In the continuing democratic discussions on the Anti Terrorism Bill (ATB), the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) focuses on whether or not the Anti Terrorism Council (ATC), can ‘authorize in writing’ the “taking into custody” of terrorism suspects (ATB, Section 29) which under the 1987 Constitution is exclusively a judicial power; and whether or not the 3-day limit within which an arrested person must be “judicially charged”, even if the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 18, last paragraph), sets a constitutional limit to preventive detention that is violated by the 14-24 days detention without judicially charging the suspected terrorist allowed in the ATB (ATB, Sec. 29). We call attention to the possible UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
and avoid muddling it with issues of “wisdom”, trust, preference, labeling, and motherhood statements.
Every Filipino lawyer or citizen can freely express views, sentiments, and positions about the ATB and help educate others. We have encouraged our IBP Chapters and fellow lawyers to weigh in and we furnished them a comparative table of the ATB and the Human Security Act and the list of sponsors of the bill and of all legislators and their contact details for their reference.
We welcome and appreciate public statements by lawyer groups, lawyer experts, and individual IBP leaders and members regarding the ATB as these reflect the vigilance and the courage of Filipino lawyers to be heard and seen on matters of public interest. Every stakeholder, every citizen can do as well.
IBP as a professional organization must however rise above the fray of fear, ideologies, propaganda, or partisan politics and instead objectively focus on fealty to the Constitution. We recognize the efforts of those who keep citizens truly safe and the need for an anti-terrorism law that adequately protects the citizens from the reality and evolving forms of terrorism. We nevertheless ask that any law be within the carefully crafted balance, guarantees, and safeguards of our Constitution. It is good to have an effective anti-terrorism law that doesn’t conflict with our Constitution.
We seek information and insights from our legislators. Did they see no constitutional infirmities? Were there other compelling considerations?
Details and reliable information will help us understand ATB and the decision makers as IBP or any sufficiently concerned party takes appropriate and responsible actions.
We have respectfully communicated IBP’s concerns through a letter to House of Representatives Speaker Alan Peter S. Cayetano and Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III. We hope that the Office of the President will further review the ATB and veto the constitutionally questionable provisions as President Rodrigo Roa Duterte had done in the past.
IBP will exhaust all avenues, with due regard to everyone and their mandates, to keep the ATB within the bounds of our Constitution.
DOMINGO EGON Q. CAYOSA
IBP National President
