Security officials want ‘more teeth’ for military, police to combat terrorism | Inquirer News
NO NEED FOR MARTIAL LAW IF THERE’S STRONGER ANTI-TERROR LAW

Security officials want ‘more teeth’ for military, police to combat terrorism

By: - Reporter / @MAgerINQ
/ 03:26 PM October 01, 2018

Give security forces more teeth to fight terrorism so the government would not have to impose martial law, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana urged lawmakers on Monday.

At a Senate hearing on various bills amending the 11-year-old Human Security Act, Lorenzana reiterated that martial law imposition should be the last option of the government.

The defense chief recalled telling lawmakers at the House of Representatives that there is a need for Congress to craft a law that will address terrorism, citing as example the “very strict” laws being used by other countries like Australia.

Article continues after this advertisement

“So that sabi ko hindi natin gagamitin ang martial law kung meron tayong magagamit, bigyan natin ng konting teeth ‘yung ating security agencies,” Lorenzana said.

FEATURED STORIES

National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr. echoed Lorenzana’s sentiments as he stressed the need for more stringent measures to combat terrorism in the country.

Esperon also noted that by “mere suspicion” in Australia, suspects could be detained for as long as seven days or more.

Article continues after this advertisement

“In our country, I don’t know how this came about that if for our own martial law, we could only detain suspects in three days,” he said.

Article continues after this advertisement

“And I don’t know why instead of giving the enforcers or the law enforces some more leeway or capabilities; I don’t know why the Human Security Act could penalize us for mistakes that we could probably commit at the high rate of P500,000 a day.”

Article continues after this advertisement

“And considering that my base-pay then as an officer was something like P60,000, who would give me P440,000 so that I could commit a mistake for one day?,” he added.

General Carlito Galvez, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, also lamented how a suspected bomber would be released because of what he described as “very permissive” anti-terror law in the country.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The law does not really help the security forces to really do their job,” he noted.

In some countries, Galvez said, suspects could be detained for 12 months or more on “mere suspicion.”

Asked by Senator Panfilo Lacson, who is presiding over the hearing as chairman of the Senate committee on public order, how much do they need to detain a suspected terrorist, security officials proposed a 30-day detention.

At present, a suspect can only be detained for 36-hours or three days as provided for under the Revised Penal Code.

Interior Secretary Eduardo Año explained that a 30-day period is enough time for security forces to conduct all “intensive investigation to follow up operations and do counter actions.”

At the start of the hearing, Lacson has already indicated the committee’s inclination to accept the proposal of the security officials.

In the same breath, Director General Alex Paul Monteagudo, of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency NICA, also agreed that the Philippines has the weakest anti-terrorism law in the region.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

“While in Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia, which are much less affected by terrorism, the Philippines, which is the most affected country in the region, has the weakest law and it’s now one of the reasons why we’re attracting foreign terrorist fighters from other countries…” the NICA head pointed out.  /kga

TAGS: Delfin Lorenzana, Legislation, Local news, Martial law, News, Security, Terrorism

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.