“It addresses contentious topics such as designation, proscription, surveillance, detention without judicial warrant of arrest, and significantly, it also added a remedy or recourse for those who believe that they have unjustly been designated,” Justice spokesperson Mico Clavano said in an ambush interview.
In December, the SC said that the rules on anti-terrorism cases — covering petitions and applications regarding detentions without judicial warrants of arrest, surveillance and freeze orders, restrictions on travel, designations, and prescriptions, and other court issuances — will take effect on January 15, 2024.
Under the rules, the Court of Appeals is allowed to issue an Order of Proscription declaring as outlawed terrorist any group of persons, organization, or association that commits any acts under Section 4 to 12 of the ATA, or that it is organized to engage in terrorism.
The SC said the petitioner is also required to establish that a proscription order is necessary to prevent an individual from committing terrorism.
They also mandated the issuance of a written order from the Court of Appeals for any law enforcement agency or military personnel to secretly wiretap, overhear and listen to, intercept, screen, read, surveil, record, or collect any private communications.
According to Clavano, the promulgation of the rules is “a good development.”
“The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 as opposed to its predecessor which is the Human Security Act of 2007 na walang ngipin (the Human Security Act has no teeth),” he said.
Meanwhile, when sought for comment on Bayan Muna chairperson Neri Colmenares saying that the Anti-Terrorism Act is a repressive law, Clavano maintained the law has already been declared as constitutional by the Supreme Court, except for only two parts.
“It’s been held, upheld as constitutional. Except for two very minor provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. And for me, for the department, and from the previous administration, we’ve seen already the advantages of this type of law,” Clavano said.
Former Senators Vicente Sotto III and Panfilo “Ping” Lacson, co-authors of the measure, previously welcomed the rules set by the court with Sotto saying that it “appeared balanced” while Lacson said he “could not agree more” with the SC’s ruling.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 was signed into law by former President Rodrigo Duterte in July 2020, with a total of 37 petitions filed before the Supreme Court seeking to nullify the measure, making it one of the most challenged laws in the country.—RF, GMA Integrated News
