SC Justice Caguioa asks: Did Parlade’s statements intend to cause harm?

Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa on Tuesday raised the question whether the statements of Army Lieutenant General Antonio Parlade directed at the opponents of the anti-terror law were meant to cause harm.

At the resumption of oral arguments on the petitions challenging the law’s constitutionality, Caguioa brought up Parlade’s Facebook post in which the military official warned “very soon, blood debts will be settled. The long arm of the law will catch up on you, and your supporters.”

While the SC had already ordered the government to explain Parlade’s statements, Caguioa still took the opportunity to hear the petitioners’ sentiments.

“Would you agree that posting this statement could be considered as an act intended to cause harm?” Caguioa told former Bayan Muna congressman Neri Colmenares, one of the lawyers for the petitioners.

In response, Colmenares said, “Well, that’s the interpretation, Your Honor because many of those red-tagged have been killed or arrested Your Honor. Before they were killed, there was red-tagging against them.”

Colmenares felt there was a threat of prosecution against him, citing the government’s previous pronouncement that he was under surveillance.

Parlade, spokesperson for the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict, said last October that Colmenares and the Makabayan bloc were under surveillance for being “card-bearing” members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).

“It continues to chill us that is the reason why we believe [there] is a credible threat of prosecution,” Colmenares said.

Caguioa also tackled the provision that allows the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) to order the detention of an individual suspected of committing terrorism for up to 24 days. Citing the 1987 Constitution and jurisprudence, the magistrate said only the courts can issue arrest warrants.

“This Court is now confronted with an issue relating to a violation of the separation of powers because on the one hand, you have the Constitution that says only judges can issue warrants of arrest, but here this law says ATC can issue a piece of paper that effectively operates as a warrant of arrest,” he said.

Thirty-seven petitions from various sectors were filed against the law. The SC will continue the oral arguments next week. — RSJ/MDM, GMA News