Contrary to what Senator Lacson claims, my blog post on the stealthy and hasty insertion of the dangerous Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law has no malice

Here are the 15 questions I wanted to ask Lacson, then and now, about the new Anti-Terrorism Law 

Second of THREE PARTS

By Raïssa Robles

In the first part, I explained why I used the words “stealthily” and “hastily” to describe the manner by which Senate defense committee chair Panfilo Lacson had inserted the dangerous Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law.

See – My reply to Senator Lacson who claims I was being malicious when I used the word “stealthily” to describe his insertion of Section 25 – one of the most dangerous provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Law

Section 25, according to prominent legal experts, gives President Rodrigo Duterte – through his cabinet officials who comprise the Anti-Terrorism Council – the power to “designate” or tag as “terrorist” anyone and any organization the cabinet officials suspect of being one.

In fact, Duterte went ahead of the new Anti-Terrorism Law and publicly tagged communist rebels “terrorists” because he said so. He said, “They think that they are a different breed, would like to be treated with another set of law, when as a matter of fact they are terrorists. They are terrorists because I finally declared them to be one.”

Senator Lacson had to scramble and say there was “nothing illegal” about Duterte’s statements because the Anti-Terrorism Council had already “designated” them terrorists in 2017.

Lacson insists the tag will not lead to arrests, but only to the freeze of assets.

But legal experts told the Supreme Court last week that is not the case. The tag can result in the arrest of any person and members of organizations that have been so “designated” by the ATC as “terrorist”.

Lacson is laying the predicate for charging me with cyberlibel

Lacson has also claimed in his official Senate press releases on the Senate website, several media forums and press interviews and releases that my blog post was “malicious.”

Malice is one of the four elements of libel under Philippine law (the others are defamation, publication and identification.) One of the ways to prove malice is to show that a journalist did not exert efforts to get the side of the person claiming that his public reputation has been ruined and stained by a piece.

In this case, I made super extra efforts to reach Senate defense committee chairman Panfilo Lacson.

I did this because the Anti-Terrorism Law is a very important law in its effects and so I exerted every effort to contact him. I had a long list of questions to ask him, including the implications of Section 25 – whether it gave cabinet officials the power to tag anyone a terrorist and on that basis, have them arrested without a warrant.

On February 29, 2020 – or three days after the Senate passed the ATL on third and final reading – I phoned Senator Lacson’s mobile – the one that ends with the number “8” – THREE TIMES.

I had previously interviewed him through this number for my book “Marcos Martial Law: Never Again.” He was once the case officer assigned to investigate the murder of the young Luis Mijares, after the latter’s tortured body was thrown off a helicopter onto the rocks of Antipolo.

I also sent SMS texts to the same number twice.

At that time I wanted to ask him clarificatory questions on the ATL, to include in a story I was writing for South China Morning Post.

I even delayed submitting my story to SCMP, hoping he would respond. When he did not reply, I removed those parts of my story that pertained to the controversial Section 25.
See – Could Duterte critics be target of Philippines new anti-terror law?

I am posting at the end of this piece ALL the questions I had wanted to ask him.

Last month, when the passage of the ATL seemed imminent in Congress, I decided to take a second look at the Lacson bill, which was turned over to the House to rubber stamp its passage.

Yes, I use the word “rubber stamp”, because that is what the House did. It simply passed the Lacson bill WITHOUT BOTHERING TO MAKE ANY amendments so it could hand President Rodrigo Duterte a measure for his signature before Congress adjourned sine die last month,

After the House passed the Lacson bill on June 3, I was still extremely bothered by the unanswered questions I had wanted to ask Lacson, especially after I had interviewed Dean Mel Sta. Maria on the matter.

Dean Mel had arrived on his own at the same conclusion that I did when I first read Section 25 in late February. Dean Mel told me in an interview that Section 25 gave cabinet officials the power to tag persons terrorists and on the basis of that tag, they could be arrested without warrants.

I included his comments in my South China Morning post article entitled Philippine Congress approves anti-terror law more ‘urgent’ than coronavirus

Dean Mel’s post prompted me to reach out to Senator Lacson again. On June 25, I tried contacting the senator publicly on Twitter, requesting his time to clarify some points on his pet bill.

Please tell Senator Panfilo Lacson I am trying to get in touch with him to clarify certain amendments made to new Human Security Act. Tell him Ive read all the Senate floor deliberations and all the original bills he, other senators and congressmen filed. Pls DM me on Twitter/FB.

— Raissa Robles (@raissawriter) June 25, 2020

I also went to Lacson’s blog and posted a letter saying I wanted to interview him, and I gave my e-mail address.

He didn’t reply to my tweets and letter.

As I already said before, because I could not get Lacson, I decided to contact Senate President Vicente Sotto III, who is also one of the co-sponsors of the Lacson ATL.

And one of the things SP Sotto told me was that Lacson was well within his rights as Senate committee chair to file a substitute bill, into which Lacson had inserted for the first time the controversial Section 25.

The last phrase is my observation, my viewpoint as a journalist, written in the context of comparing the sections in the ATL to the sections in the individual bills and the consolidated bill that were introduced into the legislative system.

