Seeing ‘disconnect,’ IBP chief calls for clarity in text of anti-terror bill

The president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has called for clarity in the text of the anti-terror bill as public discussions continue on the "objectionable" provisions of the proposed measure.

In an online forum Thursday, Cayosa said there seems to be a "disconnect" between the intent of Congress and the wording of the bill's provision on the warrantless detention of terrorism suspects.

Section 29—"detention without judicial warrant of arrest"—provides that "any law enforcement agent or military personnel, who, having been duly authorized in writing by the ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council) has taken custody of a person" suspected of committing acts of terrorism may detain him for 14 days, extendable by 10 days, before bringing him before a judge.

Critics have interpreted the clause on written authorization as effectively allowing an executive agency to order arrests, violating the Constitution which empowers only the courts to issue arrest warrants.

Bill author Senator Panfilo Lacson has said the legislative intent was to allow warrantless arrests based on Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, the same position Assistant Solicitor General Angelita Miranda cited in Thursday's forum.

Rule 113 allows warrantless arrests under three conditions: when a person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; when the arresting officer has probable cause based on personal knowledge that the person to be arrested has just committed a crime; or when the person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner.

Miranda said the ATC, a body that will be made up of Cabinet officials, "does not have any right" to order arrests. She said warrantless arrests under the bill also have to fall under Rule 113.

But Cayosa said the letter of the law is "clear."

"If that's the legislative intent, please make it clear in the law, because normally the law will be interpreted as it is written and as ordinarily understood by anyone, not necessarily a lawyer," he said.

PBA Party-list representative Jericho Nograles, for his part, said that under "normal circumstances," law enforcement should still go to the courts and ask for a warrant. In cases of warrantless arrests, he said lawmakers wanted to add an "additional safeguard" by adding Section 29.

"Rule 113 even permits any person to arrest anyone for whatever crime that they see there. Where, dito, 'yung intention, is not just any person, kailangan pa ng dagdag na ATC pa ang pwedeng magsabi," he said.

He explained that Section 29 has to be read as a supplement to Rule 113.

Cayosa countered that the claim of "additional safeguard" will make the purpose of warrantless arrests "useless."

"If you have to ask for written authority from the ATC, it's no longer a justified warrantless arrest. Parang there's a disconnect between the intention of Congress and the wording and the purpose of that particular provision," he said.

Former Supreme Court (SC) spokesman Theodore Te said he believes Section 29 does not apply to Rule 113, Section 5. Agreeing with Cayosa, he said the law "must be read as it is written" and legislative intent will only be discussed if the letter of the law is unclear.

Commissioner Gwen Pimentel-Gana of the Commission on Human Rights said the "written authorization" from the ATC is equivalent to a warrant of arrest, which may only be issued by a judge.

Section 29 is one of the more discussed provisions of the bill, which is now with the Office of the President after hurdling Congress amid criticism. After reviewing the bill for 15 days, the Department of Justice submitted its comments to Malacañang on Wednesday.

Former SC justice Antonio Carpio has cited the up-to-24-day detention period in the proposed law in saying that the Philippines will be in a situation "worse than martial law" if it becomes law.

Carpio pointed out that under martial law, arrested persons have to be charged in court within three days or be released.

The National Union of Peoples' Lawyers said it is already poised to challenge the law. Carpio also said he plans to question the measure before the SC. — BM, GMA News