‘Mere suspicion’ is no reason for arrest under terrorism law: Justice Department official

MANILA, Philippines – The “mere suspicion” that a person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a terrorist act will not justify the arrest without a warrant of that person, a senior official of the Department of Justice (DOJ) who assisted to formulate the rules or guidelines to implement the Antiterrorist Law, he said on Saturday.

Critics, including human rights lawyers and legal luminaries, have questioned the constitutionality of the anti-terrorism law in the Supreme Court, citing, among other alleged illegal provisions, the arrest of suspected terrorists on mere suspicion.

The implementation rules and regulations (TIR) ​​of the antiterrorist law, promulgated as Law of the Republic No. 11479 by President Rodrigo Duterte on July 3, were approved by the Antiterrorist Council (ATC) on Wednesday and made public by the DOJ on Friday night. .

CONTINUING OBJECTION A total of 37 petitions challenge the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Law in the Supreme Court, its resistance embodied by one of the protesters who gathered for a demonstration on the Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines on July 7. —GRIG C. GREAT MOUNTAIN

What ATC can, cannot do

Undersecretary of Justice Adrian Sugay told the Inquirer in a telephone interview that, contrary to claims by opponents of the law, the arrest of any suspected terrorist must satisfy the requirements to find probable cause as provided by Regulation of the Court and existing jurisprudence.

When asked if the mere suspicion or indication that a person had violated the anti-terrorism law was sufficient to be arrested without a warrant issued, the justice official said: “A mere suspicion, in our interpretation of Section 29 of anti-terrorism law, not be enough. “

Sugay also clarified that the ATC, made up of nine cabinet secretaries and headed by the executive secretary, was not authorized to order the arrest of a terrorist suspect as claimed by opponents of the law.

“What the ATC authorizes is detention [of a terror suspect] for an extended period, ”he said in the Inquirer interview.

Rule 3.10 of the TIR establishes that the ATC will only have “purely executive functions”.

“Nothing in the Law shall be construed in the sense of empowering the ATC to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial authority,” TIR explicitly said.

Article 29, one of the most controversial provisions of the law, establishes in part that “any agent of the forces of order or military personnel who, having been duly authorized in writing by the ATC, has taken custody of a person suspected of having committed any of the acts defined and sanctioned under … this Law, must … deliver said suspect to the corresponding judicial authority within a period of fourteen (14) calendar days from the moment said suspect has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by law enforcement or military personnel. “

Detention without a warrant

But that provision also allows the extension of the period of detention of a suspected terrorist without a warrant for another 10 days “if … necessary to preserve evidence related to terrorism or complete the investigation” and to “prevent the commission of another terrorism. , and the investigation is being carried out properly and without delay ”.

In total, a terrorist suspect can be detained without a warrant for up to 24 days.

Rule 9.2 of the IRR says that a law enforcement officer may arrest without a warrant “a suspect who has committed, is committing or is attempting to commit any act defined and sanctioned” by law “in the presence of the arresting officer “.

It also allows the arrest without a warrant of a suspect if “based on the personal knowledge of the officers who arrested him, there is probable cause that said suspect was the author of any of the acts defined and sanctioned” by law.

Likewise, a suspected terrorist may be detained without a warrant if he is a prisoner who “has escaped from a penal establishment … while his case … is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.”

Individuals and groups challenging the law, particularly the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL), had repeatedly claimed that Article 29 violated the Constitution that prohibited arrest without a warrant.

Shared fears

“It also changes the rules by allowing warrantless arrests based on mere suspicion of criminal activity. This goes against the very essence of the constitutional right to freedom and due process ”, had argued the NUPL.

Lawyer and broadcaster Mel Sta. Maria, dean of the Far Eastern University Law Institute, expressed the same fear in the separate petition that he and his fellow law professors filed in the superior court.

Sta. María said that Section 29 only “attempted to legitimize warrantless arrests on the basis of mere suspicion” as it encroached on the exclusive “judicial power and prerogative” of the courts.

Another petitioner, the representative of Albay Edcel Lagman, said that in addition to the 24-day warrantless detention, the law allows a looting of bank accounts for six months and a 90-day surveillance and wiretapping.

The new law also removes the safeguard in the repealed Human Security Law that penalized officers who made mistakes with a fine of P500,000 per day for each day that a person spends in undue detention.

Sugay said the Justice Department panel and ATC considered the legal issues raised in the 37 petitions against the anti-terrorism law in the Supreme Court when crafting the TIR.

He assured legislators that the IRR was consistent with the provisions of the anti-terrorism law.

“It was very clear to us that our job was to make sure that we work within the parameters of the law and that it is implemented correctly,” Sugay said.

“As far as we are concerned, we stayed within the parameters of the law and hopefully we can clarify [and] to interpret it in the best possible way, ”he said.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said the IRR was registered online at the Office of the National Administrative Registry of the University of the Philippines Law Center on Friday, as required by law.

He said the TIR had also been posted on the Justice Department website and was printed in two major newspapers on Saturday to meet the requirement to publish the guidelines within 90 days of the law’s enactment.

Read next

Don’t miss out on the latest news and information.