I finally posted my blog piece on the night of July 3. I had not posted for months and the topic was very complicated, so I did not expect many netizens to read it.

But I felt I had to write it anyway, to inform anybody who might be interested, and also as a way of thanking all those lawyers and activists who had earlier fought against repression without expecting any reward.

I certainly did not expect Lacson to read it since he had blocked me on Twitter some years back. I don’t recall when he blocked me. I just suddenly found myself blocked over a year ago when I tried looking up his tweets.

In the morning of July 4, Lacson blasted me on Twitter and on his blog. I got to know about it only in the afternoon when others started tagging me on Twitter.

I asked others to screenshot what Lacson said:

If it is Senator Ping Lacson commenting on what I posted, pls screenshot for me and repost on Twitter. I cannot read it. Because Sen. Lacson blocked me a long time ago. I didn’t want to write it on my blog bec he does have the right to block anyone.But I am forced to say it now.

— Raissa Robles (@raissawriter) July 4, 2020

This is what Lacson said on Twitter:

I read Ms Raisa Robles’ blog on ATL. It is malicious and untrue. Fact is, after the amendment by substitution on Feb 12, 2020, Sens Pangilinan, on Feb 18 and Drilon on Feb 19 introduced substantial amendments to the substitute bill. No amendments were made on Section 25.

I read Ms Raisa Robles’ blog on ATL. It is malicious and untrue. Fact is, after the amendment by substitution on Feb 12, 2020, Sens Pangilinan, on Feb 18 and Drilon on Feb 19 introduced substantial amendments to the substitute bill. No amendments were made on Section 25.

— PING LACSON (@iampinglacson) July 4, 2020

Lacson repeated the same sentiment on his blog.

“Stealth? Not Me!”: Rectifying Raissa Robles’ Allegations Against the Anti-Terrorism Law

And so I tweeted:

I did all I could to reach out to Sen. Ping Lacson before I wrote this blog post. So he cannot say I did this with malice. He has blocked me too on his mobile phone, it seems. Or maybe he changed his number. I could repost on Twitter his mobile phone if challenged.

— Raissa Robles (@raissawriter) July 4, 2020

Lacson also indirectly admitted on Twitter that he did block me: When a netizen asked Lacson to unblock me, he replied, “I just did.”

I also found out as I was writing this that Lacson or his office had issued a press release on the matter on the Senate website saying the same thing. 

Why what I wrote has no malice

Lacson even gave a DWIZ interview on my blog post, which was picked up by Philippine Daily Inquirer.

In the Inquirer report, Lacson said he was not going to file a cyberlibel complaint against me but would leave it up to my conscience. To a jaded reporter like me, that sounded like a threat.

Lacson calls report ‘malicious,’ but journalist says she tried to contact him

And he added:
“I hope she rectifies it because what she wrote is wrong. If she does not want to rectify it, that’s up to her conscience.”

Dear senator, this is not a matter of conscience but of fact. You had between August 2018 to February 2020 to insert Section 25. Why did you insert it in the last two weeks before its approval?

Below are the list of questions I had wanted to ask him in February 2020, but could not reach him:

  During the August 13, 2019 committee hearing, you had the following exchange with Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana. Does your exchange mean that you believe the Anti-Terrorism Law has more teeth than the Martial Law provision found in the 1987 Constitution and in fact takes the place of Martial Law? Does this mean the Anti-Terrorism Law will put the country under perpetual Martial Law?

Here is your exchange:

JUDGE FELIX REYES: One more thing, Mr. Chairman. Huli na lang po.

THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Yes, Judge. We’re learning from you, by the way. And thank you very much.

MR. REYES. Opo. Iyon pong issue of hierarchy of rights—security and human rights. I think, in the proposed amendment, we should also be guided with the provision of the International Human Law, of the IHL. Actually, I also made a first conviction on that. It’s a good thing that it was the rebel who committed violation of the IHL, not the military.

THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). Thank you, Judge. Well taken. And I would suggest that ATC consolidate all these suggestions when you submit your position paper para ma-incorporate natin. Because I want this measure to be the first to be tackled on the floorpara maipasa natin. And I would like to ask you if your commitment to recommend to the President the immediate lifting of martial law once this measure is passed. Hindi ba you made that commitment last year?

MR. LORENZANA. [Off-mike] Yes, sir.

THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. LACSON). And this is much, much, much stronger than the martial law that you are using now, hindi ba? Which, of course, we all know, is a toothless martial law. Panakot lang naman kayo doon sa Mindanao. Psywar lang. Wala naman din kayong magawa, nandoon pa rin iyong 36 hours, nandoon pa rin iyong warrantless arrest provision na actually being committed and has, in fact, been just committed, and so forth and so on, hindi ba? Wala naman talagang ano, panakot lang ang ginagawa ninyo doon. Niloloko ninyo lang iyong mga terrorists doon. [Laughter]

  I AM EXTREMELY BOTHERED BY THIS PROVISION UNDER SECTION 25 – that the Anti-Terrorism Council, which consists mainly of eight cabinet members, can label a person, organization or association “terrorist” merely upon a finding of probable cause. This seems to put all members of Facebook groups critical of Duterte in danger of being branded as such. Is my reading correct that this power is in addition to a court order?

