Lagman trusts SC will uphold Constitution, human rights over anti-terrorism law

Albay Representative Edcel Lagman on Tuesday expressed optimism that the Supreme Court will rid the newly-enacted Anti-Terrorism Law of 2020 of its allegedly unconstitutional provisions and ensure that human rights will be protected in its decision.

Lagman made the remark a day after filing a petition before the high tribunal challenging the constitutionality of the new anti-terrorism law.

"We trust the Supreme Court will uphold the majesty of the Constitution by purging the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 of patently unconstitutional provisions and assuring that civil liberties would flourish," Lagman said in a statement.

"We supplicate for justice and protection for the beleaguered Filipino people," he added.

According to Lagman, filing a petition against the law does not mean he and other petitioners are against the suppression of terrorism. Rather, they are protesting the use of fear of terrorism as a supposed reason to curtail civil liberaties.

The civil liberties, he said, include freedom of speech and the right to dissent, freedom from arrest without judicial warrant, privacy of communication security of property from unreasonable searches and seizures, and freedom of association which cannot be infringed without due process.

In his petition, Lagman said the crime of terrorism was defined in "vague and ambitious language " in the new law, "so much so that there is no certitude on what acts are proscribed and the people are perplexed on what acts to avoid."

He also argued that the criminalization of "threat," "proposal," and "inciting" to commit terrorism has "chilling effects" on the right to free speech and dissent.

Lagman likewise questioned the warrantless detention of up to 24 days of terrorism suspects before they have to be brought before a judge. He said this is an "unreasonable seizure of a person in violation of the Bill of Rights."

At the same time, he also claimed that the up-to-90-day technical surveillance and wiretapping of communications under the law is an "unreasonable invasion of a person's privacy which is guaranteed by the Constitution."

"The promotion of national security and the protection of basic rights are dual obligations of the State which are not antagonistic because they are mutually reinforcing," Lagman said.

"The effective defense of national security redounds to the benefit of civil liberties even as the protection of civil liberties makes for a vibrant democracy and empowers the people to defend the integrity and existence of a protective government," he added.

Lagman insisted that basic freedoms of the people should not be set aside in the attempt to ensure national security.

"The contention that other countries have harsher laws is specious because our laws must be made and measured in accordance with the standards and prescriptions of our Constitution and consistent with our enviable heritage of democratic institutions," he said.

Apart from Lagman, at least two other groups have also filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the new anti-terrorism law, namely the that of former Education Secretary Armin Luistro and a group of lawyers including Howard Calleja, and the Makabayan bloc. Dean Mel Sta. Maria of the FEU Institute of Law and several professors also filed their petition Monday.

Malacañang has said it will accept whatever decision the Supreme Court may arrive at regarding the petitions against the law. — Erwin Colcol/RSJ, GMA News