuel "Manny"
Pacquiao, Win Gatchalian, Christopher Lawrence "Bong" Go, Richard Gordon, Panfilo "Ping"
Lacson, Bong Revilla, Francis "Tol" Tolentino, Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, Majority
Leader Migz Zubiri and Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III voted in the affirmative while
Senators Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan and Risa Hontiveros dissented.

The proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 would provide a strong legal backbone to support
the country's criminal justice response to terrorism, provide the law enforcers the much-needed
tools to protect the people from the threat of terrorism and, at the same time, safeguard the rights
of those accused of the crime.

"We need a strong legal structure that deals with terrorism to exact accountability, liability
and responsibility. Those who have committed, are about to commit, or are supporting those
who commit terroristic acts should be prosecuted and penalized accordingly," Lacson, sponsor
of the measure, said.

The measure includes a new section on foreign terrorist fighters to cover Filipino nationals
who commit terrorist offenses abroad.

Senate Bill 1083 introduced provisions imposing life imprisonment without parole on those
who will propose, incite, conspire, and participate in the planning, training, preparation and
facilitation of a terrorist act; as well as those who will provide material support to terrorists, and
recruit anyone to be a member of a terrorist organization.

Under the bill, any person who shall threaten to commit terrorism shall suffer the penalty of
12 years. The same jail term will be meted against those who will propose any terroristic acts or
incite others to commit terrorism.

Any person who shall voluntarily and knowingly join any organization, association or group
of persons knowing that such is a terrorist organization, shall suffer imprisonment of 12 years.
The same penalty shall be imposed on any person found liable as accessory in the commission
of terrorism.

The measure not only establishes Philippine jurisdiction over Filipino nationals who may
join and fight with terrorist organizations outside the Philippines but also ensures that foreign
terrorists do not use the country as a transit point, a safe haven to plan and train new recruits for
terrorist attacks in other countries.

The bill also removed the provision on payment of P500,000 damages per day of detention
of any person acquitted of terrorism charges. But the number of days a suspected person can be
detained without a warrant of arrest is 14 calendar days, extendible by 10 days.

A new provision, designating certain Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) as Anti-Terror Courts,
was also introduced to ensure the speedy disposition of cases.

Also, the use of videoconferencing for the accused and witnesses to remotely appear and
testify will be allowed under the measure.

The amendments also provide for the police or the military to conduct a 60-day surveillance
on suspected terrorists, which may be lengthened to another non-extendable period of 30 days,
provided that they secure a judicial authorization from the Court of Appeals (CA).

Any law enforcement or military personnel found to have violated the rights of the accused
persons shall be penalized with imprisonment of 10 years, the senator said.

To allay concerns of possible excesses by the authorities, the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) shall be notified in case of detention of a suspected terrorist.

The measure also mandates the CHR to give the highest priority to the investigation and
prosecution of violations of civil and political rights of persons and shall have the concurrent
jurisdiction to prosecute public officials, law enforcers and other persons who may have violated
the civil and political rights of suspects and detained persons.

Hontiveros and Pangilinan opposed some provisions of the bill that they feel would impinge
on rights and liberty.

Pangilinan noted that the proposed definition of terrorism is vague and encompassing,
making it open to abuse as simplest or common crimes can be framed by errant law enforcers as
acts of terrorism.

"The prolonged detention is an impingement of rights and liberty. Why 14 days? If security
officials and law enforcers are doing their job, why will it take them long to file a case? Or, is
the practice of arrest and detain now, produce or invent evidence later still prevalent, as it was
when opposition leader Jovy Salonga was arrested, detained, and charged in 1981? The current
 law is not perfect, and we, in Congress, should be working continuously to make it work for the
people," he said.

"The amendments, however, are worrisome and could make the Human Security Act an
even worse tool for repression instead of an instrument for thwarting terrorists," Pangilinan
added.

Hontiveros expressed the same, adding that safety and security can never be at the expense
of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

"While all rights permit exceptions, I fear that certain provisions of the bill - specifically
those allowing the preliminary proscription of suspected terrorist organizations prior to their
being given an opportunity to be heard as well as those lowering the standard for warrantless
arrest and detention - go too far and might lead to a number of pernicious consequences," she
said.

Dela Rosa, one of the co-authors of the bill, rallied behind the measure saying that the bill
will fully equip the law enforcers not only in terms of weapons and funding but in protecting
their rights as well.

"The enactment of this law will send a brave message to the world that we are in solidarity
in the global fight against terrorism. I would like to extend my gratitude to our seasoned
legislator and staunch ally against terror, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, for shepherding and ensuring the
swift but very deliberate passage of this legislative measure," Dela Rosa said.

House to tighten laws vs terrorism

30 May 2018 08:50:15 AM

The House committees on public order and safety and on national defense
and security in a joint hearing on Tuesday created a technical working group
(TWG) that will harmonize two anti-terror bills-- House Bill 7141 and HB
5507.

During the hearing, the committees approved the creation of a TWG to be

headed by Rep. Rozzano Rufino Biazon.
House Bill 7141 seeks to amend Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as
the “Human Security Act of 2007” while HB 5507 seeks to declare as
unlawful the membership in any Philippine Court-proscribed or United
Nations Security Council-designated terrorist organizations.

