Despite the vagueness definition of terrorism and the provisions of unconstitutionality the newly enacted law of the

R.A 11479 otherwise known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 signed by President Rodrigo Duterte on July 3, 2020 and
effectively replaced the Human Security Act of 2007 on July 18, 2020

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon!

It is mandated by the constitution Article 13, Section 17, states have an obligation to conduct any transfer of detainees
in a manner which is transparent that they should be informed of the reasons for their detention and promptly notified
of the charges against them and consistent with human rights and the rule of law, including the right to respect for a
person’s inherent dignity, the right of everyone to recognition before the law and the right to due process.
As a necessity speaker for the affirmative side, I will discuss on why there is a need for anti-terror law to be repealed.
Allow me to write for 3 reasons:

First, anti-terror law is unconstitutional.

 Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 does not state the requirement of the existence of “probable
cause” for arrests to be made, despite it being mandated by the Constitution, Article 3, Section 2, which states that
“no… warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge.” Instead, it
merely states that persons could be taken into custody even if they are merely “suspected of committing any of the acts
defined and penalized” by the law. Therefore, mere suspicion cannot be the basis of a warrantless arrest. According to
the plain-meaning rule or verba legis, when the statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its
literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Therefore, the word “suspected” could only be
interpreted according to its ordinary meaning, because it was not even defined anywhere in the law. This could only be
understood according to its dictionary definition: “suspecting something wrong without proof or on slight evidence.

 Also in Section 29’s provision for a maximum of 24 days in detention without being charged in court
“exceedingly infringes on a person’s personal liberty and his right against warrantless arrests or
detention.” It should be noted that this is way longer than the three-day period allowed by the Constitution, because
Article 7, Section 18, limited the detention of persons without charges to a maximum period of three days even in the
exceptional circumstances of invasion and rebellion that justify the President’s suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. Otherwise the person should be released.

Second, there is a need for an anti-terror law to be repealed simply because there are laws already existing
that penalizes direct terrorist acts and conspiracy to commit terrorism and other related acts such as but not limited to
Republic Act No. 10168 – An act defining the crime of financing of terrorism, providing penalties therefor and for other
purposes, 2007 Human Security Act – An act to secure the state and protect our people from terrorism, The Revised
Penal Code which criminalizes a whole class of acts that are generally accepted as criminal, and special penal laws.
And of course the Section 10, Paragraph 2, of the 1935 Constitution, which place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law. You see, terrorism doesn’t just deter by mere passing of laws. According to Randy Borum, the
director for Psychology of terrorism initiative, that counterterrorism effort needs to have comprehensive strategy that is
broad and multidimensional in winning hearts and minds which is necessary to achieve long-term victory. It is essential
to address poverty, a lack of services, inadequate infrastructure, a lack of opportunity other fundamental political,
economic and social grievances as the root causes of rebellion and terrorism.
Lastly, there is no need for anti-terror law because authorities will just find a way to circumvent the law.
Even if no one has been prosecuted yet under the newly enacted law, this is not new to us. There are numerous cases of
wrongful arrests. In a news from GMA News and Public Affairs, let us not forget the two detainees accused of being
the Abu Sayyaf militant who used the nom de guerre Black Tungkang, one remains in custody, even though a former
hostage has sworn that neither was the right man. Misinterpretations, abuses and mistakes are a concern in the
Philippines' slow and overburdened law enforcement and criminal justice system, which has a backlog of thousands of
cases and is tainted by corruption allegations. The authorities can circumvent the law by including the power of ATC or
Anti-Terrorism Council in Section 29 — which is made up of nine Cabinet and government officials — transgresses the
principle of separation of powers to issue a written authorization for the arrest of persons merely “suspected” of
committing terrorist acts. What the law does is to strengthen the powers of the executive-dominated anti-terrorism
council, removing many of the oversight powers of the judiciary specifically the determination of the warrantless arrest
personally by the judge under Rule 113, Sec 5 of the Rules of Court. It must be noted that the law no longer includes
the fine imposed against wrongful accusation in the amount of ₱500,000 for each day of detention. This is a notable
measure of accountability and protection against unreasonable or unproven charges.

Imagine being “red-tagged” – a local term for being branded as communists without evidence – and detained under the
new law without charges for up to 24 days, along with 90 days of surveillance, wiretaps and freezing of your assets.
And while the Philippines does face genuine security threats there is little evidence the new law does much to address
them. To date, there are already 25 petitions pending before the Supreme Court, making this law the most highly
contested.

Ladies and gentlemen, having anti-terrorism law is not the solution because terrorism doesn’t just deter by mere
passing of laws. Since the creation violates the Constitution in more ways than one, this law cannot be saved. Most of
the essential provisions animating the ATA are impaired by unconstitutionality. If all of them were struck down as
unconstitutional, the law itself would be left without any reason to exist. The former ombudsman Conchita Carpio-
Morales says in its fight against terrorism, the government must not be the source of terror and impunity itself. So
why are we moving heaven and earth having the anti-terror act of 2020.There is NO NEED for anti-terrorism law here
in the Philippines.
Thank you and God bless us all!