Implementing rules ‘clarify, detail’ assailed provisions of anti-terror law — DOJ

Authorities endeavored to "clarify" and "detail" the anti-terrorism law and its most heavily challenged provisions in its newly-approved implementing rules and regulations, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said Thursday.

Justice Undersecretary Adrian Sugay said the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) broke down the law, from its definition of terrorism and its related crimes to its provision on surveillance and warrantless arrests, to guide law enforcers and the public.

A technical working group led by the DOJ drafted the IRR that was approved by the ATC on Wednesday. The IRR will be effective upon its publication and registration with the Office of the National Administrative Register.

"Tingin ko 'yun ang importante doon, talagang lahat 'yan dinetalye namin sa IRR para magabayan lahat, hindi lang 'yung ating law enforcement agencies, lalo na 'yung ating mga mamamayan kung ano yung dapat iwasan at kung... ano 'yung mga karapatan nila," Sugay said in an interview on Dobol B sa News TV.

Critics of the law have said they fear the measure's "vague" provisions and alleged lack of safeguards will allow the police and the military to abuse and misuse it on the ground.

Sugay explained that the IRR clarifies that the provision on warrantless arrests — in which suspected terrorists may be detained for up to 24 days before being brought to court — follows the guidelines set by the Supreme Court (SC) in its rules and past decisions.

He added that the IRR says there is accountability for law enforcement agents who break the law, such as its provisions and limitations on surveillance.

People who join protests have no reason to worry, he said.

"Kasama doon yung mga advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, creative, artistic and cultural expression, other similar exercises of civil and political rights. Hindi ho kasama 'yan, basta within the bounds of the constitution and our constitutional right, wala ho tayong problema diyan," he said.

The law exempts advocacy and protest from the definition of terrorism, but with a caveat: "which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person's life, or to create a serious risk to public safety."

Petitioners against the law have argued that the determination of intent will depend on the perception of law enforcement agents.

"The implementing rules and regulations seeks to explain how to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 into effect and what a citizen must do — or must not do — to comply with the law," the DOJ said in a statement.

The IRR contains "very detailed provisions on terrorism and terrorism-related crimes, on surveillance, on designation of terrorist individuals and organizations, on proscription, on the examination of bank accounts, among others," it said.

The DOJ said the IRR also "very clearly sets out" the role of the ATC, which many groups have said possesses powers that encroach on the authority of the courts.

The ATC is chaired by the executive secretary, with the national security adviser as vice chair, and the secretaries of foreign affairs, national defense, interior and local government, finance, justice, and information communications technology; and the executive director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council as members.

There are 37 petitions challenging the anti-terrorism law before the SC, many of them seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent its enforcement while the cases are pending.

Following the approval of the IRR, human rights lawyer Edre Olalia, one of the petitioners, appealed to the SC to act.

"The die is cast so we should be more wary and vigilant against the pernicious consequence of legalization or legitimization of already ongoing abuses and excesses by the authorities on our human rights," he said. — RSJ, GMA News