Both bills are authored by Rep. Amado Espino, Jr., chairman of the

committee on national defense and security.

House Bill 7141 seeks to change the title of RA 9372 from “Human Security

Act of 2007” to “Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2018” precisely to maintain
uniformity with other foreign jurisdictions which uses the same title and to
avoid confusion since the law deals mainly with terrorism.

It also seeks the addition of three predicate crimes to the existing 12 on the
definition of terrorism, namely: RA 9208 or “Anti-Trafficking In Person Act of
2003, as amended; RA 9165 or the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002; and RA 10175 or “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.”

Moreover, the bill includes other punishable acts in addition to conspiracy to

commit terrorism. These are: proposal to commit terrorism; inciting
to terrorism; recruitment to terrorist organization; providing material
support to terrorists or terrorist organization, foreign terrorist fighter, and
glorification of terrorism.

It also seeks to change the fixed penalty of “40 years of imprisonment” to

“life imprisonment to death” to give leeway to the judge to impose the
appropriate penalty after considering the circumstances present.

Meanwhile, HB 5507 titled “Unlawful Membership in Terrorist Organizations

Act of 2017” seeks to make it unlawful for any person to knowingly become
a member or manifest his/her intention to become a member of any
Philippine court- proscribed or United Nations Security Council-
designated terrorist organization.

Any person found guilty under the Act shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Likewise, any person who knowingly furnishes false evidence in
any action brought under the Act shall be punished by prision correccional.

Among those who attended the hearing were Atty. Ferdie Manalastas of
the Anti-Terrorism Council; Atty. Chad Martin Escorso of the Department of
Information and Communications Technology; Defense Undersecretary
Ricardo David, Jr.; Interior and Local Government Assistant Secretary
Alexander Macario; Lt. Col. Benjamin Leandro of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines; Chief Supt. Rudolph Dimas of the Philippine National Police;
Head Agent Raoul Manguerra of the National Bureau of Investigation;
Executive Director Mel B. Racela of the Anti-Money Laundering Advisory
Council; and Atty. Gisella Mendoza of the Department of Justice (DOJ),
among others.

Acop, chairman of the committee on public order and security, said the
proposed amendments to the Human Security Act envision to strengthen the
country’s anti-terror legislation and make it more responsive to threats to
national security through the inclusion of additional punishable acts and the
addition of predicate crimes.

Acop said that under existing law, only one case was successfully
prosecuted. He added that RA No. 9372 contains only four provisions on acts
that penalized law enforcers involved in terror attacks.

Rep. Antonio Tinio suggested the inclusion of human rights advocates in the
TWG so that they can participate in the deliberation of the bill, to which the
chair agreed.

Biazon said the TWG might hold meetings even during the recess to allow all
stakeholders to participate in the deliberation of the said bills./ J. Menorca &
R. Bundang

Anti-Terrorism Law threat to civil and political liberties,

Mariano says
Writer: Eduardo A. Galvez, MRS-PRIB
25 November 2011 09:03:30 AM

A lawmaker has moved to repeal Republic Act 9372 or the Anti-Terrorism

Law, which he described as anti-people and a threat to civil and political
liberties of the Filipino people.

Rep. Rafael Mariano (Party-list, Anakpawis), author of

House Bill 5444, which seeks to repeal RA 9372 or Human Security Act of
2007, said the law is anti-people because it authorizes preventive detention,
warrantless arrest and violates other basic constitutional rights.

"The law could trample on the entire Bill of Rights and may be used as a tool
by the government for the political persecution of legitimate dissenters and
political opponents," Mariano said.

Citing a study of KARAPATAN, a human rights group, Mariano said that as of

June 2011, there are 1,354 cases of extrajudicial killings and 211 victims of
enforced disappearances.

Mariano said because of vagueness and broadness of the law, a nationwide

protest may be considered by the government as a terrorist activity.

"Democratic protest against oil price hikes, new taxes and increase in utility
rates can be classified as acts intended to threaten peace and order with the
inevitable destabilizing effects by the government," Mariano said.

Mariano said the law violates the right to association and assembly, allows
security forces to conduct surveillance operation and examination of banks
accounts and records of suspected terrorist.

"The law is a deadly weapon for those who oppose the worsening attacks of
the government against economic welfare and political rights of the
Filipinos," Mariano said.

"Virtually, the implementation of the law is a martial rule. The law violates
pertinent provision of the Bill of Rights and its implementation threatens the
right of the people," Mariano said.

"The enormous potential for civil, political and human rights abuses far
outweighs any possible protection this law supposedly provides. The bitter
irony is that such a sweeping attack on democratic rights has been
perpetrated in the name of war to defend the Philippine freedom and
democracy against terrorism," Mariano said.

Mariano said the RA 9372 was patterned after the US Patriot Act of 2011,
the Australian Anti-Terror Law of 2005, the 2006 terrorism Act in Britain,
and similar measures crafted before in Denmark, France, Spain and other
nations, which often follow the US line on matters of international diplomacy
and security.