Section 25: (third paragraph) “The ATC may designate an individual, groups of persons, organization, or association, whether domestic or foreign, upon a finding of probable cause that the individual, groups of persons, organization, or association commit, or attempt to commit, or conspire in the commission of the acts defined and penalized under 11 Sections 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act. 12 The assets of the designated individual, groups of 13 persons, organization or association above-mentioned shall 14 be subject to the authority of the Anti-Money Laundering 15 Council (AMLC) to freeze pursuant to Section 11 of 16 Republic Act No. 10168.”

  Section 25 appears vague to me. I get the impression that the finding of probable cause need not be done by the court but even by the ATC. Is my interpretation correct?

 DOES THE NEW LAW EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT THE USE OF “SAFEHOUSES” notorious during Marcos’ Martial Law where tortures occurred?

  Would Section 6 endanger journalists and even ordinary netizens? Because mere possession of documents connected with the preparation of terrorism is made a crime. This reminds me of Marcos’ Martial Law when mere possession of flyers issued by left-wing groups is enough to get one arrested and detained.

Sec. 6. Planning, Training, Preparing, and Facilitating the Commission of Terrorism. – It shall be unlawful for any person to participate in the planning, training, preparation and facilitation in the commission of terrorism, POSSESSING OBJECTS connected with the preparation for the commission of terrorism, or COLLECTING or making DOCUMENTS connected with the preparation of terrorism. Any person found guilty of the provisions of this 3 Act shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without 4 the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 5 10592

  What does “support” mean? Does being a “friend” of Joma Sison on Facebook or liking his posts constitute support?

Sec. 10. Recruitment to and Membership in a Terrorist Organization. – Any person who shall recruit 8 another to participate in, join, commit or support any terrorism or a terrorist individual or any terrorist organization, association or group of persons proscribed under Section 26 of this Act, or designated by the United Nations Security Council as a terrorist organization, or organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, shall 14 suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592.

  Does saying or liking a post that says “Mabuhay ang NPA” also make a person liable under Section 10? Which is what Duterte personally did when he was mayor.

  Would Bikoy and his co-accused be considered “terrorists” under this new Act?

 

  Can Section 5 on the “threat to commit terrorism” be used, for example, against netizens who use the hashtag #OustDuterte ?

SECTION 5. Threat to Commit Terrorist Acts. – Any person who shall threaten to commit any of the acts mentioned in Section 4 hereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years.

In addition to the questions above, I had also wanted to ask Senator Lacson the following questions last June after the House passed his law:

  How did Congressmen LRay Villafuerte and Jericho Nograles end up with bills identical to yours? Did you hand over to them your bill or was it Duterte officials who handed over your bill to them?

  Is the Anti-Terrorism Law in actuality an administrative bill prepared by Duterte officials who then looked for sponsors among lawmakers? A non-Left senior congressman told me it was, but I thought I’d ask you.

   If this was an administrative bill, then what was the “review” of the approved bill supposed to accomplish? Was there any review at all or was that just moro-moro?

   When Duterte dares soldiers to launch a coup against him in his speeches, would that be considered “inciting to terrorism” under the new law?

  In gathering evidence to prove links between government officials and the communist New People’s Army, how far back in time can the ATC go? If, for example, you say the links should go as far back as 2010, what about the links between President Duterte and the NPA? Should Duterte be tagged a “terrorist” because of those links? Why or why not?

  Why did it take you so long to insert Section 25 in those 35 months that the bill was in your hands? 

Awaiting your replies.
Respectfully yours,
Raissa Robles

*Journalist-blogger
*Member, Senate Press Corps (1987-1990)
*Reporter covering the MNLF (since 1987), the Abu Sayyaf (since 1992) and the MILF (since 1996) for The Manila Chronicle, The Philippine Star, Business Star, Asiaweek magazine, South China Morning Post (HK)
*Broke the story in Philippine Star about the rise of a Muslim extremist group in the south that called itself Al Harakatul Islamiyah, which eventually became known as the Abu Sayyaf
*Lone reporter who interviewed Hector Janjalani, brother of the late Abu Sayyaf founder Abdurajak Janjalani, in his cell inside Bicutan maximum detention facility
*Lone reporter who interviewed Abu Sayyaf member Abdul Basir Latip, the subject of an extradition request by the FBI who tagged him as “the financier of the Abu Sayyaf” and the conduit used by the late Saudi businessman Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, brother-in-law of late Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.
*Lone reporter who interviewed MNLF chair Nur Misuari twice, while he was under house arrest and afterward inside the mansion of the late jeweller Ding Velayo
*Lone reporter who wrote a comprehensive book on Martial Law which includes interviews with Senator Lacson (on allegations of torture against him) and with Communist Party of the Philippines founder Joma Sison (on the bloody internal purge that took place twice inside the communist movement).
*member, former trustee, Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines