MANILA, Philippines – Where the rights of individuals are concerned, “the end does not justify the means,” National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) chairman Neri Colmenares told Supreme Court Justices on the first day of debate on the legality of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Seven lawyers argued for the petitioners maintained that the law is constitutionally infirm.
Former Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) National President Jose Anselmo Cadiz said the government, to stop terrorism, has allowed the following:
• warrantless arrests and prolonged detention,
• unreasonable searches and seizures
• unwarranted intrusion into private communications and correspondence
• curtailment of expression and assembly
• denial of bail, the presumption of innocence and access to public information
“These sanctioned intrusions on our civil liberties are strictly enjoined by the Constitution. To paraphrase People vs. Sapla, this battle waged against terror that tramples upon the rights of the people is actually a war against the people,” the petitioners said.
In fact, the new law, according to Rep. Edcel Lagman, has sent the country back to the draconian times when compared to the 122-year-old Malolos Constitution that requires the delivery of a detainee to the judicial authority within 24 hours following arrest. Now, detention can be done for up to 24 days.
“This executive authorization of prolonged detention is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition when persons suspected of heresy and witchcraft were incarcerated for long periods without being charged and tried. They were mercilessly tortured during lengthy custody,” Lagman said.
The lawyers said that terrorism is a serious problem, but it should not be dealt with by sacrificing the public’s fundamental rights.
“Mere expediency will not excuse constitutional shortcuts,” Colmenares said, adding that there are other existing laws that the government can use to combat “real terrorism.”
“We must do the right things the right way,” he said.
ac