Anti-Terrorism Law?   

    It is not a good law. The "Anti-Terrorism Law"  arrests or allows to arrest a person if he is charged or just merely suspected of committing any of the crimes mentioned in Sections 4 to 12 of this law. Under this law, it detains those who are under the definitions in the mentioned sections without a Judicial Warrant of Arrest, contrary to those mentioned in Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. As a general rule, an officer shall arrest with a warrant. However, there are exceptions as provided for under Section 5 of Rule 113 of the ROC. First, when a person is in hot pursuit; second, when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense; then, when an offense has just in fact been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it and finally, when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.

    In the Anti-Terrorism Law, none of the above mentioned exceptions may be applied. Under Section 29 of the said law, it provides that "any law enforcement agent of military personnel, who, having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken custody of a person suspected of committing any of the acts..." It shows that mere suspicion (commission of those provided in this law) already constitutes a ground for the apprehension, detention and arrest. In addition, the Anti Terrorism Council acts like the judge of a court because it authorizes any law enforcement agent or military personnel to arrest. This is also contrary to Rule 113 of the Rules of Court because it is a Judge, and not a Council, who should authorize such officers to arrest by virtue of a warrant. 

    This Anti-Terrorism Law also adds criminal procedures wherein, after arresting such person/s, the arresting officer shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest of the following facts; a.) the time, date, and manner of arrest b.) the location or locations of the detained suspect/s and c.) the physical and mental condition of the detained suspect/s. The arresting officer shall also furnish the Anti Terrorism Council and the Commission on Human Rights. These additional procedures interfere and contradict the already established ones under the Rules of Court, which in effect, act as amendment. Consequently, this law, being arbitrary to human rights, brought about by careless creation of additional procedures and punishments, mainly for political reasons as it currently seems, should be abolished and declared void for it is obviously not necessary for the people and for the country.

     Why oppress freedom when prosperity can be achieved by democracy?

No comments:

Post a Comment