SUPPLEMENT TO THE INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL

After going through a discussion on the usefulness of re-visiting the past, let us consider one
of the House Bills filed before in connection with RA 9262, the Violence Against Women and their
Children (VAWC) Law. To ensure that you are able to view these files, I took screenshots of the same
from my e-files; certified true copies/hardcopies were furnished to me by the House of
Representatives Archives office. The Explanatory Note clearly-provides an actual example of the fact
that what we have today, including policies, can be explained by history. Kindly read the same and I
will share with you the essential points through a live lecture.
Here is another illustration regarding the necessity of going back to our past:

REPUBLIC ACT 11479 – ‘’AN ACT TO PREVENT, PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE TERRORISM, THEREBY
REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007”;
ITS RATIONALE (Pami, 2020)

Many issues have been raised against this law. For a substantial discussion/debate on the
law, it is enlightening to read excerpts from the Sponsorship Speech of Senator Panfilo Lacson; thus:

‘‘xxx. Under the current Human Security Act, there are only four instances for terrorists to be
prosecuted under the law. These are: commission of the actual crime of terrorism; conspiracy to
commit terrorism; accomplice; and accessory. On the other hand, there are a total of 20 instances
where law enforcers can be charged and penalized for violations of the Human Security Act. I believe
this is not rational. Add to this the penalty of P500.000 per day to be paid by the government to
anyone erroneously detained for possible terrorism. This is not only irrational, it borders on the
absurd.

Sadly, the Human Security Act has proven to fail in terms of its efficacy as an anti-terrorism measure.
Despite the real and present threat presented by terrorist organizations, groups, and individuals to
the Filipino people, we have had only one conviction for violation of the law. Imagine that, time and
again and seemingly more and more often, we hear of terrorist attacks happening, with a mounting
number of those killed and injured — one conviction. That alone is enough proof of the ineptness
and inadequacy of the current law.

It is therefore incumbent upon the legislature to amend the Human Security Act of 2007. Our
country needs an anti-terror law that would provide a strong legal backbone to support our criminal
justice response to terrorism; enable our law enforcers with much-needed tools to protect our
people from the threat of terrorism and, at the same time, safeguard the rights of those accused of
the crime. We need a strong legal structure that deals with terrorism in order to exact
accountability, liability, and responsibility. Those who have committed, are about to commit, or are
supporting those who commit terrorist acts should be prosecuted and penalized accordingly.

XXX XXX XXX

We also seek to extend the number of days a suspected person can be detained without a warrant
of arrest from the current three days to now a non-extendible period of 14 working days. This
increase still keeps Philippine legislation within the moderate or lenient bracket. Both Australia and
Sri Lanka, in their proposed amendment to their Anti-Terror Law, allow for 14 days detention
without warrant of arrest. Bangladesh allows for 15 days, while Indonesia for 21 days, Pakistan for
30 days, Malaysia for 59 days, and Singapore for 730 days.

I would also like to add that some of our neighboring countries allow for the extension of detention
periods without warrant. To illustrate, Thailand's initial period of detention without warrant is seven
days, but this can be extended up to 30 days. Indonesia allows for extension up to 120 additional
days, and Malaysia up to two years. Both Maldives and Singapore provide for the indefinite period of
detention of suspects deemed to be threats to national security.

xxx xxx xxx’’

(If you are interested to know more, for the complete text of Senator Lacson’s sponsorship speech,
here is the link: https://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/3167928564!.pdf

Meanwhile, Senator ‘’Bato’’ De La Rosa’s, in his co-sponsorship speech, stated that:

‘’xxx. si Mohammad Reza Kiram. Naaresto namin doon sa Davao.

However, since the military and police intelligence could not provide us sufficient evidence to prove
his terrorist activities before the lapse of the allowable detention period, we were forced to release
him. If only we had been allowed then to detain him for at least a week in order to build a solid case
against him as a terrorist, he would not have had the opportunity to commit more terror acts, like
the beheading of those victims.

In 2018, he was included in the US list of “Specially Designated Global Terrorists.” The UN Security
Council also designated him under the ISIS and Al-Qaeda Sanctions List. Moreover,

this man was included in the INTERPOL Red Notice list in April 2019.

Despite his notoriety as a terrorist, in 2018, our law enforcement agency was only able to file

a case against him for the crime of inciting to sedition in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention

Act of 2012 for the very video I showed to this Body.

Imagine, a person especially designated as a global terrorist was charged only with a crime

beyond arms-length of our current anti-terrorism law, or the Human Security Act of 2007.

The other terrorist in the video…identified as Mohammad Saifuddin Faiz, an Indonesian national who
spent most of his adult life in Mamasapano, Maguindanao. He was arrested by PNP Intelligence
Group operatives in Zamboanga City last 2005 but was released in 2015 after the dismissal of cases
filed against him. He was later on deported to Indonesia and eventually joined the ISIS in Al-Raccah,
Iraq.

There lies our problem. Our law against terrorism is so soft that it is almost tantamount to tolerance.
We do not tolerate acts of terrorism. We must let it be known to the world that we are in solidarity
in the global fight against terrorism and this stand should materialize in legislation.

xxx xxx xxx

To bolster the fact that we are in urgent need to update and amend our anti-terrorism legislation, let
me state for the record that in 2017, the Philippines was ranked as the No. 12 country in the world
with the highest impact of terrorism. Unfortunately, in 2018, our Global Terrorism Index ranking
became worse. We are now the 10lh country most impacted by terrorism.

This is a list where we do not want to be included, not in the top 15 and not even in the top 100.
With our ranking, the Institute for Economics and Peace recorded 2,869 deaths due to terror attacks
in the country since 2001, 326 of which was from 2017 - our highest recorded number of deaths in
more than a decade. They recognized the New People’s Army, and the two groups which have
declared their allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS), the Abu Sayyaf and the Maute, as the major
terrorist groups in the country.
With thousands of Filipinos who have died and the properties that have been destroyed by the acts
of these terrorist groups, the economic impact of terrorism in our country has already taken its toll
on our goal of sustainable and inclusive economic growth. We will not prosper economically and the
improvement of the lives of our people will be hindered if we will not be able to ultimately prevent
the terror acts in our land.

The Executive Department, in declaring martial law in Mindanao, intends to suppress the acts of
terrorists in the areas. It has been extended twice. It has achieved and served its purpose in
suppressing terrorism for the time being, but we need a more permanent solution when the
declaration expires once again. As legislators, we do not only provide our military and police the
weapons to combat terrorism by increasing their budget but also arm them with the necessary laws
that shall further empower them in implementing peace and order.

The declaration of martial law in Mindanao is not enough to address the potential magnitude of
destruction that may be brought about by the evil minds of these terrorists. What we need, to
complement the efforts of the Executive Department, is to enact a new law, a law that will revive
and strengthen our anti-terrorism legislation.

With this, our law will capacitate and enable our law enforcers to effectively investigate and
prosecute those who have committed acts of terror.

xxx xxx xxx.’’

Judge Marlo Campanilla, a bar examinations reviewer, criminal law author, and criminal law
expert, in a July 2020 online lecture on the hotly-contested Terrorism Law, submits that the
detention period without judicial warrant of arrest in the law (Section 29), one of the questioned
provisions in the statute, is necessary to enable government to gather evidence in support of the
criminal charges; that, indeed, it is possible that, sometimes, the evidence come from other
countries. Citing the recent Bayview hotel incident – the problem there was that there was no
charge – because, even if a person looks like a terrorist – however, there is no evidence, thus the
person was released.