Lacson: Gapay’s CA nod may face setback if he insists on social media regulation

MANILA, Philippines — Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gilbert Gapay could face problems with his confirmation with the Commission on Appointments (CA) should he stick to his stand that social media should be regulated under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, Senator Panfilo Lacson said.

In an online interview with reporters on Monday, Lacson said Gapay would have a “lot of explaining to do” if he continues to insist that the regulation of social media should be included under the anti-terror law.

“Dangerous ‘yan, sila ang implementor. Sila mag-i-implement ng anti-terror law sa ground. Eh siya ang highest official ng AFP kung pananaw niya at i-insist niya na parang at the outset, ang socmed should be regulated, he has a lot of explaining to do,” Lacson, the principal author of the law in the Senate, said.

“Kung insist niya ang mali, sabi ko nga, magkakaproblema siya,” the senator added.

Gapay earlier suggested that the regulation of social media should be included in the ambit of the anti-terror law. He later clarified that his proposal to add social media in the anti-terrorism law was to regulate the use of the platforms and not its users.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1318702/afp-chief-clarifies-regulate-social-media-platforms-not-users-under-anti-terror-law#ixzz6WgYfmV7J

Gapay’s nomination to the rank of General is up for confirmation on Wednesday. Lacson is part of the CA’s Committee on National Defense, which will conduct the confirmation hearing on the AFP chief’s nomination.

“The same questions raised by [Senate Minority Leader Franklin] Drilon and myself tungkol sa statement na nabitiwan ni Gen Gapay tungkol sa anti-terror law, how it will be implemented. I’m sure it will crop up [during the confirmation hearing],” Lacson went on.

“We want to hear from Gen. Gapay, kasi siya ang chief of the staff ng AFP, kung ganoon pa rin ba ang kanyang pananaw sa regulation ng social media. Let’s see on Wednesday. But I’m sure that will be asked,” he added.

Lacson, meanwhile, pointed to multiple petitions lodged before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the anti-terror law.

One of the most contentious issues being raised in the petitions, he said, is the law’s supposed “violation of the overbreadth doctrine.”

“Ibig sabihin noon, ang unprotected speech pinagbawal mo, necessarily tatamaan din protected speech. Kasi sinasabi riyan ang proscription ng unprotected speech may also be true na ma-proscribe din ang protected speech. Overly broad ‘yan,” he explained.

“So the Anti-Terror Act of 2020 (ATA), I think will rise or fall doon sa major issue na ‘yan kasi unconstitutional yan. But kami alam naman namin kami ni Senator Drilon kung ano ang legislative intent ng ATA. But kung ganoon ang interpretation ng mag-i-implement, that’s dangerous,” he added, referring to Gapay’s previous proposal.

Nevertheless, Lacson expressed hopes that the Supreme Court would look at the law’s legislative intent and “not how it will be implemented.”

“How it will be implemented, sagutin ng implementing agencies ‘yan. Mananagot naman sila sa ilalim ng batas kung iva-violate nila. ‘Yan ang aking pananaw dito,” he added.

KGA