The rules set by the Supreme Court on the Anti-Terrorism Act appeared to be balanced, protecting the rights of both the arresting officers and suspected terrorists, according to former Senate President Vicente Sotto III.
Sotto noted however, that the law gave arresting officers wider latitude to arrest and file violation of anti-terror law against suspected terrorists without fear of being subsequently charged.
“On a personal note, as long as it does not make our law the weakest in the region, it’s fine,” Sotto said.
On the other hand, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, principal author of the law in question, said he could not agree more with the Supreme Court ruling in its interpretation of the law.
Aside from the other safeguards provided in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 against possible abuse by law enforcers, Lacson said they have effectively amended the Anti-Wiretapping Law which only requires a regional trial court judge to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct technical surveillance on persons suspected of committing terrorist crimes.
As far as violations of the ATA, Lacson said a division of the Court of Appeals now has the authority to issue that judicial warrant.
He said arrest and detention without judicial warrant is akin to citizen’s arrest which is already allowed under existing jurisprudence.
“We merely extended the allowable period of detention due to the unusual nature of the crime of terrorism which could arbitrarily endanger the lives of innocent civilians more than the violations of the Revised Penal Code and other special laws,” Lacson said.
According to him, the Philippines Anti-Terrorism Law has one of the shortest reglementary periods of detention of arrested terror compared to other laws.
